strasser@grasp.cis.upenn.edu (Colin Strasser) (05/26/90)
In article <1990May25.033040.12421@ameristar> rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: >In article <136211@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: >>because they are not comparable quality wise. However, who would >>buy Lattice or Manx if gcc and gdb were available for "free" and >>ran in the same amount of memory, were equally well documented, > > ... The Amiga market is fairly hard to turn a buck in no > matter what you're doing and people are just encouraged to take > their development cycles elsewhere when you make their that much > harder. IMHO. Sanity check: if Gnu C for the Amiga were as good as Lattice or Manx, then why not use it? Simply because it's not commercial? I mean, the way the free market works is that if my product is as good as yours for significantly less money, then mine will be chosen over yours. The key is defining "as good as." That's not as easy as it seems - in our compiler scenario, per- haps company product support is important enough to you to justify the cost of a commercial C compiler, all else being equal. Or perhaps most develop- ers will see some feature of the commercial compiler that is not included in Gnu (special Amiga quirks like chip/fast mem allocation, for instance, or even just the Amiga Includes). But if not, then why support the commercial product? In our economy, competi- tion breeds improvement. Why, Lattice and Manx themselves (despite their current image as beleagered defenders of quality software) spur one another to improve their products. See Rick, what do you or I care if Lattice and Manx take their business else- where, if we have *as good a product* to replace theirs? And if it's NOT as good a product (in enough people's eyes), then the point is moot - Lattice and Manx won't leave while they have a profitable market. Please, don't coddle corporations. They really don't need it. -Colin Colin Strasser University of Pennsylvania strasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu Moore School of Electrical Engineering CI$: 72447,1650 Class of '90 -- Penn's 250th year!
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (05/27/90)
In <24937@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > >IMHO, shareware, freeware or copyless software like the FSF stuff is good. >And when I say good I meand for end-users. > > [stuff deleted...] > >Similarly have shareware and freeware sales of Amiga comm programs impacted >A-Talk III sales? They have somewhat, but we've been hard at work at always >being one step ahead (first with a tek emulator, first with Zmodem support, >first with multi-serial, etc..). That is, users have benefitted from the >competition between commercial and freeware/shareware, since we have had to >continuously update the program with new features. I doubt I would have >continued to do that if the rest of the software competition was lousy. A very healthy attitude Marco, and a far cry from the whining I used to hear from the folks at MSS when they were telling me that Aterm was destroying their market. Never mind that Online! was buggy as hell. Never mind that it hogged system resources. Never mind that Aterm was (and continues to be) a relatively vanilla terminal program. I could not convince anyone from MSS that their product was its own worst enemy, that their priorities were all wrong ("We have only had two requests to make XModem work, so we won't be doing that."). No, they hated my guts for telling people about the bugs in Online!, and for recommending Aterm, and whined about it constantly. They even asked me to stop working on it (though I was only one of many who were improving it), so that their piece of garbage would sell better. I asked them how long I was supposed to wait. I asked them to look at Aterm to see what a minimal terminal program should do, and in fact invited them to look at the source code. I spit on attitudes like that, and I'm glad to see that you feel you can compete without snivelling about unfair competition, and that the freeware and shareware acts as an incemtive for improving your product. This is How It Should Be. -larry -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) (05/27/90)
In article <25291@netnews.upenn.edu> strasser@grasp.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Colin Strasser) writes: >In article <1990May25.033040.12421@ameristar> rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: >>In article <136211@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: >>>because they are not comparable quality wise. However, who would >>>buy Lattice or Manx if gcc and gdb were available for "free" and >>>ran in the same amount of memory, were equally well documented, >> >> ... The Amiga market is fairly hard to turn a buck in no >> matter what you're doing and people are just encouraged to take >> their development cycles elsewhere when you make their that much >> harder. IMHO. > >Sanity check: if Gnu C for the Amiga were as good as Lattice or Manx, then >why not use it? Simply because it's not commercial? I mean, the way the In a word: support. It is not in my interest to play Mr Compiler and fix