gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) (10/24/88)
/ comp.sys.next / chavez@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Ramon Chavez) / Oct 24, 1988 / >... The operator would >ask the student to type a magic cookie to the program, which would then >generate a number based on the machine's unique Ethernet ID. Finally, >the operator would tell the student to type a special number, which would >turn the application into a full-fledged, full-function, authorized copy. > >The scheme has several advantages: ... (2) developers >would actually get paid for every active copy ... Oh no, they wouldn't. They would get paid for every DORMANT copy, since it will tie the software down to a workstation. There've been a lot of postings here that visualized a lab of NeXT machines where a student can just walk up to any workstation, insert their own optifloppy, and use it. If software is tied down to an Ethernet address, either the student has to carry their own CPU card also (since that's where the Ethernet port is) (hmmm.... interesting ARP implications here :-), or EVERY workstation has to be licensed for all possible software. So, you get exactly the same situation that is prevalent now in the networked world: software vendors charging you per seat, whether that seat is occupied or not. (For example, the company that puts "The Network Is the Computer" on every glossy they produce, then proceeds to multiply all their software prices -- purchase as well as maintenance -- by the number of "terminals" on that "computer".) Yuck!!!! Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept. {oddjob,gargoyle,att}!nucsrl!gore
rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) (10/25/88)
" He [Jobs] suggested that certified "developers might include their software (together with on-line documentation) "on an optical disk to be shipped by NeXT with each machine. Clearly, "a great many applications would fit on a single magneto-optical floppy. "The applications would do everything except save data. Students could "play with the programs as much as they like. After deciding to purchase "a particular piece of software, the student would call an 800 number "and give his Visa/Mastercard number to an operator. The operator would "ask the student to type a magic cookie to the program, which would then "generate a number based on the machine's unique Ethernet ID. Finally, "the operator would tell the student to type a special number, which would "turn the application into a full-fledged, full-function, authorized copy. "The scheme has several advantages: (1) developers wouldn't have to shrink- "wrap, ship, and market their products through middlemen; (2) developers "would actually get paid for every active copy; and (3) the $50 cost of "the magneto-optical material becomes irrelevant. " "R. Martin Chavez "Stanford University School of Medicine The scheme also has several BIG DISADVANTAGES: Lets suppose that I'm a developer who started programming (or wanted to port their software to ) for the NeXT Machine after a year or two. Well then All the people (the entire potential market would not have a copy of my software) In order to combat this problem NeXT would have to release a new disk (with ALL of the previous applications) to everyone ( or ideally to NeXT dealers, although why bother going to the trouble of releasing a "demo" version if everyone has to go to a dealer to pick up all the new stuff anyway? Why not just have the dealer demo things and then SELL them, so that the dealers can make money for their effort!). Now ask yourself this: Just How often will NeXT be able to release another disk? Once a month? Once every Two or Three Monthes? Also If the user only has a few disks (I don't know anyone really needs more then 500MEGS of storage for personal usage) then they are opening themselves up to viruses by going to the dealers (as was previously mentioned), and also the copying would have to go file by file (since you can't copy over my old data and programs), and with the optical drive that would be a slow process indeed... Also consider the problem of new versions (or do you expect the developers to be perfect the first time?), you have to wait for another disk release from NeXT and then you have to go through another validation proceedure etc. Also, this removes the possibility of mail order software, which is my prefered methiod of buying software (since the prices are a lot better and I generally know what programs I want to get so I don't need the help of a dealer...). Also the issue of pirating comes up, I know of a few IBM (yuck) programs that had a similar system, and they ended up being pirated quite a bit, since any hacker (given time) could take out the checks (no mater if they were or were not machine dependent) or just find the algorithm to generate the proper "Magic" word... All in all a floppy drive is one of