cs161fca@sdcc10.ucsd.edu@canremote.uucp (cs161fca@sdcc10.ucsd.edu) (12/21/89)
From: cs161fca@sdcc10.ucsd.edu ( ) Subj: Amiga Software by Atari!!! Orga: University of California, San Diego Well, back in 1984 Atari had a company called Atarisoft which sold software for commodore 64 and other computers...Perhaps things have got so bad for Atari (i.e., ST in the market defeated by the Amiga) that Atari wants to try the old trick again. However, last time the trick did not work... (Atarisoft was a failure.) --- * Via MaSNet/HST96/HST144/V32 - UN Atari ST * Via Usenet Newsgroup comp.sys.atari.st
mfolivo@sactoh0.UUCP (Mark F. Newton) (01/04/90)
In article <89122504041857@masnet.uucp>, cs161fca@sdcc10.ucsd.edu@canremote.uucp (cs161fca@sdcc10.ucsd.edu) writes: > From: cs161fca@sdcc10.ucsd.edu ( ) > Subj: Amiga Software by Atari!!! > Orga: University of California, San Diego > > Well, back in 1984 Atari had a company called Atarisoft which sold > software for commodore 64 and other computers...Perhaps things have > got so bad for Atari (i.e., ST in the market defeated by the Amiga) > that Atari wants to try the old trick again. However, last time the > trick did not work... (Atarisoft was a failure.) > > --- > * Via MaSNet/HST96/HST144/V32 - UN Atari ST > * Via Usenet Newsgroup comp.sys.atari.st What is this? We've seen all this bullshit before. Give me a break! Apparently you haven't a clue why some compnaies do what they do, and are so short sighted, you think that they'd like to screw themselves. The simple reason (if you would have thought about it before you posted this crap) is that Atari had the licenses for the games, and decided to publish the games for other systems. Christ, even Atari realizes there are other systems out there, and if they could make money selling games for those systems, why not? Atarisoft showed up as the bottom was falling out of the home computer market in 1984. Everyone started to go out of business. If Atari, or anyother company publishes software for other systems, it isn't a sign that their own system is a failure, but as a way to make money, THAT'S BUSINESS! Yes, and in no uncertain terms, this is a flame. Apparently you are some narrow-minded Amiga dweeb, trying to say that the ST isn't doing well. Why in the hell do you post messages here? Don't be so bloody smug, trying to stir things up. This is an old post, and I am tired of seeing people like you post this shit. Mark Newton-John -- (ames att sun)!pacbell! \ Sakura-mendo, CA ucdavis!csusac! - sactoh0!mfolivo uunet!mmsac! /
IMS103@PSUVM.BITNET (01/05/90)
>If Atari, or anyother company publishes software for other systems, >it isn't a sign that their own system is a failure, but as a way to >make money, THAT'S BUSINESS! >Yes, and in no uncertain terms, this is a flame. [...] >Mark Newton-John IBM does not make Apple software, Commodore does not make IBM software, Apple does not make Atari software, Hewlett Packard does not make C64 software, but Atari makes Amiga software. Atari is just wasting time and enegry that they could use elsewhere like fixing bugs, updating computers and bringing out software for their *own* computer systems. -- Ian Smith <ims103@psuvm.bitnet> "And a word of advice, don't sell your company to Atari." - RJ Michal
SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET (Steve Plite) (01/06/90)
In article <90004.202106IMS103@PSUVM.BITNET>, <IMS103@PSUVM.BITNET> says: >IBM does not make Apple software, Commodore does not make IBM software, >Apple does not make Atari software, Hewlett Packard does not make >C64 software, but Atari makes Amiga software. Atari is just wasting >time and enegry that they could use elsewhere like fixing bugs, updating >computers and bringing out software for their *own* computer systems. > >-- >Ian Smith <ims103@psuvm.bitnet> >"And a word of advice, don't sell your company to Atari." > - RJ Michal > I'm not against Atari writing software for other platforms, and I don't think it signals the "flop" of the ST. However, Ian makes a good point. Atari is a small company and has limited resources. I too would prefer that they devote their energies to the support of their current line and the development of future products. I believe that would be of greater long-term benifit to Atari than insuring that the Amiga has an an authentic port of Gauntlet... BTW, who is "RJ Michal"? This is my first post, so a fancy signature will have to wait. Happy New Year, everybody! Steve Plite <splite@mtus5.bitnet>
robert@infmx.UUCP (Robert Coleman) (01/06/90)
In article <90004.202106IMS103@PSUVM.BITNET> IMS103@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >>If Atari, or anyother company publishes software for other systems, >>it isn't a sign that their own system is a failure, but as a way to >>make money, THAT'S BUSINESS! > >>Yes, and in no uncertain terms, this is a flame. [...] > >>Mark Newton-John > >IBM does not make Apple software, Commodore does not make IBM software, >Apple does not make Atari software, Hewlett Packard does not make >C64 software, but Atari makes Amiga software. Atari is just wasting >time and enegry that they could use elsewhere like fixing bugs, updating >computers and bringing out software for their *own* computer systems. > No, but Infocom makes software for the IBM. And the Apple. And the Atari(s) etc. If you are talking about the software portion of Atari, you have to compare with software companies. Conversion of software is a sound business idea. If your complaint is that you don't think Atari should make software, fine. That's a marketing decision they made that is different from yours. If they are going to produce software, it's silly not to make all the money from it that they can, and conversions are cheap compared to licensing/developing new software. (Infocom may seem a poor example, since I believe they just decided to stop producing for Ataris, but you get the idea anyway.) Robert C. -- "Helen's the only one who knows what scruples are, and she won't tell us" John said. "Have we got scruples about it, Helen?" "Not a trace," Helen affirmed. -The Reefs of Earth, R.A.Lafferty
mfolivo@sactoh0.UUCP (Mark F. Newton) (01/06/90)