bugs/find workarounds in language tools, unless they are my business. It wastes cycles. It is also much easier to ask Manx/Lattice for features I need rather than having to churn out code to add to Gcc, etc too. >See Rick, what do you or I care if Lattice and Manx take their business else- >where, if we have *as good a product* to replace theirs? And if it's NOT as >good a product (in enough people's eyes), then the point is moot - Lattice and >Manx won't leave while they have a profitable market. The answer is volume. Different people have different levels of expectations of their language environments. If it is the case that the volume part of the C environment market is taken away by freeware (eg Dillons stuff, GCC, etc) then it affects people who may have higher expectations of support. >Please, don't coddle corporations. They really don't need it. > -Colin Anti business Colin? Sell software/hardware in the Amiga market for a while... >Colin Strasser University of Pennsylvania Rick Spanbauer Ameristar
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/27/90)
I have to say that on this one I personally don't see it the same way as Rick, though I can understand his arguments. IMHO, shareware, freeware or copyless software like the FSF stuff is good. And when I say good I meand for end-users. Take for example emacs and C on UNIX. FSF had GCC and Gnu-C++ running on practically every platform. Not only that, these compilers have been rated BETTER than the other major C compilers by both the leading UNIX magazines (UNIX World and UNIX Review). Has this hurt the "commercials"? You bet. What other side effect did it have? That the commercials are continuously improving their products to match GCC features. Of course these companies provide support, and that is what a given type of customers require. Has Gnu-Emacs impacted the sales of Unipress Emacs? You bet that too. But then, that's life. I like better Gnu-Emacs and I'm happy I have the choice. Similarly has TeX impacted sales of scribe? Sure. The USC CS dept. dropped Scribe completely when Unilogic continued to give out only licenses with time bombs. They deserved it. Similarly have shareware and freeware sales of Amiga comm programs impacted A-Talk III sales? They have somewhat, but we've been hard at work at always being one step ahead (first with a tek emulator, first with Zmodem support, first with multi-serial, etc..). That is, users have benefitted from the competition between commercial and freeware/shareware, since we have had to continuously update the program with new features. I doubt I would have continued to do that if the rest of the software competition was lousy. In terms of sales though, freeware/shareware has not really impacted us as much as low-priced commercial software such as Baud Bandit. And it doesn't matter that Baud Bandit has a horrid manual. It is still commercial software that is on dealer's shelves, unlike freeware/shareware. We found from interwiews that most people that use freeware/shareware wouldn't have considered buying a commercial product anyway. On the other hand, there are a lot of people that wouldn't consider using software that doesn't come in a package with a manual and a "promise" of support. One thing that I'd like to tell people is that they should forget shareware if their purpose is making ANY money. Shareware doesn't pay and this is even more true for a small market like the Amiga. The only two Shareware flukes (PC-File and PC-WRITE) have been in the PC Market in the mid-eighties and they've never been emulated since. People just don't want to pay for things they know they can "keep" for free. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
strasser@grasp.cis.upenn.edu (Colin Strasser) (05/27/90)
In article <1990May26.223843.19350@ameristar> rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: >In article <25291@netnews.upenn.edu> Colin Strasser writes: >>Please, don't coddle corporations. They really don't need it. >> -Colin > > Anti business Colin? Sell software/hardware in the Amiga market > for a while... That's the point. If it's such a painful market to access commercially, then why not go the shareware route, like Jack? If, as Marco says, you need the volume of sales acievable only through commercialization in or- der to feed and clothe yourself, than may I humbly suggest either getting a second job (you know, some 9-to-5 thing) and do your Amiga development on the side; or else develop for other machines as well, instead of the Amiga exclusively. I'd be sorry to lose exclusively-Amiga developers, but at least no one would be starving as they struggle with that awful Amiga market. Just to show that quality software doesn't HAVE to be commercial in order to get updates and product support, MSH just had a bug-fix update a couple months ago. There's a program with a large following who will tell you that it's at least as good as its commercial counterpart and that they chose it largely because it was shareware. -Colin Colin Strasser University of Pennsylvania strasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu Moore School of Electrical Engineering CI$: 72447,1650 Class of '90 -- Penn's 250th year!
rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) (05/27/90)
In article <24937@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > >I have to say that on this one I personally don't see it the same way as Rick, >though I can understand his arguments. Reasonable people can disagree :-) >Take for example emacs and C on UNIX. FSF had GCC and Gnu-C++ running on >practically every platform. Not only that, these compilers have been rated >BETTER than the other major C compilers by both the leading UNIX magazines >(UNIX World and UNIX Review). Has this hurt the "commercials"? You bet. >What other side effect did it have? That the commercials are continuously >improving their products to match GCC features. Of course these companies >provide support, and that is what a given type of customers require. I did a port of GCC for the R2000. GCC is probably the nicest compiler I've ever had the pleasure to work with, no doubt about it. And I'm sure it has made GreenHills, Metaware, etc a lot more responsible about cleaning up their code generators, adding ANSI support, etc. >Similarly have shareware and freeware sales of Amiga comm programs impacted >A-Talk III sales? They have somewhat, but we've been hard at work at always >being one step ahead (first with a tek emulator, first with Zmodem support, >first with multi-serial, etc..). That is, users have benefitted from the >competition between commercial and freeware/shareware, since we have had to >continuously update the program with new features. I doubt I would have >continued to do that if the rest of the software competition was lousy. You have to ask yourself the other question: what if ATalk-III sales were great? In other words you had enough money to work on Amiga software fulltime rather than out of the dorm room? Chances are that you probably would have made quite a few of the competition induced changes, along with other software packages for the machine. It seems many developers (myself included) are parttime with aspirations to go it fulltime, were there only the sales to support such effort. I have to admire the chutzpah of the people who really do this fulltime (and have staked all their livelihood on the Amiga) - it must be one hell of a rollercoaster ride. It would be interesting if someone conducted a survey of Amiga companies on several datapoints: fulltime/parttime status, revenues, time invested, etc and compared the results with similar studies from other markets. >In terms of sales though, freeware/shareware has not really impacted us >as much as low-priced commercial software such as Baud Bandit. And it >doesn't matter that Baud Bandit has a horrid manual. It is still >commercial software that is on dealer's shelves, unlike freeware/shareware. >We found from interwiews that most people that use freeware/shareware wouldn't >have considered buying a commercial product anyway. On the other hand, there >are a lot of people that wouldn't consider using software that doesn't come in >a package with a manual and a "promise" of support. One difference is that Atalk is Amiga market only. Both Manx and Lattice have a presence in (several) other markets. What I am worried about is that they could, in the face of a good GCC/G++ port, stop Amiga development. After all, why input all the work required to match GCC code generation (especially if the work isn't portable to their other platforms) if there will not be adequate return on investment? >-- Marco Rick
jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) (05/28/90)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >Similarly have shareware and freeware sales of Amiga comm programs impacted >A-Talk III sales? They have somewhat, but we've been hard at work at always >being one step ahead (first with a tek emulator, first with Zmodem support, >first with multi-serial, etc..). That is, users have benefitted from the >competition between commercial and freeware/shareware, since we have had to >continuously update the program with new features. I doubt I would have >continued to do that if the rest of the software competition was lousy. Well, that is the bottom line, the competition has kept you "honest" in that it motivates you to remain active in the development of future releases. Personally, I do admire the fact that you don't appear to be bitter about the competition from me or any other Shareware author. The commercial market was too crowded to begin with, nor do I have the resources to commit to it and make it a serious contender in that market. >In terms of sales though, freeware/shareware has not really impacted us >as much as low-priced commercial software such as Baud Bandit. And it >doesn't matter that Baud Bandit has a horrid manual. It is still >commercial software that is on dealer's shelves, unlike freeware/shareware. The pricing of BaudBandit did seem a bit of a low-ball for commercial telecom software. IMHO, it is just commercially distributed Shareware, it's lack of emulations are of no threat to Atalk-III, at least to those who would consider Atalk-III in the first place, true? >We found from interwiews that most people that use freeware/shareware wouldn't >have considered buying a commercial product anyway. On the other hand, there >are a lot of people that wouldn't consider using software that doesn't come in >a package with a manual and a "promise" of support. I agree. And that is why I elected to go the Shareware route, because some people won't consider commerical prices. >One thing that I'd like to tell people is that they should forget shareware >if their purpose is making ANY money. Shareware doesn't pay and this is even >more true for a small market like the Amiga. The only two Shareware flukes >(PC-File and PC-WRITE) have been in the PC Market in the mid-eighties and >they've never been emulated since. People just don't want to pay for >things they know they can "keep" for free. Well, I don't agree here. Although I don't intend to get rich, I'm not about to lose money either. If the revenue can pay for my investment and future equipment, as well as some pocket change I'll be happy. but, more importantly, I hope the quality of work that I have produced will enable me to do this on a full-time basis in the future. -jack-