the most useful things for a computer because of the following: A> Floppies a a cheap means of distribution. B> Floppy drives are cheap ($100-$200) so one can easily have 2 and thus copying is also easy (How many people could afford 2 optical drives?) C> Floppies are a convienient means of moving data from DIFFERENT computer systems (Although formats are different most drives are capable of reading data with the proper software, now how many people do you know with optical drives for their computers? Not a whole lot I'de immagine) These reasons are more then enough to justify (necessitate?) floppy drives for personal computers, (BTW IBM RT's have floppy drives, so there is some precidence for work stations having them too.) In any case if NeXT ever wants to move into the home market then they'll NEED floppies. +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Disclaimer: Me? Post That, impossible I never post anything... | | TypetoYouLater(Everyone); --> "functional Good bye".... | | Rick Golembiewski [ Pronounciation is half the Battle, spelling the other] | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
chavez@ksl.stanford.edu (R. Martin Chavez) (10/25/88)
Steve Jobs also announced, at the developers' luncheon, that it's time to confront the issue of site-licensing (before the Supreme Court confronts it for us). NeXT, I believe, wants to address the problems of software distribution (by tying copies to Ethernet addresses) AND site-licensing, though not necessarily with the same means. R. Martin Chavez Stanford Medical School
mark@navtech.uucp (Mark Stevans) (10/25/88)
In article <0XMtqn087E-0A14EYk@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: > Floppy drives are cheap ($100-$200) so one can easily have 2 and thus copying >is also easy (How many people could afford 2 optical drives?) > >In any case if NeXT ever wants to move into the home market then they'll NEED >floppies. But NeXT has not announced any plans to enter the home market. The intended configuration of NeXT machines seems to be bunch of them on a LAN in some University computer center. It will be quite easy to backup your optical disk over the Ethernet from one NeXT machine's single optical drive to its neighbor's. I hope we will ease up on these intensely egotistical "Boy I'm gonna tell the world where Steve Jobs screwed up" articles until we get first-hand experience with the product. At present, almost everything we know is based upon his own meticulously scripted (and scored) product introduction and press releases -- I have enough confidence in the man (albeit second-hand) to trust him not to make mistakes of such magnitude that they would be intuitively obvious to outsiders such as ourselves. In all probability, these mysterious gaps serve to conceal his genius, rather than to reveal his ignorance. Mark "Spiny" Stevans spar!navtech!mark
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (10/25/88)
In article <0XMtqn087E-0A14EYk@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: "" He [Jobs] suggested that certified ""developers might include their software (together with on-line documentation) ""on an optical disk to be shipped by NeXT with each machine. Clearly, ""a great many applications would fit on a single magneto-optical floppy. "... "The scheme also has several BIG DISADVANTAGES: "Lets suppose that I'm a developer who started programming (or wanted to port "their software to ) for the NeXT Machine after a year or two. Well then All the "people (the entire potential market would not have a copy of my software) In "order to combat this problem NeXT would have to release a new disk (with ALL of "the previous applications) to everyone ( or ideally to NeXT dealers, although "why bother going to the trouble of releasing a "demo" version if everyone has to "go to a dealer to pick up all the new stuff anyway?... And then, look at it from the user's point of view: I buy a next machine with the software-disk, and after 2 years I want to buy one of the software packages. I *really* don't want the 2 year old version of that package which I have on my disk. So I would have to pay $50 to get a new disk just to get the one program... Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | att!grumpy!debra | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (B.SZABLAK) (10/26/88)
In article <0XMtqn087E-0A14EYk@andrew.cmu.edu>, rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: > Now ask yourself this: Just How often will NeXT be able to > release another disk? Seems to me that if your computer has a unique ID then there is no need to restrict yourself to disks for distribution. You could send e-mail to a distributer with a software order which he e-mails back to you. You run the demo system and see if you like it. THEN you call the distributer and give him your credit card number or what ever. After all, these disks are writeable...