In article <90004.202106IMS103@PSUVM.BITNET>, IMS103@PSUVM.BITNET writes: > >If Atari, or anyother company publishes software for other systems, > >it isn't a sign that their own system is a failure, but as a way to > >make money, THAT'S BUSINESS! > > >Yes, and in no uncertain terms, this is a flame. [...] > > >Mark Newton-John > > IBM does not make Apple software, Commodore does not make IBM software, > Apple does not make Atari software, Hewlett Packard does not make > C64 software, but Atari makes Amiga software. Atari is just wasting > time and enegry that they could use elsewhere like fixing bugs, updating > computers and bringing out software for their *own* computer systems. > > -- > Ian Smith <ims103@psuvm.bitnet> Microsoft makes software for other systems, Word Perfect makes software for other systems. What difference doers it make, if a hardware manufacturer decides, through a subsidiary, decides to publish software? My main argument stands. If Atari can make money publishing for other systems, what is wrong with that? If you think that a hardware company must for now and forever, be a hardware company, and only publish for it's own system, then sell your Atari, if you have one, and get the competition. Apparently, they are, and do. But if Atari can diversify, and expand into other areas, then more power to them. Geez, even the auto companies have other interests other than car manufacturing, look at Mitsubishi (aircraft, *computers*, consumer electronics, banking, etc). What have you against Atari expanding into publishing? Mark Newton-John -- -- (ames att sun)!pacbell! \ Sakura-mendo, CA ucdavis!csusac! - sactoh0!mfolivo uunet!mmsac! / the good guys!
jvance@ics.uci.edu (Joachim Patrick Vance) (01/07/90)
In article <90005.145418SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET> SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET (Steve Plite) writes: > >I'm not against Atari writing software for other platforms, and I don't >think it signals the "flop" of the ST. However, Ian makes a good point. >Atari is a small company and has limited resources. I too would prefer >that they devote their energies to the support of their current line >and the development of future products. I believe that would be of >greater long-term benifit to Atari than insuring that the Amiga has an >an authentic port of Gauntlet... > Well Atari may be a relatively small company (though recently (year ago?) listed as a Fortune 500 company). And I agree that I would like them to support their current line and develop future products. But in the state they're in right now having recently come out with quite a few new products and working on several more, and establishing new inventories I'll bet they're pretty short of cash. Developing software ports for other computers seems like a pretty cheap way of getting some extra profit to spend on supporting their current line and developing new products (if that's how they use the money). If they can make some quick cash from it, maybe we'll even see the TT sooner. (Long shot, I know.) -- Joachim ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What do my .sig and UCI have in common? | | jvance@ics.uci.edu | - - - - - - - - - | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ They're both Under Construction Indefinately.|
SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET (Steve Plite) (01/07/90)
In article <25A69DED.29057@paris.ics.uci.edu>, jvance@ics.uci.edu (Joachim Patrick Vance) says: > Developing software ports for other computers seems like a pretty cheap >way of getting some extra profit to spend on supporting their current line >and developing new products (if that's how they use the money). > If they can make some quick cash from it, maybe we'll even see the TT >sooner. (Long shot, I know.) > Yeah, that would be great; but I'm beginning to wonder what, short of divine intervention, would give us the TT anytime soon... :-) Unfortunately, given Atari's past methods, it seems to me that their "soft- ware arm" would be spun off from the main company to make its own money. Any profits would probably stay inside that division, rather than being used for ST/TT development. I'm not a business expert, and don't know the straight poop about Atari's organization, so I could be dead wrong. That's just how it looks to this layman. Would anyone in the know care to comment? Hopefully we won't be seeing any Atari U.K.-type flames about the New Atari- soft... (}~: Steve Plite <splite@mtus5.bitnet> I disclaim that I have any opinions.
valentin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Valentin Pepelea) (01/08/90)
In article <90005.145418SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET> SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET (Steve Plite) writes: > >>"And a word of advice, don't sell your company to Atari." >> - RJ Michal > >BTW, who is "RJ Michal"? -= RJ =- is the genious designer of the Amiga user interface, called Intuition. The "Amiga" company which eventually was bought by Commodore had quite an adventure with Atari right before that. Valentin -- The Goddess of democracy? "The tyrants Name: Valentin Pepelea may distroy a statue, but they cannot Phone: (215) 431-9327 kill a god." UseNet: cbmvax!valentin@uunet.uu.net - Ancient Chinese Proverb Claimer: I not Commodore spokesman be
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (01/08/90)
Someone asked... BTW, who is "RJ Michal"? RJ was/is the designer of the Lynx and one of the main driving forces behind the Amiga. - Doug - Doug_B_Erdely@Cup.Portal.Com
portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) (01/09/90)
>>>>> On 5 Jan 90 19:54:18 GMT, SPLITE@MTUS5.BITNET (Steve Plite) said:
steve> I too would prefer
steve> that they devote their energies to the support of their current line
steve> and the development of future products. I believe that would be of
steve> greater long-term benifit to Atari than insuring that the Amiga has an
steve> an authentic port of Gauntlet...
Depends. If they make a profit selling Amiga software, than that
profit can be channeled into Atari ST development, which is clearly
better than if they hadn't produced Amiga software at all.
steve> BTW, who is "RJ Michal"?
Actually, the name is RJ Mical. He is one of the co-designers of the
Atari Lynx, and also the principal architect of Intuition, the Amiga
user interface.
--M
--
__
\/ Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc.
portuesi@SGI.COM Entry Systems Division -- Engineering