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/28/90)
In article <1410@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes: >papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >>In terms of sales though, freeware/shareware has not really impacted us >>as much as low-priced commercial software such as Baud Bandit. And it >>doesn't matter that Baud Bandit has a horrid manual. It is still >>commercial software that is on dealer's shelves, unlike freeware/shareware. > >The pricing of BaudBandit did seem a bit of a low-ball for commercial telecom >software. IMHO, it is just commercially distributed Shareware, it's lack of >emulations are of no threat to Atalk-III, at least to those who would consider >Atalk-III in the first place, true? True. BaudBandit is pretty close to "commercially distrubuted Shareware", and indeed is not a contender whan it comes to ANY kind of emulation. It is quite OK, though if the only thing you do is access BBSs or People-Link. Shareware/PD programs have tended to be "niche" programs: VT100 and Handshake do good VT100, VLT does good Tek emulation, BaudBandit/JRComm do good file transfers with BBS systems. We try to handle all those things in one single package. And that what commercial usually do. > >>We found from interwiews that most people that use freeware/shareware wouldn't >>have considered buying a commercial product anyway. On the other hand, there >>are a lot of people that wouldn't consider using software that doesn't come in >>a package with a manual and a "promise" of support. > >I agree. And that is why I elected to go the Shareware route, because some >people won't consider commerical prices. Gee, you see on how much we agree on? Isn't that special? :-) >>The thing that I'd like to tell people is that they should forget shareware >>if their purpose is making ANY money. Shareware doesn't pay and this is even ^^^^^^^^^ >>more true for a small market like the Amiga. The only two Shareware flukes >>(PC-File and PC-WRITE) have been in the PC Market in the mid-eighties and >>they've never been emulated since. People just don't want to pay for >>things they know they can "keep" for free. > >Well, I don't agree here. Although I don't intend to get rich, I'm not >to lose money either. If the revenue can pay for my investment and future >equipment, as well as some pocket change I'll be happy. Note that I hightlighed "ANY money". You think you're making some money, because you can get some revenues for investment and future equipment, BUT take a look at what you are actually paying yourself, before you say that you're not losing money. I'd bet that if you count the hours you've spent on your program vs. the money that came in, your're paying yourself less than minimum wage. I.e., you're really not making any profit at all, since you'd get more money with ANY other kind of legal job that does not require any kind of special knowledge. It might be sad, BUT shareware is not profitable for 99.9% of the programmers that use it. >but, more importantly, >I hope the quality of work that I have produced will enable me to do this on >a full-time basis in the future. That's possible, but unlikely. It is easier to make a name for yourself by commercial "self-publishing" than shareware publishing. The former one does require a larger initial investment in time and money though, and of course there are no assurances. I probably just happened to be lucky. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (05/30/90)
In article <24937@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
The only two Shareware flukes
(PC-File and PC-WRITE) have been in the PC Market in the mid-eighties and
they've never been emulated since. People just don't want to pay for
things they know they can "keep" for free.
Actually, I ran across some other examples. Most were in the PC
market, and they all had one thing in common:
They didn't make money on "donations" for the software, they
made money by selling some other service that went with the
shareware.
The best example is selling manuals - that's what PC-X did. That's
also how Adam Osborne founded Osborne Computers - selling manuals for
accounting software that he gave away. Of course, you have to have
something for which the manual is actually usefull. Of course, you
might not define such things as "shareware", but as something else
instead.
And that's where we get to what bothers me about shareware. It
encourages people to not release source and add "send me $'s" messages
to things like Leo's screen hacks (and those usually aren't as well
done as Leo's stuff). They haven't contributed (even as commercial
software) anything usefull to the community, they aren't going to make
any money worth mentioning, but for that little they've wasted the
time everyone who is doing usefull work that could be enhanced by that
screen hack.