bzs@encore.com (Barry Shein) (10/26/88)
>>The scheme has several advantages: ... (2) developers >>would actually get paid for every active copy ... > >Oh no, they wouldn't. They would get paid for every DORMANT copy, since it >will tie the software down to a workstation. > >There've been a lot of postings here that visualized a lab of NeXT machines >where a student can just walk up to any workstation, insert their own >optifloppy, and use it. If software is tied down to an Ethernet address, >either the student has to carry their own CPU card also (since that's where >the Ethernet port is) (hmmm.... interesting ARP implications here :-), or >EVERY workstation has to be licensed for all possible software. > >So, you get exactly the same situation that is prevalent now in the >networked world: software vendors charging you per seat, whether that seat >is occupied or not. (For example, the company that puts "The Network Is >the Computer" on every glossy they produce, then proceeds to multiply all >their software prices -- purchase as well as maintenance -- by the number >of "terminals" on that "computer".) > >Yuck!!!! > >Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu I *think* you missed the point here. The student wouldn't pay for the software until s/he wanted to use it, it would be on there more or less for free (unless your point is that the $50 cost of the disk is an issue?) S/he would then call a phone number and give a charge card number for the magic cookie and the card number would be charged. I don't know that the ethernet address was at all relevant, it could just as easily be a serial number imprinted on the disk to be read to the operator. It's not like authentication is a big issue, you are going to get charged for the software, right? What *I* don't understand is that this is supposed to be attractive due to its "instant gratification" aspect (ie. you suddenly got an urge for that game tucked away in there? Just run over to the phone and have it released!) BUT, a lot of software really requires manuals to get started with. I guess manuals can be had (perhaps some would be down at the campus bookstore, in a bull-pen, the library or borrowed from a friend), but if you have to wait for them to ship manuals the software may as well be in the same box in many cases, then again that begs the original question about distribution media, I'm sort of off on a slightly different topic (as much as I am enticed by Mathematica, for example, when I sat down to it w/o a manual I couldn't figure out how to do even the smallest thing, not a criticism!!!! just that I needed a manual or some way to know that a semi-colon or whatever was needed at the end of an expression and what a legal statement looked like, there may have been on-line help I missed.) Other than that, it still makes perfect sense to me, just that some folks were emphasizing the instant gratification aspect which seems small to me in most cases (maybe it would start a trend towards more "getting started" docs right on the disk, released with the software when the magic cookie is presented, sure, why not?) -Barry Shein, Possibly Rambling At, ||Encore||
chavez@ksl.stanford.edu (R. Martin Chavez) (10/26/88)
In article <4003@encore.UUCP> bzs@encore.com (Barry Shein) writes: > >What *I* don't understand is that this is supposed to be attractive >due to its "instant gratification" aspect (ie. you suddenly got an >urge for that game tucked away in there? Just run over to the phone >and have it released!) BUT, a lot of software really requires manuals >to get started with. Jobs suggested that manuals would also be distributed electronically, in Digital Librarian format. R. Martin Chavez Stanford Medical School
news@nud.UUCP (Usenet News Administrator) (10/26/88)
Ok, is the number that the sales operator gives me over the phone going to activate the latest release of the product? Very clever of them to include the future works of their programmers on the release disk. Oh, we will have to wait for the next 'official release' from NeXT that includes this particular product? No problem you say, the vendor will just send the update out on a (gulp) $50 disk. This is a serious concern. How many products have a stable shelf life? Certainly nothing being developed by the late night hackers at major universities :-) :-) :-). -- | @ @ // Save the Ewacs Society Dave Kinzer | | L // noao!nud!fbog!dbk | | \_/ \X/ "My employer's machine, my opinion." (602) 897-3085 |
jshelton@deimos.ads.com (John L. Shelton) (10/26/88)
WHy the fuss about manuals? Assuming the software comes on a 256mb disk, how much trouble could it be to use the Digital Library for a reference manual? (Yes, I know some people want to take the manual elsewhere to read....) =John=
jshelton@deimos.ads.com (John L. Shelton) (10/26/88)
Seems like it might be possible to use something like a CD-ROM in the NeXT optical disk drive; it could be pressed in a plant by the 1000s for $2.00 each (like any other CD-ROM), and used for software distribution, since the user doesn't really need to write onto a distribution disk. $2.00 each is pretty close to cost of distribution via floppy. I know the formatting/track-density/all-sorts-of-other-parameters probably aren't the same as for CD-ROM, but still should be possible with minor re-tooling. Wouldn't want to see what happens when the NeXT drive tries to write on a read-only disk. =John=
