leigh@byuvax.bitnet (03/29/88)
If Atari would like to be somewhat successful with their non-8-bit machines, they need to get rid of their game-machine image. To do that, they need to form a new subsidiary that doesn't conspicuously bear the Atari name and use it to market the STs, ABAQ, and UNIX-boxes and leave the Atari name for the 8-bit machines and Game Systems. Chad
wolf@csclea.ncsu.edu (Thomas Wolf) (04/02/88)
In article <166leigh@byuvax.bitnet> leigh@byuvax.bitnet writes: >If Atari would like to be somewhat successful with their non-8-bit machines, >they need to get rid of their game-machine image. To do that, they need >to form a new subsidiary that doesn't conspicuously bear the Atari name >and use it to market the STs, ABAQ, and UNIX-boxes and leave the Atari name >for the 8-bit machines and Game Systems. > >Chad I hope this was meant as a joke. The problems that Atari is having with regards to establishing themselves as a "credible" computer company goes deeper than just their name. For Commodore, this strategy may have worked; they made the Amiga name MUCH more prominent than the company's, BUT they were successful with this because they changed their attitude towards their customer (ie. they became more attuned to the customers' and developers' needs) whereas Atari still treats customers & developers as they have for their 8-bit products: crummy. I know I know, this is becoming yet another Atari-bash. But what else can I (or we, in general) do? Oh we keep hearing promises from the Atari management and the Atari guys that post to this net BUT after waiting for nearly TWO YEARS for some of these promises to come true, I'm becoming too disillusioned to believe in anything that Atari decides to announce. I'll believe Atari again when they start fulfilling some of their promises and when they "grow up" as a company. As usual, these are my personal opinions. But it seems that numerous other people share this view. Tom Wolf ARPA (I think): tw@cscosl.ncsu.edu or wolf@csclea.ncsu.edu
c60b-at@buddy.Berkeley.EDU (John Kawakami -0^0-) (04/04/88)
In article <166leigh@byuvax.bitnet> leigh@byuvax.bitnet writes: >If Atari would like to be somewhat successful with their non-8-bit machines, >they need to get rid of their game-machine image. To do that, they need >to form a new subsidiary that doesn't conspicuously bear the Atari name >and use it to market the STs, ABAQ, and UNIX-boxes and leave the Atari name >for the 8-bit machines and Game Systems. > >Chad and what about REAL names for the machines. 'st' is rather pasty and boring. how about 'the sturgeon micro from algae computers' little would the buyer know it was a 1040st in a scaly gray case(-: John Kawakami > c60b-at@buddy.berkeley.edu Of course, there's no < -O~O- guarantee it _won't_ work. > )o(
govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) (04/05/88)
> In article <166leigh@byuvax.bitnet> leigh@byuvax.bitnet writes: > >If Atari would like to be somewhat successful with their non-8-bit machines, > >they need to get rid of their game-machine image. To do that, they need > >to form a new subsidiary that doesn't conspicuously bear the Atari name > >and use it to market the STs, ABAQ, and UNIX-boxes and leave the Atari name > >for the 8-bit machines and Game Systems. > > > >Chad > > and what about REAL names for the machines. 'st' is rather pasty and > boring. > how about 'the sturgeon micro from algae computers' little would > the buyer know it was a 1040st in a scaly gray case(-: > > John Kawakami > c60b-at@buddy.berkeley.edu > Of course, there's no < -O~O- > guarantee it _won't_ work. > )o( It has been said before, but I'll repeat it because few seem to have understood. Except for a few hackers, most people buy computers as a platform to run SOFTWARE. (Would you buy a TV if only crap were shown? What am I saying?) High-quality standard packages are NOT available in quantity for the ST, and Atari doesn't seem to care. When they do become available (e.g., WordPerfect), they cost more than they do in the DOS world. I did not buy an ST to pay more for software. I'll repeat: SOFTWARE is paramount; the box is not.
leigh@byuvax.bitnet (04/06/88)
>In article <166leigh@byuvax.bitnet> leigh@byuvax.bitnet writes: >>If Atari would like to be somewhat successful with their non-8-bit machines, >>they need to get rid of their game-machine image. To do that, they need >>to form a new subsidiary that doesn't conspicuously bear the Atari name >>and use it to market the STs, ABAQ, and UNIX-boxes and leave the Atari name >>for the 8-bit machines and Game Systems. >> >>Chad >I hope this was meant as a joke. The problems that Atari is having with nope. no joke. Of course you are right, the problem isn't just their name, but I would be willing to wager that even if they did *repent* :-) and become the most 'honest' supporting forthright computer company that ever existed I doubt that they would become successful quickly. Too many people get a bad taste in their mouths when the name Atari comes up (either because of their track record or because they are 'just' a game company...). >regards to establishing themselves as a "credible" computer company goes >deeper than just their name. For Commodore, this strategy may have worked; >they made the Amiga name MUCH more prominent than the company's, BUT they >were successful with this because they changed their attitude towards their >customer (ie. they became more attuned to the customers' and developers' needs) >whereas Atari still treats customers & developers as they have for their >8-bit products: crummy. >I know I know, this is becoming yet another Atari-bash. But what else can I >(or we, in general) do? Oh we keep hearing promises from the Atari management >and the Atari guys that post to this net BUT after waiting for nearly TWO YEARS >for some of these promises to come true, I'm becoming too disillusioned to >believe in anything that Atari decides to announce. I'll believe Atari again >when they start fulfilling some of their promises and when they "grow up" as >a company. > > >As usual, these are my personal opinions. But it seems that numerous other >people share this view. > > >Tom Wolf >ARPA (I think): tw@cscosl.ncsu.edu > or wolf@csclea.ncsu.edu > Chad
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (04/07/88)
In article <81@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes:
->It has been said before, but I'll repeat it because few seem to
->have understood.
->
->Except for a few hackers, most people buy computers as a platform
->to run SOFTWARE. (Would you buy a TV if only crap were shown?
->What am I saying?)
Good point, but ...
->High-quality standard packages are NOT available in quantity
->for the ST, and Atari doesn't seem to care. When they do
->become available (e.g., WordPerfect), they cost more than they
->do in the DOS world. I did not buy an ST to pay more for
->software.
WordPerfect lists for $395 for the IBM PC, Amiga, and Atari ST. They
all cost the 'same'. Distributors get a volume discount, they pass these
on to the dealer and the dealer may sell it for more under list for the
PC than for the Atari, but that is only because they are moving more
product.
I agree whole heartedly that what the world needs is more quality
software. What the users need to understand is that cost is a function
of
CO$T = (QUALITY + $UPPORT) / (SIZE OF MARKET)
A high quality Page Layout program for the Sun Workstation costs $3000
the same program for the Macintosh costs $800. Why ? Because the market
is bigger thats why.
The Atari User community has to understand that it is impossible to stay
in business by selling a complicated, quality program for less then $200.
Sure it would be nice but until there are 4 million of you to distribute
the cost it won't happen. And until you can prove that you are willing to
pay what it costs to get the software you demand no one will write it.
Word Perfect Corp took a big chance when they introduced WP for the Atari
and Amiga. Both were 'unproven' markets. I know that they recouped their
entire development investment for the Amiga in 7 days of sales. What
that does is make people like Ashton Tate, Microsoft, and Borland look
seriously at the Amiga market. It can work for the Atari too but you have
to prove yourselves. And if the only thing you are interested in buying
are games then that is all anyone will write for you.
Atari really has nothing to do with this at all. Look at the pains people
go through to make something work under MS-DOS with 5 graphics 'standards'
no less than 10 memory models that even the users don't understand, and
zero standardization on such things as mice and peripherals. Basically,
it is worth it because they know they can recoup those costs. In a third
order effect Atari affects the cost of software, since the tougher it is
to write, the more expensive it is and thus the end cost is expensive.
But don't think about it that way. Vote with your wallet, if you like a
program, buy it! That message will come through loud and clear on the
software publisher/dealer channels.