<mike
--
I went down to the hiring fair, Mike Meyer
For to sell my labor. mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
I noticed a maid in the very next row, decwrl!mwm
I hoped she'd be my neighbor.jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) (05/30/90)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >Note that I hightlighed "ANY money". You think you're making some money, >because you can get some revenues for investment and future equipment, BUT >take a look at what you are actually paying yourself, before you say that >you're not losing money. I'd bet that if you count the hours you've spent on >your program vs. the money that came in, your're paying yourself less than >minimum wage. I.e., you're really not making any profit at all, since you'd >get more money with ANY other kind of legal job that does not require any >kind of special knowledge. It might be sad, BUT shareware is not profitable >for 99.9% of the programmers that use it. Granted, I'd probably *not* want to figure out exactly how much per hour I've been compensated to date. Optimistically speaking, it *should* change over the next two years or so. There are an awful lot of Shareware products that have (or at least the appearance of having) been successful. ProComm, PC-Write and PC-Calc are ones that started as Shareware and have migrated to full-blown commercial products. If that is your criteria for success, than yes, Shareware is not a "good thing". But, looking at QModem, Telix, PCBoard, PKZIP and a whole slew of other products are still Shareware, it does seem like a possible alternative. Hell, why would ASP (Association of Shareware Professionals) even exist otherwise? >That's possible, but unlikely. It is easier to make a name for yourself >by commercial "self-publishing" than shareware publishing. The former one >does require a larger initial investment in time and money though, and of >course there are no assurances. I probably just happened to be lucky. Well, at the very least, I've had several offers of going commercial from some lesser known publishers, all of which that I've declined. So, it would seem that some people have taken notice already. -jack-
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/31/90)
In article <1640@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >In <24937@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >>Similarly have shareware and freeware sales of Amiga comm programs impacted >>A-Talk III sales? They have somewhat, but we've been hard at work at always >>being one step ahead (first with a tek emulator, first with Zmodem support, >>first with multi-serial, etc..). That is, users have benefitted from the >>competition between commercial and freeware/shareware, since we have had to >>continuously update the program with new features. I doubt I would have >>continued to do that if the rest of the software competition was lousy. >A very healthy attitude Marco, and a far cry from the whining I used to hear >from the folks at MSS when they were telling me that Aterm was destroying their >market. Never mind that Online! was buggy as hell. [stuff deleted] Yea, whining is not that useful. Besides, word of mouth is still THE best way to sell software. If people start saying that a product is garbage, word gets out real soon. Aterm in fact was/is a really nice product. As I recall it had the first GOOD implementation of Kermit, with 8-bit quoting, long packets, and other bells, much earlier than I was able to get the XPR-version going with the help of Steve Walton. I think that collaborations CAN happen, when you feel confident about yourself and your products. I had no problem getting the Arexx code from Willy Langeveld, and in turn help him design and debug XPR. Or similarly do XPR-Kermit with Steve, and put in the public domain, for everybody, including MSS, to pick up. >I spit on attitudes like that, and I'm glad to see that you feel you can >compete without snivelling about unfair competition, and that the freeware and >shareware acts as an incemtive for improving your product. > >This is How It Should Be. While I do agree with the above statement, my previous thoughts about the copy-cats of Tetris games still stand, at least for all versions of the games that might infringe the product. That would be unfair competition in my language. -- Marco P.S.: The Nintendo ad for Gameboy had the following "interesting" notice referring to the version of Tetris that is now included with every Gameboy machine: +Tetris ... + TM and (c) Elorg, licensed to B.P.S., Sub-Licensed to Nintendo (c) 1989 B.P.S. (c) 1989 Nintendo. All Rights reserved. Original concept, design and program by Alexey Patzhitnov. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (06/01/90)
In article <25291@netnews.upenn.edu> (Colin Strasser) writes: >Sanity check: if Gnu C for the Amiga were as good as Lattice or Manx, then >why not use it? Simply because it's not commercial? I mean, the way the >free market works is that if my product is as good as yours for significantly >less money, then mine will be chosen over yours. Think of it this way, there is some absolute number of the people who are acquiring software for the amiga. Of this number, some percentage are in the market for a C compiler. Of that percentage there is a certain amount of price elasticity, specifically the price of the compiler has a measurable effect on the number of people who will buy it. We will presume that there is some "golden number" which represents the a price where the maximum revenue will be returned. As I've mentioned many times before determining this number is as much an art at writing a classic piece of code is. Once a developer has such a number and the error bars associated with it, they can estimate their costs make a reasonable guess at what the potential "profits" of such a project might be. Finally they can make a decision about whether or not to go ahead with the project. Given all of that, my personal preference is to buy a C compiler (although I could certainly port the Gnu CC one). The reason I want to buy one is because I don't have time write new code _and_ fix bugs in the compiler _and_ develop helpful development tools such as cross reference utilities. Further, when I do find a bug I want reasonable assurance from the "author" that the bug will be fixed in a reasonable amount of time. And yet, there are also people in the "percentage" I describe in the first paragraph that want a C compiler, will pay for one if they have to but won't if they can get one