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (10/26/88)
In article <0XMtqn087E-0A14EYk@andrew.cmu.edu>, rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: > (I don't know anyone really needs more then > 500MEGS of storage for personal usage) I don't know anyone who ``really needs'' a computer, for that matter :-) Seriously, though, I don't think 500 MB is at all out of line for a serious information worker, though current user-interface technology might restrict your ability to use it to its potential. Just look at all the paper piled around you. A few filing cabinets add up to ~1 GB, and a sizable library runs into the terabyte range. If we ever hope to get on top of our information-handling mess, we're going to need _lots_ of storage. Until we have some rational way to make sure that once question X gets answered anybody who needs that answer gets it immediately, we can hardly imagine we have enough storage. However, storage is only one piece of the puzzle. If other factors limit its effectiveness (lack of standards, lousy displays, societal disorganization), then I suppose that just throwing more storage at the problem won't help. Maybe nobody ``needs'' 500 MB, but one thing is sure: everybody I know wants more than they have right now. That's because computer storage makes information more available, and hence more useful, than it is in paper form. Thus if more storage becomes available, people find ways to profitably use it. I could certainly benefit from having all the research literature in my field on-line. It certainly wouldn't fit in 500 MB, either. Even though I won't directly use _all_ of it, I can't predict exactly which of it I might need. The only safe solution is to make sure I have all of it. People who can use >500 MB right now include people doing graphics work, as well as musicians and composers. This is not just to handle their literature needs, but to save and distribute their output. Dan Mocsny Paper: the Curse of the Pharaohs.
gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) (10/27/88)
/ comp.sys.next / bzs@encore.com (Barry Shein) / Oct 25, 1988 / >>>The scheme has several advantages: ... (2) developers >>>would actually get paid for every active copy ... >> >>Oh no, they wouldn't. They would get paid for every DORMANT copy, since it >>will tie the software down to a workstation. > >[The student would] call a phone number and give a charge card number for >the magic cookie and the card number would be charged. I don't know >that the ethernet address was at all relevant, it could just as easily >be a serial number imprinted on the disk to be read to the operator. >It's not like authentication is a big issue, you are going to get >charged for the software, right? Not only is the Ethernet address relevant, it's the key point in my objection. Sure, you'll be charged for the software -- for activating one copy of it. What the software vendors don't want you to do then is be able to use that copy more than once at a time. At least the more reasonable software vendors have this attitude. The unreasonable vendors (who are, alas, the majority currently) don't want you to use it on more than one machine, period. If you want to use HerbaCalc (not a real product... as far as I know :-) on workstation A, you pay for it. If you come back tomorrow, and workstation A is busy, so you want to use workstation B instead, then you better pay for another copy of HerbaCalc for that workstation. THAT is what tieing the software to an Ethernet address does. It is despicable, but that's how it's often done. Tieing it to a serial number on the disk presents another problem: the disk becomes a copy-protection gadget. The "evils" of those damned things have been rehashed over and over on Usenet, so I don't dare get into it at any depth. The obvious disadvantage: how do you run a program distributed on disk 1 concurrently with a program distributed on disk 2? Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept. {oddjob,gargoyle,att}!nucsrl!gore
wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (William M. Bumgarner) (10/27/88)
It has been mentioned that one of the largest problems with the lack of a floppy drive (specifically, a 3.5" floppy) is that there is no easy way to back up the floptical... From personal experience, backing up on to 3.5" is not a solution. - it's miserable - fast backup programs don't verify writes... fairly easy to get an error. - it's slow, and there isn't much you can do during wait times because they don't last very long - it's difficult to manage that many discs; safe storage, labeling, etc. On the Cube, it would be even more miserable because of the high-capacity of a flopty disc-- it would take a lot of 1.4meg 3.5" to back up even a half full flopty. Backing up between two machines on a net or to a tape drie seems like not only a better solution, but about the only solution. b.bum wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu <Disclaimer; the relevancy of the back-up speeds that i have experienced may not be too terribly high; my back-up experience is with FastBack and DiskFit on a Mac... the mac has no DMA.>