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.saj@chinet.UUCP (Stephen Jacobs) (04/07/88)
This is an expansion on the comment that most people buy a computer as a platform for the software that runs on it. That is probably mostly true, but another selling point is uniquely useful _hardware_. The example I'm thinking of is the LaserWriter, which (I think) has been as critical to the success of the Macintosh as Lotus 123 was to the success of the IBM PC. And so far, Atari has nothing that super in either department. When it first came out, Zoomracks looked like the beginnings of a breakthrough--and maybe it was, but the most energetic follow-up is Hypercard on the Mac. Now the bare-bones laser printer could be a breakthrough (Pick a personality-uh-I mean page description language). With a good follow-up, Mega ST4+Laser+optical drive could become a business system too good to keep out. Could happen, but I'm skeptical.
govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) (04/07/88)
> > WordPerfect lists for $395 for the IBM PC, Amiga, and Atari ST. They > all cost the 'same'. Distributors get a volume discount, they pass these > on to the dealer and the dealer may sell it for more under list for the > PC than for the Atari, but that is only because they are moving more > product. --> True. Nevertheless, the software cost should be proportional to the cost of the computer. I can buy WP for DOS for under $200, but it costs about $300 for the ST. Since software is more important to me, the implicit message is that I should switch to the DOS world. > > The Atari User community has to understand that it is impossible to stay > in business by selling a complicated, quality program for less then $200. > --> Are you serious? Tell that to Borland. > Atari really has nothing to do with this at all. --> Nonsense. I used to work at what used to be one of the biggest software houses, and I know how critical it is to beg and threaten ISVs to port their software to new boxes. It is true that ISVs probably won't port unless the installed base is large enough, but they certainly won't port if they don't get adequate support from the box maker. And I'm not convinced that Atari has done what it takes to persuade U.S. ISVs.
wolf@csclea.ncsu.edu (Thomas Wolf) (04/08/88)
In article <92@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: >> >> The Atari User community has to understand that it is impossible to stay ^ | >> in business by selling a complicated, quality program for less then $200. >> > > --> Are you serious? Tell that to Borland. > Yeah, tell that to Borland -- I don't seem to recall seeing any Borland titles on Atari shelves lately (or ever). The intent of the statement was pro- bably that it is difficult for a s/w developer to stay in business selling a quality program (ie. that he spent ALOT of time on), support it, AND sell it for less than $200 IFF the user-base is as small as the Atari's. Borland clearly does NOT cater to the Atari user but to the IBM PC market -- That's why they're able to sell their product so cheaply. Tom Wolf Tom Wolf ARPA (I think): tw@cscosl.ncsu.edu or wolf@csclea.ncsu.edu
davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) (04/08/88)
In article <92@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: > --> True. Nevertheless, the software cost should be proportional > to the cost of the computer. I can buy WP for DOS for under > $200, but it costs about $300 for the ST. Since software is > more important to me, the implicit message is that I should > switch to the DOS world. Mr. Govett is under the mistaken impression that the cost of developing software is in any way, shape, or form related to the cost of the hardware for which it is developed. Software companies are in the business to make a profit. A program which could sell for $100 when aimed at a computer with an installed user base of 3 million computers or more (IBM world...) will not make as much money at $100 when aimed at an installed user base of less than 1 million computers (reasonable estimate for Atari ST at present time). In order to obtain as much profit, the program would be increased in price. IF software price is the main reason you purchase a computer, buy a Commodore 64. You certainly aren't going to like the $200 and above prices for many packages on the PC/Clone. -- Dave Meile
rjung@sal1.usc.edu (Robert Jung) (04/08/88)
In article <1667@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> wolf@csclea.UUCP (Thomas Wolf) writes: >> --> Are you serious? Tell that to Borland. > >Yeah, tell that to Borland -- I don't seem to recall seeing any Borland >titles on Atari shelves lately (or ever). Isn't TURBO C by Borland? And wasn't it recently announced that TURBO C is being packaged/avaliable for the Atari ST? --R.J. B-) ______________________________________________________________________________ Bitnet: rjung@castor.usc.edu "Who needs an Amiga?" = == = = == = Power WithOUT the Price = == = ===== == ===== Just because it's 8-bits doesn't make it obsolete. ==== == ====
greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman) (04/09/88)
In article <48536@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >The Atari User community has to understand that it is impossible to stay >in business by selling a complicated, quality program for less then $200. >Sure it would be nice but until there are 4 million of you to distribute >the cost it won't happen. And until you can prove that you are willing to >pay what it costs to get the software you demand no one will write it. >Word Perfect Corp took a big chance when they introduced WP for the Atari >and Amiga. Both were 'unproven' markets. I know that they recouped their >entire development investment for the Amiga in 7 days of sales. What >that does is make people like Ashton Tate, Microsoft, and Borland look >seriously at the Amiga market. It can work for the Atari too but you have >to prove yourselves. And if the only thing you are interested in buying >are games then that is all anyone will write for you. I agree with you to a certain extent; however, the market is really more complex than that. One big factor in software sales is that of the software's PERCEIVED VALUE. This is also known colloquially as "Bang for the Buck". Personally, I rarely hesitate to buy a package priced $50 or less that claims to do what I want. In the $75 - $100 range I might ask around for opinions of other users. Over $100, though, and I'm going to do some SERIOUS thinking before I invest. Why? Because with virtually ANYTHING ELSE I buy, if it doesn't work or doesn't work properly, I can RETURN IT for replacement or refund. Personal computer software, you may have noticed, doesn't work that way (why is another thread...). Buying an expensive software package that I can't try out ahead of time (seriously, how many computer stores are willing or able to demo a major product for you?) is a gamble, and I'm not a betting man. So, to companies out there who want to sell me expensive software, I say: You must either PROVE to me (by having respected publications, such as Byte Magazine, STart, etc. review your product) that it does what you say and is worth the cost, or allow me to try out your product (by releasing "demo" versions that have key features disabled as Aldus did with PageMaker on the Mac) on my own so that I can make an informed decision. A company's reputation on another hardware platform isn't enough; just look at what Microsoft did with Word/Write (or whatever they call the Atari version). Did they release the latest and greatest Mac version to the Atari community? Hardly. Can you tell that by gazing at the pretty slipcase through the shrink wrap? Hardly. By the way, I must point out that Antic Publishing has been doing marvelous things with/for the Atari, and yet they seem to get very little attention from the Atari community (not their products; those are doing well). They have consistantly offered useful, quality software for extremely reasonable prices, and show no sign of stopping. Some examples: Flash (Communications software), CAD-3D (solids modeller), Cybermate (CAD-3D animation editing tool), Cyberpaint (2D Animation/Screen Painting tool). They provide upgrades to their customers for only the cost of a disk plus postage. They are responsive to the requests of their customers. Why aren't there more publishers like them? Beats me. (I have no affiliation with Antic except that of a satisfied customer.) Greg Wageman Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: ...!decwrl!spar!snjsn1!blfca1!greg 1601 Technology Drive ARPA: greg@blfca1.com@spar.slb.com San Jose, CA 95110 BIX: gwage (408) 437-5198 CIS: 74016,352 "Nest deeply, and carry a big stack." ------------------ The opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author.
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (04/10/88)
In article <92@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: > --> True. Nevertheless, the software cost should be proportional > to the cost of the computer. I strongly disagree with this. Are you saying that programmers that write software for lower priced machines should be paid less too? The size of the market and the amortizing the cost of production should be the *only* factors. If you ignore this rule you will go out of business, smart developers already know this and won't even enter the market if you folks won't pay what it takes to make a profit. >> The Atari User community has to understand that it is impossible to stay >> in business by selling a complicated, quality program for less then $200. > > --> Are you serious? Tell that to Borland. Dead serious, Borland made there original market selling Pascal to a very hungry CP/M market. It worked and they got a good penetration. Now with a market that is TEN TIMES the size of the Atari market they sell their programs for $89.95. With a good general purpose program like a compiler you can get maybe 25% penetration, with something like CyberPaint maybe 10%. Not to much to make a company on. You can sell things like games and other one man/one year projects for less if they are published through a publisher that can absorb the production costs. > --> Nonsense. I used to work at what used to be one of the biggest > software houses, and I know how critical it is to beg and > threaten ISVs to port their software to new boxes. It is true > that ISVs probably won't port unless the installed base is > large enough, but they certainly won't port if they don't > get adequate support from the box maker. And I'm not convinced > that Atari has done what it takes to persuade U.S. ISVs. Used to be one of the biggest software houses? No, I suspect (yet I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert on this) that the success of a software company depends entirely on estimating whether a package is marketable given the size of market and demographics of its participants. If Atari was aggressively selling its machines into any particular market one could use this information to target packages for those users. An example of this is the TV studio graphics market that the Amiga has been making inroads into. The people that buy these machines are 'accustomed' to software packages that cost several thousand dollars. But they are a very small market. So as a software developer who has spent two years writing GizmoTitler you can expect to sell it for $1000 (assuming it offers some of the same features) and sell 100 copies to various people. Not so to someone who keeps complaining about price, price, price. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) (04/12/88)
> In article <92@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: > > --> True. Nevertheless, the software cost should be proportional > > to the cost of the computer. I can buy WP for DOS for under > > $200, but it costs about $300 for the ST. Since software is > > more important to me, the implicit message is that I should > > switch to the DOS world. > > Mr. Govett is under the mistaken impression that the cost of developing > software is in any way, shape, or form related to the cost of the hardware for > which it is developed. > > Software companies are in the business to make a profit. A program which > could sell for $100 when aimed at a computer with an installed user base of > 3 million computers or more (IBM world...) will not make as much money at > $100 when aimed at an installed user base of less than 1 million computers > (reasonable estimate for Atari ST at present time). In order to obtain as > much profit, the program would be increased in price. > > IF software price is the main reason you purchase a computer, buy a > Commodore 64. You certainly aren't going to like the $200 and above prices > for many packages on the PC/Clone. > > -- Dave Meile > Mindreading is obviously not your forte. No, I do NOT believe software development cost correlates with target machine price. Software retail price had better, though. How many of you netlanders would be happy to pay a 50% premium for ST software? A software company has to amortize its development costs over projected sales. Attempts to recover them immediately usually doom a product to market failure. If Atari cannot compete on price/performance, how can it compete?