for "free". So when Gcc becomes available, the "golden number" changes, and the total revenue changes. If it changes enough so that Lattice or Manx decide that it isn't worth trying to sell a compiler in the Amiga market, well I'm hosed. So Chuck McManis would be pissed off that someone would port Gcc and put it out and forced my preferred compiler vendor out of the market. Lattice doesn't care, they have an established market in the PC world which is so huge it could support 50 different compilers easily. The comment was raised by Mike that the competition between Manx and Lattice was good for the Amiga. I agree, and Lattice and Manx can compete because they are both building compilers under the same constraints which include paying for a support staff, a compiler writer, a technical writer, and publishing expenses. They can compete on quality and service and know that the other company won't be able to just arbitrarily cut its price to the bone without also laying off some of the staff and hence decreasing their quality in some area. They can't compete against a project like Gcc that doesn't have those expenses. Maybe an analogy would be Sears (a department store) trying to compete against a Goodwill (charity) store. The reason Sears isn't worried is because the merchandise at Goodwill is used and worn, but donated software doesn't get "worn" no matter how much it is used. Anyway, it is a subjective argument and it has gotten out of hand. The use of the word "sucks" was too provacative in this case and I retract it. My assertion is and continues to be "The presence of a quality Free/Shareware product can and does negatively affect the availability of commercial alternatives." In my _opinion_ this is a problem because I would much rather pay $100 for a commercial product that has a name at the other end of it who will fix any bugs I find than have to "live" with the bugs in a shareware product that has no "owner". Further, I will freely acknowledge that in this audience (the Usenet community) I am in a minority. -- --Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: <none> Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!"
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (06/01/90)
Once again, as the shareware discussion raises it's ugly head, I'm compelled to remind people of the original work - PC-TALK, by Andrew Fleugleman. And also compelled to mention that it was NOT "shareware" - it was Freeware (term copyrighted by Flugelman, unfortunately). The difference is that Andy said "copy this all you want - use it all you want. Nothing is held back, nothing will be added if you spend big bucks (except for a nicely printed manual instead of online docs). You do NOT have to send money, but if you do, here's where to send it: <address>". He made mucho bucks. I'd like to see a lot more of this - not the mutant sort of extortion that "shareware" has become. -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
cg@ami-cg.UUCP (Chris Gray) (06/02/90)
In <18281@well.sf.ca.us> farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: > Once again, as the shareware discussion raises it's ugly head, I'm compelled > to remind people of the original work - PC-TALK, by Andrew Fleugleman. > And also compelled to mention that it was NOT "shareware" - it was Freeware > (term copyrighted by Flugelman, unfortunately). The difference is that > Andy said "copy this all you want - use it all you want. Nothing is held > back, nothing will be added if you spend big bucks (except for a nicely > printed manual instead of online docs). You do NOT have to send money, > but if you do, here's where to send it: <address>". > > He made mucho bucks. I'd like to see a lot more of this - not the > mutant sort of extortion that "shareware" has become. I'm real curious as to what you are referring to. I've seen a few shareware programs for the Amiga (and put out some myself), and all I've ever seen are messages to the effect of "if you like this program and want to encourage me to do more, send me something". Is this the kind of thing you find so distasteful? If so, why? You certainly aren't being "extorted" in any way. My personal impression is that putting something out as shareware implies more committment to support on the part of the author than otherwise. To me that sounds GOOD. I certainly have less qualms about running some shareware stuff on my system then I do about a lot of the non-shareware stuff. There is of course lots of extremely good stuff that isn't shareware, too. The comment about shareware not being a source of income is definitely true- I would have starved long ago if I had been relying on it. I would guess that I spend more money to support my stuff than I get in contributions! If you are unhappy with any program for which you don't have the source, I can understand your frustration to a certain extent. I haven't released the source to my Draco compiler, for example. I probably will eventually, but only when I no longer care much about it. The reason is quite simple - I want people to associate the notion of quality with my stuff, and I'm afraid that most of the hackers out there would not contribute to that aspect. Also, Draco is my invention, and I want to maintain control over what it is and what versions exist. I suspect that many of the larger programs and systems out there do not include source for similar reasons. -- -- Chris Gray usenet: {uunet,alberta}!myrias!ami-cg!cg CIS: 74007,1165
mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) (06/02/90)
In a previous article, farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: > >Once again, as the shareware discussion raises it's ugly head, I'm compelled >to remind people of the original work - PC-TALK, by Andrew Fleugleman. >The difference is that >Andy said "copy this all you want - use it all you want. >You do NOT have to send money, but if you do, here's where to send it: > <address>". > >He made mucho bucks. I'd like to see a lot more of this - not the >mutant sort of extortion that "shareware" has become. As I recall, Andy also parked his Porsche in Golden Gate Park and took a swan dive off the Golden Gate bridge. Who knows, though? Maybe some of his ideas will catch on and live forever? (-: >Mike Farren -dave
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (06/05/90)
In article <136464@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes:
So Chuck McManis would be pissed off that someone would port Gcc and put
it out and forced my preferred compiler vendor out of the market.