bzs@encore.com (Barry Shein) (10/28/88)
From: gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) >Not only is the Ethernet address relevant, it's the key point in my >objection. > >Sure, you'll be charged for the software -- for activating one copy of it. >What the software vendors don't want you to do then is be able to use that >copy more than once at a time. At least the more reasonable software >vendors have this attitude. My apologies, I thought everyone was speculating but it's starting to look like they really will use the ethernet address as part of the verification, thus it may only run on one machine in the universe (eg. you can't use your friend's when yours is in the shop, with your software.) If that's true (and I still find it a little hard to believe) then it doesn't even qualify as idiotic, it would have to be improved to qualify at that high a level. The only out I see is that the O/S sets the "hardware" ethernet address on boot, so it's really just keyed into your disk (and that means that disk copies won't work unless you copy the whole disk and don't share an ethernet with the same disk, usually an easy thing to do.) DecNot required that ability cuz it calculated an enet address out of its node address, and everyone in the networking community agreed the idea was stupid as a rock. -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (10/28/88)
In article <344@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >In article <0XMtqn087E-0A14EYk@andrew.cmu.edu>, rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick >Francis Golembiewski) writes: >> (I don't know anyone really needs more then >> 500MEGS of storage for personal usage) >Just look at all the >paper piled around you. A few filing cabinets add up to ~1 GB, and a >sizable library runs into the terabyte range. Say what? That's so if you store it all as bitmaps, but that's a pretty dumb way to store most books. Let's say the average book has 50,000 words. I've usually found average bytes per word to be 6.5 to 7 bytes, so let's be conservative and say 8. That leads to 400,000 bytes per book. (And note I'm not bringing in Huffmann coding.) A sizable library is a few thousand books; let's say ten thousand. That leaves us with four billion bytes of storage for a very sizable library. Nowhere near the terrabyte range. Now, if you're talking about a public library, you can reach that range, but not with a professional or personal library. I'll grant that I've omitted graphics and index costs, but I doubt those would more than overbalance the omission of Huffmann encoding in the estimate above. Even if they raised the estimate an order of magnitude (take two, they're small) we would still be way short of a terrabyte. And according to this estimate, a Next disk will hold 671 books at 256M. -- Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim "What's bad? What's the use of turning? In Hell I'll be there a-burning! Meanwhile, think of what I'm earning! All on account of my name." - Bill Sykes, "Oliver"
gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) (10/28/88)
/ comp.sys.next / bzs@encore.com (Barry Shein) / Oct 27, 1988 / >My apologies, I thought everyone was speculating but it's starting to >look like they really will use the ethernet address as part of the >verification, thus it may only run on one machine in the universe [...] I WAS speculating. But the speculation was based on what I'd seen with software sold for Suns. Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept. {oddjob,gargoyle,att}!nucsrl!gore
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (10/29/88)
In article <5772@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: > In article <344@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: > > A few filing cabinets add up to ~1 GB, and a > >sizable library runs into the terabyte range. > > Say what? That's so if you store it all as bitmaps, but that's a > pretty dumb way to store most books. Dumb from the standpoint of storage requirements, but compression schemes shift the burden away from storage onto the processor. People won't abandon paper for electronic media until the latter have similar capability to present information as well as speed and flexibility advantages. And 98% of the world's recorded information is in printed form. Until we have some standard way to convert it all into compact logical page descriptions, the easiest short-term solution is to use bitmaps for some things. Yech. The biggest reason people like paper is because it delivers superb display quality. Paper won't go away if computers can only deliver 80x25 ASCII. You've got to deliver quality screen typesetting, you need quality grey-scale or color graphics, and you need to have display speeds approaching how fast you can flip through pages in a book. Sure, you can strip a book of all its bells and whistles and pack it onto a double-sided floppy. And wait around for it to decompress and show up on the screen. Whatever storage scheme you use, it has to be fast. That limits how tight you can pack it. I'm writing a book using LaTeX. I have about 1MB of ASCII source, and the book isn't all that long (about 300 pages typeset, and I'm not done yet). I