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (04/13/88)
In article <201@snjsn1.SJ.ATE.SLB.COM> greg@bilbo.UUCP (Greg Wageman) writes: > Over $100, though, and I'm going to do some SERIOUS thinking before I invest. Very sound advice. >Why? Because with virtually ANYTHING ELSE I buy, if it doesn't work >or doesn't work properly, I can RETURN IT for replacement or refund. >Personal computer software, you may have noticed, doesn't work that >way (why is another thread...). Well my dealer lets me return software if it doesn't work like I expect it to. He also lets me sit down at a machine in his store and use the program for several hours if I want to see how it works before I buy it. The key message here is that I support my local dealer by actually buying software there even though I could save money by ordering it through the mail. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (04/19/88)
In article <97@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: >A software company has to amortize its development costs over projected >sales. Right. And so there's no argument for developing any ST software. Somebody said before that there was less than a million ST buyers. Well let me tell you; there's A LOT LESS. More like less than 50,000 actual, qualified buyers (not computers collecting dust and pirated software). Of the 50,000, you're doing well to penetrate 10,000 of them over the life of the product. So saying it sells for $40 retail, which you're saying is the most any ST buyer will pay (and I agree); that means $16 wholsale, of which say $5-$10 is gross profit (higher profit margins can only apply if you have "economies of scale" which few ST publisher have). Ok so over the life of the product there is $50,000 to $100,000 gross profit. That has to pay for development and all the overhead it takes to sell those 10,000 copies: advertising, office operations, sales overhead, administration, telephones, computer operations, office/sales space, and a lot more. If you can sell all 10,000 copies in the first year, and you keep you're expenses low, guess what: you break even! With ST software, it's not very likely you will ever sell 10,000 copies. Ask around. Very few ST packages have achieved these numbers, even some that have been out for three years. Admitedly, a few ST packages have sold lot's more than 10,000 copies; but there are a lot more products with numbers well below this level, even well known packages. Combine with that the fact that ST software sales are not even as strong as they were a year ago, and things only look worse. I'm not saying that the user should bear the burden, but don't make the small independent software companies bear it either. Just becuase you pay $39 for a piece of software, don't think that the guys that developed it are "ripping you off". I think everybody on the net by now knows who I think should bear some of this burden. Can you spell Atari Corp? -- David Beckemeyer | "Yuh gotta treat people jes' like yuh Beckemeyer Development Tools | do mules. Don't try to drive 'em. Jes' 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | leave the gate open a mite an' let 'em UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david | bust in!"
govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) (04/20/88)
> >>A software company has to amortize its development costs over projected >>sales. > > Right. And so there's no argument for developing any ST software. Somebody > said before that there was less than a million ST buyers. Well let me tell > you; there's A LOT LESS. More like less than 50,000 actual, qualified buyers > (not computers collecting dust and pirated software). Of the 50,000, you're > doing well to penetrate 10,000 of them over the life of the product. So > saying it sells for $40 retail, which you're saying is the most any ST buyer > will pay (and I agree); that means $16 wholsale, of which say $5-$10 is gross > profit (higher profit margins can only apply if you have "economies of scale" > which few ST publisher have). Ok so over the life of the product there is > $50,000 to $100,000 gross profit. That has to pay for development and all > the overhead it takes to sell those 10,000 copies: advertising, office > operations, sales overhead, administration, telephones, computer operations, > office/sales space, and a lot more. If you can sell all 10,000 copies in > the first year, and you keep you're expenses low, guess what: you break even! > > With ST software, it's not very likely you will ever sell 10,000 copies. Ask > around. Very few ST packages have achieved these numbers, even some that > have been out for three years. Admitedly, a few ST packages have sold > lot's more than 10,000 copies; but there are a lot more products with > numbers well below this level, even well known packages. > > Combine with that the fact that ST software sales are not even as strong > as they were a year ago, and things only look worse. > > I'm not saying that the user should bear the burden, but don't make the > small independent software companies bear it either. Just becuase you > pay $39 for a piece of software, don't think that the guys that developed > it are "ripping you off". I think everybody on the net by now knows > who I think should bear some of this burden. Can you spell Atari Corp? > -- Two comments: If I may be allowed to generalize, people who buy STs are, on the whole, quite different from those who buy PCs and clones. Many PCs go into businesses where money exists to buy expensive software, but ST users seem to have trouble buying even moderately priced software. Rumor has it that WordPerfect Corp. is so disgusted with ST users pirating ST WordPerfect that it is considering withdrawing it from the market. As I said, it's only a rumor. If true, however, it seems to support my thesis that software should be priced for the intended audience, and I know no ST users who would buy it for $300.
leo@sunybcs.uucp (Leo Wilson) (04/21/88)
In article <115@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: >Rumor has it that WordPerfect Corp. is so disgusted with ST users >pirating ST WordPerfect that it is considering withdrawing it from the >market. As I said, it's only a rumor. If true, however, it seems >to support my thesis that software should be priced for the intended >audience, and I know no ST users who would buy it for $300. Sorry to kick this same old dog around, but I can't believe some of the prices people have been throwing around. I don't think I've EVER bought a program for "Suggested Retail Price". They always sell for pretty close to a third less than list at retail outlets. I bought WP for the ST for the company I used to work for for (I think) $195.00, and it was enough worth the price to also pay for the person using it to go to a couple of seminars, which incidentally cost quite a chunk more than the software. Personally, I don't see that the cost of software should reflect anything more than the market will bear. If the use you get out of Word Perfect or for that matter any other software, isn't worth the price you pay for it, DON'T BUY IT. Don't steal it, either. You made the choice by not buying it. What has purchase price got to do with anything at all? "Geez, if I buy this software I can save 19 man-hours per week (at $9.00/hr) for the next two and a half years, but I'll pass because the initial cost is $200." Makes LOTS of sense to me to pass it by... === Leo E. Wilson 364 West Delavan Avenue Buffalo, NY 14213 (716)883-7573 (leo@gort.cs.Buffalo.EDU) ...!sunybcs[!leow]!leo leo@sunybcs.bitnet
rnss@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Ron Schreiner) (04/22/88)
In article <10400@sunybcs.UUCP> leo@sunybcs.UUCP (Leo Wilson) writes: >In article <115@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: >>Rumor has it that WordPerfect Corp. is so disgusted with ST users >>pirating ST WordPerfect that it is considering withdrawing it from the >>market. .... I got a copy of First CADD for my ST more than a year ago. The last time I talked to Generic Software about when I could expect an update, they said that they are not expending very much effort on the ST version. When I asked why, I got an earfull about how ST users are such pirats. This statement they claimed was backed up by the large ratio of tech-calls to number of products shiped. I feel there high ratio is due to the combination of a lousy, unsupported os and the fact that the product lacks luster, but then what do I want for a $50.00 CAD package, right!! -- Ron Schreiner AT&T Bell Labs ...ihnp4!ihuxy!rnss
Dave_Ninjajr_Flory@cup.portal.com (04/23/88)
D. Govett says 'I don't know anyone who would buy WP for $300' (in the ST community). Well he doesn't know enough ST people 'cause WP corporation has sold a lot at $300. The pullout rumor is only about 5 weeks old and WP put out the word in no uncertain terms that it wasn't going to happen. I never cease to me surprised and how some folks will seize on a rumor to support something they want to believe and pass it on as tho' it were true, without any apparent effort to check on the validity. Well educated people too, who should learn from experience. What you want to believe is easy shore up, no matter how false, for whatever reason. If you want to know what is going on in the world of Atari, check CI$ or GEnie. Don't depend on the naysayers of the Usenet for up to date info.
