I0908@DKAFHS1.BITNET (05/29/89)
Date: 27 May 1989, 15:42:42 SET From: Cornelius Caesar BITNET / EARN: I0908 at DKAFHS1 To: info-atari16 at score.stanford.edu I just wanted to pass on the following information: The June 1989 issue of ST Magazin (german) prints an interview (p. 154) with Gilman Louie, programmer of 'F16 Falcon'. At one point he mentions that only few companies in the USA are developing software for the ST because of pirating. Then: (Quotation, translated:) "In the USA there is nearly only pirating on the ST. The newest software from Europe is distributed so fast over pirate boards that it is not worth selling software. In the first month after the release of Falcon we sold 40000 copies of the IBM version, 30000 of the MacIntosh version and still 10000 for the Amiga. For the ST there were only 3000 copies sold in the same time. In Europe the situation is different, of course. There are much more ST users and they copy less. If this were not so there wouldn't have been a ST version." ... I regret possible misunderstandings due to a bad translation, but the main ideas are o.k. I don't know the original date of this interview but clearly the recent discussion about this topic has not come through to Spectrum Holobyte. Cornelius
mboen@nixpbe.UUCP (Martin Boening) (05/31/89)
I0908@DKAFHS1.BITNET writes: >I just wanted to pass on the following information: >The June 1989 issue of ST Magazin (german) prints an interview (p. 154) with >Gilman Louie, programmer of 'F16 Falcon'. At one point he mentions that >only few companies in the USA are developing software for the ST >because of pirating. > [ quotation deleted ] In the same interview Mr. Louie also stated, that there aren't as many STs around in the US as there are PCs, MacIntoshes or Amigas. However, in order to justify his remark about pirating on STs in the US, maybe he could tell us, how many PCs, how many MacIntoshes, how many Amigas, how many STs there are around in the US. Then we might be able to put the sales figures for Falcon into relation with the number of machines around. If the percentage of copies sold for STs is significantly lower than for Amigas, THEN I might accept the claim that the ST is a pirating machine and the rest aren't. Otherwise I have to put it down as policy for covering up that Falcon ST appeared later than the other versions or that it's going to be dropped. Martin (Disclaimer: In this issue, I speak for myself, if at all) -- Email: in the USA -> ...!uunet!philabs!linus!nixbur!mboening.pad outside USA -> {...!mcvax}!unido!nixpbe!mboening.pad Paper Mail: Martin Boening, Nixdorf Computer AG, DS2, Pontanusstr. 55, 4790 Paderborn, W.-Germany
coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) (06/08/89)
In article <382@nixpbe.UUCP>, mboen@nixpbe.UUCP (Martin Boening) writes: > In the same interview Mr. Louie also stated, that there aren't as many STs > around in the US as there are PCs, MacIntoshes or Amigas. However, in > order to justify his remark about pirating on STs in the US, maybe he > could tell us, how many PCs, how many MacIntoshes, how many Amigas, how > many STs there are around in the US. Then we might be able to put the > sales figures for Falcon into relation with the number of machines around. > If the percentage of copies sold for STs is significantly lower than for > Amigas, THEN I might accept the claim that the ST is a pirating machine and > the rest aren't. Otherwise I have to put it down as policy for covering up > that Falcon ST appeared later than the other versions or that it's going > to be dropped. Does it really matter? The real bottom line for the developer is "Will I make a profit porting program X to machine Y?". If the answer is yes then the port should be done, if no then not done. Percentages don't mean a thing. What we're interested in is how many units can be sold in relation to the cost of producing, advertising and supporting the product. Claims of piracy, true or otherwise, are just so much noise. The real issue is low sales numbers. It just seems that developers would rather claim piracy than crappy code, non-existent support, or bad advertising. And users will never admit that there's just not enough machines and owners willing to spend money to make writing for their system profitable. > Martin > (Disclaimer: In this issue, I speak for myself, if at all) > Email: in the USA -> ...!uunet!philabs!linus!nixbur!mboening.pad > outside USA -> {...!mcvax}!unido!nixpbe!mboening.pad > Paper Mail: Martin Boening, Nixdorf Computer AG, DS2, > Pontanusstr. 55, 4790 Paderborn, W.-Germany Stephen Coy uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy There's always room for Jello(tm)
apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) (06/10/89)
In article <2697@ssc-vax.UUCP> coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) writes: > The real bottom line for the developer is > "Will I make a profit porting program X to machine Y?". If the > answer is yes then the port should be done, if no then not done. > Percentages don't mean a thing. (A) The message this responded to proposed using percentages, not sales figures per se, to support a claim of high piracy, not profitability. (B) The "question" above is incomplete. A developer has to compare potential profit (and risk) of "porting program X to machine Y" against those of "porting program A to machine B" where A and X, or B and Y, can be the same (but not at the same time). In general, any profit-oriented outfit with limited resources (which is all of them) has to consider not only the potential profit and risk of an action, but the COMPARATIVE profit and risk of that action as opposed to other action(s) it can take. The one(s) with the most favorable combination wins, where "most favorable" depends on the risk-aversity and other considerations of the person or people making the decision. In other words, making a profit is not an exact science, and no project can be considered solely on its own merits. ============================================ Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt