robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) (10/18/88)
First of all, I've heard rumors that the blank optical disks for NeXT will be in the $50 range. Can anyone confirm this? Now, given that, how will software distributers feel about marketing stuff for a system which can only read media witha $50 fixed cost? The only alternatives I can see are: 1) bring your own CD disk down to the store with you and they copy it on ( dangerous, especially if you have other valuable data on it already ) 2) download it with the 9600 'modem'. ( time consuming and someone's still got to pay the phone bill ) 3) Tar tape distribution, and hope enough people are NFS'ed to mainframes. ( limited to certain users, and still expensive ) =Steve=
mentat@juniper.uucp (Robert Dorsett) (10/21/88)
In article <12888@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes: >First of all, I've heard rumors that the blank optical disks for NeXT >will be in the $50 range. Can anyone confirm this? > >Now, given that, how will software distributers feel about marketing >stuff for a system which can only read media witha $50 fixed cost? >The only alternatives I can see are: > >1) bring your own CD disk down to the store with you and they copy it on > ( dangerous, especially if you have other valuable data on it already ) > >2) download it with the 9600 'modem'. > ( time consuming and someone's still got to pay the phone bill ) > >3) Tar tape distribution, and hope enough people are NFS'ed to mainframes. > ( limited to certain users, and still expensive ) In other words, an expensive computer produces a small market (evidence: less than 50,000 Sun's, 30-40,000 Mac II's). An expensive base media pro- duces an expensive distribution (we're probably going to see the first four- digit applications for a relatively mainstream computer). The expensive distribution will result in an even smaller market. I really can't see developers getting all that excited about the Next (I refuse to mix case) anytime soon. I cannot see "stores" even stocking up on Next equipment or software, due to the highly limited market (we'll see about as many "Next" dealers as "Suns R Us" outlets :-)). The base media (no floppies, remember) will further hamper public-domain distribution, unless it's on a network or via modem. I see these constraints as CRIPPLING to the long-term viability of the machine. It'll probably serve to limit the Next market to the areas already adequately serviced by Sun and Apollo, and is unlikely to provide significant competition to any Apple products (i.e., administrative, student consumer, CAI work). The technical consumers who will buy a Next machine in favor of a *Mac II* seem few in number (they exist, but will they be "significant" in a market kind of senses?). Some small or independent developers will write or test software on the machine, but that would probably be the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I can't think of any particularly good reasons to jump on the Next bandwagon. The machine is doomed without software or an easy method of distribution. This is *not* the same as comparing it to other "new releases" without software--past computers have at least provided some convenient MEANS to propagate materials. I can't see the machine "breaking into" education, but can see it doing well in industry--a market which Jobs is snubbing. Comments? Dissent? Flames welcome here! "NeXT...the machine for the elite few." -- Robert Dorsett {ames,utah-cs,rutgers}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!juniper!mentat mentat@juniper.UUCP University of Texas at Austin
dorner@uxg.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (10/24/88)
In article <5701@juniper.uucp> mentat@juniper.UUCP (Robert Dorsett) writes: >Perhaps I'm being naive, but I can't think of any particularly good reasons >to jump on the Next bandwagon. The machine is doomed without software or an >easy method of distribution. This is *not* the same as comparing it to other >"new releases" without software--past computers have at least provided some >convenient MEANS to propagate materials. NeXT took a lot of heat from developers on this issue the day after the introduction. Jobs had three answers: 1) Site licensing. Remember, he only expects to sell this machine to Universities for now (see below), and he expects each University to have more than one. Thus, software can be distributed over the network. 2) Cripple-ware. NeXT would like to be a clearing house for software that runs in a limited mode, but requires a magic password to make it work at full capacity. NeXT would distribute a bunch of such packages on an optical disk, and customers who actually want the package contact the developer for the magic password. He claims that Frame is distributed this way now. (Personally speaking, this one sounds a little strange). 3) In a year, the price for the media should be down to $25. Still expensive, but much better. Somebody from Wolfram said that the port of the Macintosh Mathematica client took about a month. So I think maybe developers WILL produce some software for it, since it's easy (unlike Mac software, which is so hard to write). As for the University-only policy, I think it's part realism and part mind-game. The realism part is that NeXT is a startup, and is only going to have so much capacity. By limiting their market at the outset, they aren't limiting the number of machines they can sell (since that's limited to the number of machines they can make anyway). They are just trying to get a large piece of a smaller market, rather than a small piece of a larger market. Also, since they expect some help from Universities in support, etc., it will give them time to build up their marketing and support skills without alienating a lot of users by being unable to give proper support. The mind game part is that by saying ``you can't have it'' they hope to make people think they want it. Give them a year to get some cash and some organization, and they'll be ready to sell to the community at large. Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: dorner@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner IfUMust: (217) 244-1765
jans@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Jan Steinman) (10/27/88)
<2) Cripple-ware. NeXT would like to be a clearing house for software that runs in a limited mode, but requires a magic password to make it work at full capacity... He claims that Frame is distributed this way now. (Personally speaking, this one sounds a little strange).> No, that's how it works. Frame uses your machine's ethernet address as a password, along with a key, conceivably an encryption of that address. This is primarily for protection on a network, since all one has to do is to change one's ethernet address to match that of the machine for which Frame is licensed, and get the key from the original copy. (Of course, if you share a net with the machine you ripped off and you dup that address, the net crashes!) Upon running, Frame conceivably obtains the ethernet address of the machine, encrypts it, and looks in it's password file for the same address/key association. This is neat for production -- no factory customization of the software is needed, and the user can put any number of address/key pairs in the file, so that properly licensed machines can run it over a network. Without a valid password, you can do anything but save your work! The down side of such a scheme (especially in a student environment) would be the deterioration of networks, as people dup addresses in an effort to steal software. Ethernet addresses are *supposed* to be unique in the universe, and any duplication increases the chance that duped addresses will someday end up on the same net. Fortunately, the process of changing an ethernet address is not generally easy nor documented. (Most of this is empirical conjecture -- I don't have any connection with Frame, and discovered this through curiosity, not through a desire to steal a copy of Frame. This message should not be construed as advice for defeating copy protection, nor as encouragement to do so, but is presented in the interest of fostering discussion on the relative merits of such schemes.) :::::: Software Productivity Technologies -- Experiment Manager Project :::::: :::::: Jan Steinman N7JDB Box 500, MS 50-383 (w)503/627-5881 :::::: :::::: jans@tekcrl.TEK.COM Beaverton, OR 97077 (h)503/657-7703 ::::::