ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (10/15/88)
> - Pricing. The $6500 price is only available to "selected universities", > so it should be viewed as comparable to the discounts offered by > IBM, Apple, DEC, etc. to such schools. This leads us to expect a > commercial price around $10,000 to $12,000. At the press conference after the announcement, Jobs was asked what the commercial price was to be. He said that there wasn't one. The machine is to be sold to Universities only. Not even to high schools. Further, when asked about European licensing, Jobs is reported to have said "We'll talk about it, but I don't think so." It was asked if the printer accepts A2 or A4 size paper. No. It is 8.5x11 inch *only* for cost reasons. In the announcement, Jobs compared the NeXT 400dpi printer to the "$7000 printer on the market," and indicated that his would be much less expensive. Well it is, at $2000. Sort of. The Apple LaserWriter is a network print server that can be shared among several computers. The NxXT printer is a print engine only. The computer process the PostScript and sends pixels to the printer. So a NeXT network print server is more like $8500. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2560 Ninth St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,uunet}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146 "I'll fight them as a woman, not a lady. I'll fight them as an engineer."
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM ([Karl Denninger]) (10/16/88)
With regards to Next machines only being available to colleges: I hope Jobs comes around to reality soon... Failing to serve a major market segment that wants to purchase his machine (ie: you and I, folks) is a big, big mistake. Being arrogant and saying "you want one, go to college!" is not the answer. If Next really expects we, the developers and software publishers, to come out with software for this beast, they had BETTER give us more of a market than the University crowd! Heck -- with recent court decisions, the Universities can rip off (read: pirate, copy, steal) all the software they want, and you can't stop them (reference recent court decision where a state-owned college was found not liable for copyright infringement). Sorry, but I won't develop, sell, or permit the use of our software by colleges until and unless they agree to abide by our copyright, and the law contains the teeth to force that complience. The university market represents too little money to gain our full support. Also -- how about GNU? Since GNU C is part of the package, can I sell my product that I compile using this compiler? Or must I follow the GNU General license with regards to my product if compiled using that compiler, essentially reducing the value of the product to zero? If the second case holds true (ie: you can't really resell compiled binaries) then Jobs has just slammed the door -- if I have to sell SOURCE code in order to get around the license problem, the cost of providing the software to a client has just tripled (from their perspective, since they cannot buy a binary)! If Jobs wants this machine to succeed, he _must_ market to the general consumer. You can bet that Sun and DEC are working on something to compete with the NEXT box -- and that you and I will be able to buy that product. -- Karl (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM)
bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (10/18/88)
In article <17780@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) writes: > - Interchange/backup media. Apparently the magneto-optical drive is > removable, but only one is provided. Does this mean that one > is supposed to make backups by swapping two disks back and > forth, perhaps 40 or 50 times? Or is a second drive > essentially mandatory? How much does a second drive cost? Is > one available? Remember that this is being sold into a University environment, not the home market. Right now, because they can't make enough to satisfy all the demand, it's only being shipped to selected departments in selected institutions that can really make it shine (not an unreasonable strategy!). All such departments are already fairly well along in the workstation world, and have NFS server capacity already in place. Those servers also have tape drives (1/2" or 8mm or whatever) in use as mass backup devices. Local NeXT disks can be backed up with standard BSD rdump to some central tape drive. The optical drive is intended to be used similarly to the way students use floppies right now: carry your work into a public lab and start working on any machine. Alternatively, one could set up a NeXT-only cluster, with one machine configured with lots of big fast disks on the E-SCSI port. Then the optical drive could be a backup medium for the central server files. Similarly for a standalone machine: I wouldn't want to run Mach from the optical drive, though it could be done. If a machine must run remotely from a server environment (like in my study at home - I only wish! :-), it should be configured with a conventional Winchester disk as its primary mass storage, and the optical drive used for software installation, backups, and media portability. -=- Zippy sez, --Bob Look into my eyes and try to forget that you have a Macy's charge card!