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (04/26/88)
In article <115@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: >> >>>A software company has to amortize its development costs over projected >>>sales. >> >> Right. And so there's no argument for developing any ST software. [ much of my own stuff from previous deleted ] >Two comments: > >If I may be allowed to generalize, people who buy STs are, on the >whole, quite different from those who buy PCs and clones. Many PCs >go into businesses where money exists to buy expensive software, but >ST users seem to have trouble buying even moderately priced software. > >Rumor has it that WordPerfect Corp. is so disgusted with ST users >pirating ST WordPerfect that it is considering withdrawing it from the >market. As I said, it's only a rumor. If true, however, it seems >to support my thesis that software should be priced for the intended >audience, and I know no ST users who would buy it for $300. You missed my point and seem to be just saying the same thing over again, and so that's what I'll do too. From a business standpoint, you said it yourself, you must amortize the development costs over the projected sales. Yet you also state that there are fixed price limits in the ST arena. I agree with both counts, and I therefore re-state that there is no sound reason to develop Atari ST products. The equation doesn't add up. You can't expect large volume with an ST product; and you yourself state that you can't increase the retail price either. So there's no way you can ever recover the development costs. So there's no reason for a commercial enterprise to spend any development money on Atari ST products. You're saying it, not me. I'm just agreeing with you. Following this logic, there's no reason to buy an Atari ST computer, becuase nobody is going to develop software for it. And there's no reason to develop my own software, unless it's my hobyy, becuase I'll never recover my own development costs either. This means that my ST will only have non-commercial software available and eventually it will die. Umm... seems like I agree with you here too. Now I only wish didn't already have a pile of 'em. -- David Beckemeyer | "Yuh gotta treat people jes' like yuh Beckemeyer Development Tools | do mules. Don't try to drive 'em. Jes' 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | leave the gate open a mite an' let 'em UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david | bust in!"
Jinfu@cup.portal.com (04/28/88)
Off the topic a little bit. Last night in the TV "Computer Show" they showed the Amiga 2000. A comment made by the guy from Commordore about how many Amigas have been sold was "over 600,000". Now if my memory is right Sam Triemal mentioned a number of STs sold in a GEnie conference is 300,000 (I read this from ZMagazine a week ago). Is the ST number a little too low? Jinfu Chen jinfu@cup.portal.com ...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!jinfu
kimes@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Kit Kimes) (04/28/88)
In article <4699@cup.portal.com>, Dave_Ninjajr_Flory@cup.portal.com writes: > D. Govett says 'I don't know anyone who would buy WP for $300' (in the ST > community). Well he doesn't know enough ST people 'cause WP corporation has > sold a lot at $300. WP hasn't sold any copies at $300. They sell them at wholesale prices to distributors who resell them to retailers. Retailers can then sell tham at whatever price they want to up to SRP. I suppose they could sell them at more than SRP if they could find anyone willing to pay it, but that is rare. >The pullout rumor is only about 5 weeks old and WP put > out the word in no uncertain terms that it wasn't going to happen. I never > cease to me surprised and how some folks will seize on a rumor to support > something they want to believe and pass it on as tho' it were true, without > any apparent effort to check on the validity. This 'rumor' came from WP Corp. itself. They reversed themselves and then went on a CompuServe conference and made it sound like they never said it, but several people swear that they were told by WP Corp that they were dropping Atari ST support and pulling the product. > If you want to know what is going > on in the world of Atari, check CI$ or GEnie. Don't depend on the naysayers > of the Usenet for up to date info. Believe it or not, a lot of the information on the net comes from CIS, GEnie, Delphi, etc. Kit Kimes AT&T--Information Systems Labs ...ihnp4!ihlpe!kimes
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (05/01/88)