have plenty of line drawings, but no photos. Running LaTeX on the source takes well over an hour on a Compaq 386. The .dvi file is larger than the source, roughly double. To make the book pleasantly readable anytime soon, the user needs the .dvi file. To exploit the searching capabilities of the computer, the user will want a full-text index, which will require 2-3MB. So 1MB of ASCII source generates 4-5 times as much storage requirement to deliver the information usefully. You probably could not compress this by more than half without paying an intolerable speed penalty. We can haggle over how we are going to store and present text, but graphics are the real problem. The need for graphics is not trivial, else we would have long ago tossed out our magazines and books and been happy with our character displays. Furthermore, the density of graphics in books reflects not only the need for them, but the costs and hassles involved in producing and reproducing them. If I had photos in my book, the storage requirements would be enormously greater. To accurately digitize a fine color print requires at least 4k by 4k by 24 bits. That's ~4 x 10^8 bits, or 50 MB. Say we have a fast compression scheme that cuts it down by a factor of 50. You still only get ~500 quality images on a CD-ROM. With suitable prestidigitation 50 MB on a printed page doesn't have to mean 50 MB on the disk. But the bottom line is the paper piles on my desk can show me those nominal 50 MB, and that's what I want to see, and quickly. We can always bring up sound and video if we find ourselves with more storage than we know what to do with. Static descriptions on paper do not really do justice to many fields of study. Especially skill-oriented domains such as medicine, arts, laboratory chemistry, etc. The information content of my paper piles is only a crude lower bound on how much information I could profitably use if I could get it quickly and cheaply enough. About library size: the on-line catalog at my university lists over 800,000 volumes, and I find what I am looking for about half the time. Obviously I won't live long enough to read 800,000 volumes, but an intellectual community needs fast access to a resource at least as large. Unless I had a very well-defined job that was about to get automated, I couldn't imagine being able to do very well with only the books I can personally afford to buy and store in paper form. Dan Mocsny
zimerman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jacob Ben-david Zimmerman) (10/29/88)
Well, if we can't call them disks or discs, we could always call them discks...:-) JBZimmerman! -- ___________ | "A flute with no holes is not a flute. A donut || | with no holes is a danish." || ||acob Zimmerman!+> <zimerman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> INTERNET === | <zimerman@PUCC> BITnet
bzs@encore.com (Barry Shein) (10/31/88)
From: ns@cat.cmu.edu (Nicholas Spies) >At $40/book that's $26,840.00 + $50.00 for the disc itself. Just the >author's royalties, figured at 15%, would make the disc cost $4,026 (after >all, why should the authors take a loss?). Therein lies the problem of very >dense media. Although your point is very good I think your figuring is high, authors don't get 15%, more like 1..3% depending on the track record of the author (first time authors often don't get any royalties, just a flat fee when the book is accepted.) Also, there will surely be a lot of titles on that disk for which no royalties are paid to authors (eg. classics.) I also think an average price of $40 can be safely dropped to $20, most of the volume in the publishing industry is in paperbacks anyhow and many classics are sold in paperback form for under $10. Remember that the overhead of the paper itself and printing/binding is eliminated so a lower estimate is justified. So I get: $20 x 671 x 0.02 = $268.40 as a lower bound, plus let's say $20 for the disk and copying ($50 is already a *list* price, profits should be calculated based on overheads) and we get under $300, fixed. So at $495 there's a decent profit in there for a fairly hefty collection ("SEND IN NOW...LESS THAN $1/book!") Beyond that observation I think it's safe to assume that the average household (or student for that matter) right now has far less than 600 titles on their shelves. So it wouldn't exactly compete with existing business but mostly create new business as these types of tidy collections become "must have" items for people, particularly with school-age children. (Note: I'm not specifically referring to NeXT here, just the general electronic publishing milieu.) -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
langford@reed.UUCP (Chris Langford) (11/15/88)
In article <3237@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> u545731798ea@deneb.ucdavis.edu.UUCP (L. Greg DeMichillie) writes: ] ]Which of course means that a REAL NeXT system costs $8500, since NeXT only ]sells two hard disks. The "small" disk is 330MB and cost $2000. I haven't ]even looked at how much the 660MB drive is. ] The "large" disk is $4000. -- Chris Langford {decvax allegra ucbcad ucbvax hplabs}!tektronix!reed!langford langford@reed.bitnet | "And to everyone else out there, | the secret is to bang the rocks | together, guys."