merrill@bucasb.bu.edu (John &) (10/19/88)
In article <[9.5]karl@ddsw1.alt.next>, karl@ddsw1 ([Karl Denninger]) writes: > >With regards to Next machines only being available to colleges: > >If Next really expects we, the developers and software publishers, to come >out with software for this beast, they had BETTER give us more of a market >than the University crowd! I think that it may come as a surprise to many of you "developers and software publishers" out there---but we in the educational community develop much of our own software. I will regret it if no decent word processor comes out for a machine I use---and, since I need an adequate word-processor, I'll write one. The result won't be as polished as a packaged program, but it won't carry a bunch of extra garbage with it, either. >Sorry, but I won't develop, sell, or permit the use of our software by >colleges until and unless they agree to abide by our copyright, and the law >contains the teeth to force that complience. I hope that it won't disturb you that I could not care less. I doubt that your products are irreplacable---and, if they are, I'll write replacements of my own. Given your self-righteous attitude, I doubt that the quality of your customer support warrants using your product. > The university market >represents too little money to gain our full support. See above. >If Jobs wants this machine to succeed, he _must_ market to the general >consumer. Jobs made an interesting point during his press conference, one that you might ponder when you talk about the "general consumer". Any of the top 100 universities in this country would be a Fortune 500 company if it were not in the education business. The purchasers in those organizations are educated, independent, and quite capable of software development. A machine or corporation can survive quite happily in that market niche---consider DEC's VAX, for instance. Why try to extend yourself outside of a good market? --
bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (10/20/88)
(Note that followups are directed to comp.sys.next) In article <[9.5]karl@ddsw1.alt.next> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM ([Karl Denninger]) writes: >With regards to Next machines only being available to colleges: > >I hope Jobs comes around to reality soon... I'm not an eastern mystic, but there seem to be several realities involved here. >Failing to serve a major market segment that wants to purchase his >machine (ie: you and I, folks) is a big, big mistake. Being arrogant >and saying "you want one, go to college!" is not the answer. Failure to narrow one's focus in order to accomplish a goal is a big, big mistake. Many companies, larger ones that NeXT (160!) have gone under while trying to be everything to everyone. Kudos to one who will recognize the limitations of size and time during a start-up phase. His statement, if flip, was at least realistic. >If Next really expects we, the developers and software publishers, to >come out with software for this beast, they had BETTER give us more >of a market than the University crowd! Many Universities are happy using free software, and some may be happy not to use your software. A lot of interesting work is done at Universities and shared freely with the rest of the community. That's the nature of academia. >The university market represents too little money to gain our full >support. You make your market target decisions, and let others make theirs. The collection of bundled (and unbundled) software that's available for the NeXT cube is truly impressive, but wouldn't really interest a real estate developer. It's targeted at the academic market. >Also -- how about GNU? Since GNU C is part of the package, can I >sell my product that I compile using this compiler? Of course. Read the GNU General Public License if you have questions. >Or must I follow the GNU General license with regards to my product >if compiled using that compiler, essentially reducing the value of >the product to zero? If the second case holds true (ie: you can't >really resell compiled binaries) This issue gets rehashed frequently on the GNU newsgroups. If you read the License, you'll note that FSF only copyrights its work, and it certainly couldn't copyright yours. >If Jobs wants this machine to succeed, he _must_ market to the >general consumer. We'll all watch and see, won't we? >You can bet that Sun and DEC are working on something to compete with >the NEXT box -- and that you and I will be able to buy that product. You'll be able to buy a NeXT box sometime, when they have production capacity left over from serving their primary focus design market. I'm looking forward to Sun's and DEC's (and HP's and IBM's and ...) reply to this box. The competition will be fun! -=- Zippy sez, --Bob Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) (10/20/88)
I don't know of any universities that regard piracy is OK. In the case you are citing, the university showed that it had taken steps to prevent a recurrence. I don't think universities are any worse than other sectors of the market.
jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger) (10/20/88)
In article <593277618.8213@bucasb.bu.edu> merrill@bucasb.bu.edu (John &) writes: >[Steve Jobs says that] Any of the top 100 universities in this country >would be a Fortune 500 company if it were not in the education business. Which claim I question. I doubt there are quite 100. Did Steve name the schools he had in mind? I wouldn't want to send my kid to a school that couldn't make the Fortune 500 :-) -- Jon
merchant@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) (10/20/88)
In article <593277618.8213@bucasb.bu.edu> merrill@bucasb.bu.edu (John &) writes: >In article <[9.5]karl@ddsw1.alt.next>, karl@ddsw1 ([Karl Denninger]) writes: >>If Jobs wants this machine to succeed, he _must_ market to the general >>consumer. > >Jobs made an interesting point during his press conference, one that >you might ponder when you talk about the "general consumer". Any of the >top 100 universities in this country would be a Fortune 500 company if >it were not in the education business. The purchasers in those >organizations are educated, independent, and quite capable of software >development. As was pointed out, the educational market requires less of a sales force to penetrate than does the business market. Also, the business market tends to be less impressed with technology. Why waste all the money, time, and effort to attempt to sell the machine to the business world when they won't accept it because it doesn't run Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect? --- "Sorcerer, who is the master?" Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP) (Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.edu)
ANKGC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (10/21/88)
In article <[9.5]karl@ddsw1.alt.next>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM ([Karl Denninger]) says: > >With regards to Next machines only being available to colleges: > >I hope Jobs comes around to reality soon... He has and I hope the sooner you do the better. . . . > >Sorry, but I won't develop, sell, or permit the use of our software by >colleges until and unless they agree to abide by our copyright, and the law >contains the teeth to force that complience. The university market >represents too little money to gain our full support. Great try next time to convince your C.e.o or VP MArketing to announce "Sory no Universities....". >Also -- how about GNU? Since GNU C is part of the package, can I sell my >product that I compile using this compiler? Or must I follow the GNU >General license with regards to my product if compiled using that compiler, >essentially reducing the value of the product to zero? If the second case >holds true (ie: you can't really resell compiled binaries) then Jobs has >just slammed the door -- if I have to sell SOURCE code in order to get >around the license problem, the cost of providing the software to a client >has just tripled (from their perspective, since they cannot buy a binary)! > >If Jobs wants this machine to succeed, he _must_ market to the general >consumer. You can bet that Sun and DEC are working on something to compete >with the NEXT box -- and that you and I will be able to buy that product. > >-- Karl (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM) >
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM ([Karl Denninger]) (10/22/88)
With reference to hedrick@athos' article and piracy by universities: [Short aside: A university was recently found not liable for a widespread copyright violation which was knowingly committed] If universities don't regard piracy as "ok", and the college in question has taken steps to prevent a recurrance, why did they not agree to pay for the illicitly duplicated copies? The way I read the decision, you can sue to obtain an injunction which will prevent _further_ theft. You cannot do anything at all about the theft which occurred before you found out (and filed said suit). Now, if the university in question really did commit an honest mistake (unlikely, most software has a prominent copyright notice!) then they should own up to it, pay the author (or publisher) his/her due, and go about their business. Instead they went to court, fought tooth-and-nail, and by God, for the most part prevailed! I would have to say that pressing your point in a court of law is certainly "belief in the concept" you are defending.....in this case, the right to duplicate copyrighted works without compensation (and I would presume for resale as well, directly depriving the publisher of income; when was the last time anything in your local college bookstore was free?) I guess the software producers need to contractually enforce these provisions, and ensure that said contracts are signed before the college is allowed to purchase even _one_ copy of said software products... I do know that I would want such a contractually enforcable promise in writing for our company before delivering any of our intellectual property to an educational institution.... -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM)
bzs@xenna (Barry Shein) (10/23/88)
From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM ([Karl Denninger]) >With regards to Next machines only being available to colleges: > >I hope Jobs comes around to reality soon... > >Failing to serve a major market segment that wants to purchase his machine >(ie: you and I, folks) is a big, big mistake. Being arrogant and saying >"you want one, go to college!" is not the answer. My guesses are that: A) The system is tailored to a specific form of University usage more than meets the eye (eg. the only real purpose of the removeable optical media is to be able to walk your world around campus and use any machine, for the rest of us we'd find the disk inadequate in speed etc as we wouldn't reap the benefits.) B) He's more or less sold all the machines he expects to be able to manufacture in the next year or two to commitments from Universities, so it's a kind of sour grapes comment from him. C) (More Cynical) He wants to tell you *you* can't have one, people fall for that kind of stuff. D) He's projected a marketing and support organization that can only adequately deal with University environments, such as having them provide their own service etc. Companies might be able to do this, but he may have found they are not willing to do this and would rather buy machines with full, external support. Note that this may not be a flippant decision, one of the hardest things about getting into the computer manufacturing business is figuring out, when you're small and new, how the heck to service that one machine in ColdWater Flats and not lose your shirt on such systems. This is particularly difficult with small, inexpensive systems where the margin is tiny. It could require one full-time person sitting in ole ColdWater waiting for a phone call, or flying people in when there's a problem. How could you do that for less than, say, $100K in equipment? Again, return to factory may be unacceptable in such situations. I dunno, you might be right, he might be wrong, but I think those reasons above, if true, (one more comma in this sentence and...) could belie some motivations which are understandable. (whew!) -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (10/23/88)
Don't be a twit. If NeXT is only sold to the Universities and you don't trust Universities to not pirate your software, then why are you concerened? Second, before you go around blasting the FSF, why don't you take the thirty seconds it takes to read the Copyright notice. You will find out that the objects produced by the compiler and the included libarary routines are not subject to the further FSF copyright. -Ron
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM ([Karl Denninger]) (10/25/88)
Regarding ron@ron's calling me a "twit": You've been sent some mail. Can we focus on the issues here and not get into a flamefest and name-calling session? -- Karl (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM)
tower@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (10/25/88)
In article <Oct.23.12.21.15.1988.11889@ron.rutgers.edu> ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: ... |Second, before you go around blasting the FSF, why don't you take the |thirty seconds it takes to read the Copyright notice. You will find out |that the objects produced by the compiler and the included libarary |routines are not subject to the further FSF copyright. | |-Ron This is only true where the "included library routines" are the "standard libraries that accompany the operating system on which the executable file runs." (to quote from the GNU CC GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE). If any of the GNU library routines are used, source for the entire executable must be available under the terms of the license. If you are unhappy with this, then use the standard libraries mentioned above. Please don't discuss this further in this newsgroup, it has little to do with NeXT. The license is a file called COPYING. I advise you to read it. You should also seek the advice of your lawyer, if you wish to not make your source freely redistributable under the terms of the GNU PUBLIC LICENSE. General information on the GNU Project is available from: gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu enjoy -len
bzs@encore.com (Barry Shein) (10/26/88)
>If universities don't regard piracy as "ok", and the college in question >has taken steps to prevent a recurrance, why did they not agree to pay >for the illicitly duplicated copies? > >The way I read the decision, you can sue to obtain an injunction which >will prevent _further_ theft. You cannot do anything at all about >the theft which occurred before you found out (and filed said suit). > >Now, if the university in question really did commit an honest >mistake (unlikely, most software has a prominent copyright notice!) >then they should own up to it, pay the author (or publisher) his/her >due, and go about their business. Instead they went to court, fought >tooth-and-nail, and by God, for the most part prevailed! The decision was, as I understood it, that UCLA could not be held liable under the copyright law because the law specifically excluded them, as a state institution, from such liability. Now, given that, I don't understand if you are trying to make a legal or moral point (you do understand the difference?) UCLA was right under the law, and the court asserted that. Was it wrong to go to court (tooth and nail?) to discover this? Was it wrong that they were right?! The vendors have a right to try to have the law changed, but no one kept the facts of the law from them all these years etc. It might be worth pondering what sort of situation we have here when an industry seems to be wholly dependent upon the govt to enforce their profits via police power. There are very few such industries, even the book publishing industry is mainly concerned with having their works republished, not obsessed with two people reading the same book causing them to lose one sale. -Barry Shein, ||Encore||