That's OK, Chuck - I'll provide GCC support for you, and even give you
a discount 'cause you're a nice guy. Now your preferred vendor has
been put out of business by a less expensive commercially supported
product, so you don't have to be pissed off about it being put out of
business by a free product.
<mike
--
So this is where the future lies Mike Meyer
In a beer gut belly; In an open fly mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
Brilcreamed, acrylic, mindless boys decwrl!mwm
Punching, kicking, making noiseschow@bcarh185.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) (06/06/90)
In article <MWM.90Jun4115907@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: >In article <136464@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: > > So Chuck McManis would be pissed off that someone would port Gcc and put > it out and forced my preferred compiler vendor out of the market. > >That's OK, Chuck - I'll provide GCC support for you, and even give you >a discount 'cause you're a nice guy. Now your preferred vendor has >been put out of business by a less expensive commercially supported >product, so you don't have to be pissed off about it being put out of >business by a free product. > Hmm, will you also produce the new versions of GCC to keep up with ANSI changes? New optimizations? New Amiga file formats? How much will you charge for all that? (Remember, in theory, for the price of a single copy, Chuck gets all that and more). Will you get all the changes done in a competitive schedule? What gurantee will you give Chuck that you won't get tired of this one day and stop supporting GCC? Who would support Chuck if something happens to you? Who handles the problems when you are on vacation? Please don't misconstrue this posting as doubting your ability or sincerity. I am just trying to point out "support" means many different things. Stanley Chow BitNet: schow@BNR.CA BNR UUCP: ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow (613) 763-2831 ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!schow%bcarh185 Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (06/07/90)
In article <3165@bnr-rsc.UUCP> schow@bcarh185.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes:
Hmm, will you also produce the new versions of GCC to keep up with ANSI
changes? New optimizations? New Amiga file formats?
ANSI can't change - it's a standard. There'll eventually be a new
standard, but as far as I know, there's not even a committee to
discuss forming a committee to do the new standard yet. The one thing
you have to watch for is clarifications that differ from what's in the
standard already. Those are closer to bug fixes than anything else,
and (unless someone complains about them) will get done the same way
bug fixes & optimizer improvements get done, with the port of the next
release of the compiler. Changes in the AmigaDOS file system should be
transparent to the compiler.
How much will you charge for all that?
$50/hour (that's Chuck's price break). Remember, I'm selling
_support_, not a product!
Will you get all the changes done in a competitive schedule?
Of course. At least as competitive as Manx has been for the last few
years :-).
What gurantee will you give Chuck that you won't get tired of this one
day and stop supporting GCC? Who would support Chuck if something happens
to you? Who handles the problems when you are on vacation?
The same guarantee he gets from all other commercial support groups,
and the same people who'd support him if something happened to other
commercial support people. And I don't go on vacation while I'm
working on a high-priority problem. If something occurs when a
commercial support group is under-staffed, then some problems slide.
Same thing happens in this case.
Please don't misconstrue this posting as doubting your ability or sincerity.
I am just trying to point out "support" means many different things.
Yup, it does. I was pointing out that GCC killing a commercial product
is really no different than a a commercial product killing it. For
example, when the second Amiga C compiler was introduced, a lot of
people moved to it. I didn't, because I thought it was badly supported
and not enough better to justify the cost & loss of support. If that
move had killed the commercial product I was using, how would my
situation have been any different from Chuck's if GCC killed the
commercial product he was using?
<mike
--
Es brillig war. Die schlichte Toven Mike Meyer
Wirrten und wimmelten in Waben; mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
Und aller-mumsige Burggoven decwrl!mwm
Die mohmem Rath' ausgraben.
--
Cats will be cats and cats will be cool Mike Meyer
Cats can be callous and cats can be cruel mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
Cats will be cats, remember this words! decwrl!mwm
Cats will be cats and cats eat birds.