mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (01/13/89)
["bite me. . ."-David Letterman]
Howdy folks, I have a delemma which some of you good people might be able
to help me on.
As of next Tuesday, I am to recover publishing rights to Galileo. [Major
contract dispute]. So, I have the problem of deciding my course of action.
For those who are not familiar with it, Galileo is an astronomy program
that has been on the market for over 1 1/2 years.
It presents star charts of the night sky more realistically than an other
program that I've seen. Galileo came in third in the "Reader's Choice"
awards ("Home" Software section) held by Amiga World. It won an award
for the "Most Innovative Educational Program-1987" from the
Chicago Consumer's Electronics Show, last May. It consistantly receives
glowing reviews.
Now, the problem. I can see that there are 3 courses of action to take.
The first and easiest would be to sign on with another publisher. I already
have one quite interested, although they have been described as "flakey"
by a couple of people. This course would be the safest and lowest income
producing of the 3. (depending though on who I eventually do sign with).
At the other extreme, I could form my own company. I have a proven product
with thousands of satisfied users. That user base would be able to supply some
startup capital from upgrades and additional data disks currently in the works.
The Amiga distributor network for me is more-or-less in place and all I would
have to do at the beginning would be to merely take over where my previous
publisher has left off. This has the potential for the greatest economic
reward, but is likely to become a time-sponge. A friend asked me: "What would
you like to do? Run a business or write more software. . .". The answer was
easy, write more >> neat stuff <<. (Few things are more satisfying than
to have someone on the net or at a Show thank me for the program. I'd like
to have more of that, and not to be known as a single-program author).
Also, running my own publishing house comes with mucho headaches. Distributors
who don't pay on time, (typically 90 to 120 days), dealing with the
government, having to man my own booths at shows, having to set up my own
booths at shows, etc. Alot of things I have little interest in. And when
I get versions out for other computers (yes, Virginia, there are other
computers), I have to build up a network for those, difficult since I have
no knowledge of either the Apple of IBM markets.
In the middle would be forming my own company, but going with an established
publisher like Brown-Wagh or EA on an affiliated label basis. In this situation
all I am responsible for is to produce a finished product. The publisher
is more of a marketing agent, and will deal with distributors, handle
the shows. They take orders, I fill 'em. Brown-Wagh pays within 60 days
even if they haven't been paid. We would split income 50/50. (I don't know
what EA's policies are). Not only that, but I could distribute the program
on my own to markets that BW wasn't going after (astronomy mags for instance),
and not owe them anything for any direct sales. It would appear that this is
the best of the 3 options, providing that I can strike up an adequate
deal with such a company.
So I would like some feedback. Especially from those who have experience with
options 2 and 3. I am especially interested in recommendations, leads, and
points-of-contact at any publishing houses that I could talk to.
I still intend to consider the first choice, publisher/author, particularly if
I can get the contract I want (I know, fat chance). With that in mind
anyone have any leads in that direction. Both good companies, and ones
to stay away from.
Finally, my goals are not necessarily to become rich, although that would
be a nice side effect, but to get the program out where it belongs.
Many people who have seen it (including those at Commodore) are upset by
how little effort there's been to market it, and think that it deserves
much better. I do to. I want it to be THE astronomy program for any computer
once the IBM and Apple versions are out. And I think that it is good enough.
I want to share with as many people as possible the same sense of wonder
I get looking up into the evening sky on a cloudless night.
(I apologize that this posting isn't as goofy and entertaining as mine
usually are. Possibly I'll make it up the next time).
a bad review.
--
*** mike smithwick ***
"The great thing about standards is that there are so many of them!"
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]