In article <4699@cup.portal.com>, Dave_Ninjajr_Flory@cup.portal.com writes: | The pullout rumor is only about 5 weeks old and WP put | out the word in no uncertain terms that it wasn't going to happen. I never | cease to me surprised and how some folks will seize on a rumor to support | something they want to believe and pass it on as tho' it were true, without | any apparent effort to check on the validity. In article <2892@ihlpe.ATT.COM>, kimes@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Kit Kimes) writes: > This 'rumor' came from WP Corp. itself. They reversed themselves and > then went on a CompuServe conference and made it sound like they never > said it, but several people swear that they were told by WP Corp that > they were dropping Atari ST support and pulling the product. I'd be careful about what you hear about/from Word Perfect Corp. for a little while. There has been a persistent rumor that WP is pulling out... OF UTAH! Yes, folks, they are moving out from behind the Zion curtain to the Silicon Prarie in Texas. Or so the rumors say. Perhaps the people above misinterpreted what WP was `pulling out of.' This rumor makes more sense; another branch of my company is doing the same thing. -- /\ - "Against Stupidity, - {backbones}! /\/\ . /\ - The Gods Themselves - utah-cs!uplherc! / \/ \/\/ \ - Contend in Vain." - sp7040!obie! / U i n T e c h \ - Schiller - wes
Jinfu@cup.portal.com (05/03/88)
Let me throw in my cents: Why can those frustrated ST developers/users sell their STs to recoup some money to buy a Mac or Amiga, or PS/2 and stop whinning here? If you are not happy with the computer, the best thing to do is go for another one and stop crying. Just leave us 'stupid' happy users alone will you? To offer my best help, I am willing to buy a ST from whoever decides to leave the ST world. My friend is looking for a used ST, it can be a 520 or 1040 in mint condition(i.e. no jumper wires in the mother board, clean memory upgrade is okey), with a double side drive (no 520FTM please). No monitor is needed since he has a NEC multi-sync. For serious seller, call (612)898-5338(day), or leave me an email to: Jinfu@cup.portal.com ...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Jinfu P.S. A local rumor says one of the programmers from Jefferson Software (JS Modular-2), Ken (sorry I couldn't remember his last name, his GEnie handle is KBAD), just joined Atari in the third party development support group. Congradulation Ken (if you are reading).
NETOPRHM@NCSUVM.BITNET (Hal Meeks) (05/04/88)
Postings with this heading a trailing off, thankfully.... Developers and users who are unhappy with Atari should realise that all of the yelling in the world isn't going to make much difference. GEM for the ST still is has the same problems it had when it was first released (over two years ago). Many people have pointed out problems, and a few have supplied work arounds. But nothing from Atari. I strongly recommend that these people sell their machines, and buy something from a company that will support their product. Quit wasting your time and money. Those who like their ST's, accept things as they are, and work from there. I wish you the best of luck, really. The ST does have a few strengths. It is a pity that Atari has failed to exploit them fully (at least in the US). Me? I had thought of buying a 520ST to run Magic Sac on and keep my Amiga 2000 company. Now? No way, jose'. --hal
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (05/07/88)
In article <5061@cup.portal.com> Jinfu@cup.portal.com writes: > >Let me throw in my cents: > >Why can those frustrated ST developers/users sell their STs to recoup >some money to buy a Mac or Amiga, or PS/2 and stop whinning here? If >you are not happy with the computer, the best thing to do is go for >another one and stop crying. Just leave us 'stupid' happy users alone >will you? It's easy for you to say. I would love to be able to dump my Atari hardware to somebody who could use it. But it's not that simple. I can't, in good conscience, just forget about the 15,000 or so users we have that need support for ST products. It takes ST hardware to maintain ST products. We originally had to pay FULL PRICE for Atari devlelopment hardware (like $800 for an early SH204 drive!). It wasn't that bad. I knew it was risky. Just the same, I know Atari could have done more for those of us that helped launch the machine. We were there back in 1985. Micro C-Shell sold one hell of a lot of Atari STs in those days! I've got nothing against anybody out there that likes their ST. I'm sorry if that message came accross, becuase it's not how I feel. I'm not frustrated with the public. I'm fed up with Atari Corp. I was simply letting off steam about what the Atari management has done (and not done) and unless you've dealt with them, you have no room to talk. You just couldn't possibly understand what it's like. The worst thing that's happened to you is that you have to hit 'n' or read about it a little bit. Oh that's real tough - a few screens of pain and agony. -- David Beckemeyer | "To understand ranch lingo all yuh Beckemeyer Development Tools | have to do is to know in advance what 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | the other feller means an' then pay UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david | no attention to what he says"