brianr@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Brian E Rhodefer) (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun24.030715.511@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: (in part), > > My point is that, for Commodore to turn around the U.S. >market, they would have to put SO MUCH MONEY into the advertising >that they wouldn't be able to afford it. Think about it: we know >about the Amiga. How much advertising would it take to make a >large segment of America even CONSIDER the Amiga? It has >specialized niches, but it would take more advertising than >Commodore could handle to make things turn around. > From time to time, friends, distant relations, and other acquaintances ask me to recommend a make of "PC-compatible" computer. I tell them that I own an Amiga, loathe IBM and all its evil works, and am therefore not familiar with the specifics of the clone market. This heresy so shocks about half of these people that they clap hands over their ears and scurry away. The others usually smile weakly and ask just what what sort of computer an Amiga might be, hoping to distract me from overtly violent acts until the authorities can arrive. The first question these people put is always of the form, "Can the Amiga run XXX?", where "XXX" is overwhelmingly "Lotus 1-2-3". And, for the past two years, I've told these people that no, the Amiga doesn't run Lotus 1-2-3, because neither Lotus nor Commodore believe that the Amiga is a credibile enough business computer to justify the expense of porting Lotus 1-2-3 to it. For Lotus to have this opinion is perfectly understandable, but Commodore's lack of faith is much less so. > I take as my evidence the "Stevie" campaign. That cost >Commodore $14 million dollars. What did it do? It helped, but it >wasn't nearly enough. It lasted 2.5-3 months and had a reasonable >amount of coverage, without being overwhelming. It would seem >that $50 million would barely be enough for a year-round BIG >campaign. Commodore would go bankrupt doing that. I don't know if the figure is accurate, but the last time rumors were flying around as to whether Lotus would produce an Amiga port all by itself, the reason given for their decision not to was that it would require an investment of several hundreds of thousands of dollars, which they couldn't justify. One thing about several hundreds of thousands is that they're much, much less than 14 millions. If Commodore would subsidize the porting of Lotus (complete with Arexx port) to the Amiga, they would sell X number of computers as a direct result. And, in my opinion, X would be much larger than the sales generated from the "Stevie" campaign. My "market research", as woefully informal and unprofessional as it may be, suggests that the lack of a credible spreadsheet program for the Amiga is the single biggest obstacle to its acceptance by business people. Anyway, how 'bout this for a plan? 1) Find 997 more Amiga fanatics, each willing to invest $300 in a "Port 1-2-3 to the Amiga" corporation. Counting the contributions of myself and two of my friends, the corporation is capitalized at $300K. 2) The corporation plunks a quarter-mil down on Lotus' countertop, and asks for an Amiga port of 1-2-3. 3) The port will thereafter be Lotus' property to sell, except: 3a) Each of the original investors get a copy of the resulting product, with all upgrades in perpetuity. (Mailing the first copies out is where some of that other $50K went) 3b) The original investors get a small royalty on each copy Lotus sells (2 cents each, maybe?) Brian Rhodefer
es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/26/91)
In article <2279@tekig7.MAP.TEK.COM> brianr@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Brian E Rhodefer) writes: >And, for the past two years, I've told these people that no, the Amiga >doesn't run Lotus 1-2-3, because neither Lotus nor Commodore believe >that the Amiga is a credibile enough business computer to justify the >expense of porting Lotus 1-2-3 to it. > >For Lotus to have this opinion is perfectly understandable, but >Commodore's lack of faith is much less so. > You are making a lot of assumptions about what Commodore and Lotus are offering each other. We certainly have no idea what Lotus' price is for the porting, or how much "support" they would demand. I remember quite distinctly hearing rumors (they were much more than rumors) about talks between CBM and Lotus, although they apparently fell apart. >I don't know if the figure is accurate, but the last time rumors were >flying around as to whether Lotus would produce an Amiga port all by >itself, the reason given for their decision not to was that it would >require an investment of several hundreds of thousands of dollars, >which they couldn't justify. > >One thing about several hundreds of thousands is that they're much, much >less than 14 millions. If Commodore would subsidize the porting of Lotus >(complete with Arexx port) to the Amiga, they would sell X number of >computers as a direct result. And, in my opinion, X would be much larger >than the sales generated from the "Stevie" campaign. If it only cost a couple of hundred thousand of dollars then I'd agree with you, but I'd doubt it. > >My "market research", as woefully informal and unprofessional as it >may be, suggests that the lack of a credible spreadsheet program for >the Amiga is the single biggest obstacle to its acceptance by business >people. > The Amiga DOES have a "credible" spreadsheet package. Gold Disk's Advantage comes to mind. It is a "good" program, but it isn't high-end. It is good for what MOST Lotus users need, but most people insist upon far more power than they need. -- Ethan FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. Take one down, Pass it to ground, FE buckets of bits on the bus.
griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) (06/27/91)
es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > If it only cost a couple of hundred thousand of dollars >then I'd agree with you, but I'd doubt it. WordPerfect cost 3x or 4x that to port I believe. They did recoup their investment initially, but I certainly don't think 1-2-3 would sell as well as WordPerfect. -- Dan Griffin griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu
es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.181958.29770@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes: >es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > >> If it only cost a couple of hundred thousand of dollars >>then I'd agree with you, but I'd doubt it. > >WordPerfect cost 3x or 4x that to port I believe. They did recoup their >investment initially, but I certainly don't think 1-2-3 would sell as well >as WordPerfect. > How would you know how much WordPerfect charged? It isn't public information. You don't even say "I have a secret source". It doesn't raise your image to claim to know things that, if you knew, you shouldn't mention. Besides, word processing is a more generic-need market. Lotus would probably have a hard time competing in the Amiga market, not on the issue of software quality, but price. Gold Disk Advantage and <yech> MaxiPlan do what most people need. Lotus would need to count on bringing new users to the Amiga market, as I don't see them recouping their costs based on what we have now. -- Ethan FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. Take one down, Short it to ground, FE buckets of bits on the bus.
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (06/29/91)
es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes: >>es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >>> If it only cost a couple of hundred thousand of dollars >> >>WordPerfect cost 3x or 4x that to port I believe. > > How would you know how much WordPerfect charged? It isn't >public information. But it is public information. WP, even if they haven't quoted the exact amount they spent, has said that they had at least four, and possibly five or six, programmers working on Amiga WP at the beginning. Four programmers at $25K/yr (cheap - it might be as much as two or three times that much) amounts to $100K in cost of salary alone. Add in overhead, equipment expenses, and the like, and you can get to $300K *very* easily. Get a bit more real on the salaries and associated expenses, and you're right up around the half-million dollar mark. -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/29/91)
In article <25761@well.sf.ca.us> farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: >es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > >>griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes: >>>es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >>>> If it only cost a couple of hundred thousand of dollars >>> >>>WordPerfect cost 3x or 4x that to port I believe. >> >> How would you know how much WordPerfect charged? It isn't >>public information. > >But it is public information. WP, even if they haven't quoted the exact >amount they spent, has said that they had at least four, and possibly >five or six, programmers working on Amiga WP at the beginning. Four >programmers at $25K/yr (cheap - it might be as much as two or three times >that much) amounts to $100K in cost of salary alone. Add in overhead, >equipment expenses, and the like, and you can get to $300K *very* easily. >Get a bit more real on the salaries and associated expenses, and you're >right up around the half-million dollar mark. >-- WP also has Atari ST and Apple II versions. Sure, that's what it COST WP to port it, but there is no direct reason to believe Commodore paid the WHOLE cost of the port! <jeesh, I at least HOPE not 8> -- Ethan FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. Take one down, Short it to ground, FE buckets of bits on the bus.
griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) (07/01/91)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <25761@well.sf.ca.us> farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: >>es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >> >>> How would you know how much WordPerfect charged? It isn't >>>public information. >> >>But it is public information. WP, even if they haven't quoted the exact >[....] but there is no direct reason to >believe Commodore paid the WHOLE cost of the port! I never said Commodore paid $.01, only that it cost WP Corp. $X to port WP. I believe the discussion was along the lines 'would it be worthwhile to port product XXX given its expected sales?' I certainly don't think 1-2-3 would sell nearly as well as WordPerfect. BTW, I tried to email you (Ethan), but for some reason my machine doesn't know about your machine :) routeto also isn't working here. If you give me your bang address I'll send it that route. -- Dan Griffin griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (07/01/91)
In article <1991Jun30.193205.8985@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes: >es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >>In article <25761@well.sf.ca.us> farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: >>>es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >>> >>>> How would you know how much WordPerfect charged? It isn't >>>>public information. >>> >>>But it is public information. WP, even if they haven't quoted the exact > >>[....] but there is no direct reason to >>believe Commodore paid the WHOLE cost of the port! > >I never said Commodore paid $.01, only that it cost WP Corp. $X to port >WP. I believe the discussion was along the lines 'would it be worthwhile >to port product XXX given its expected sales?' I certainly don't think >1-2-3 would sell nearly as well as WordPerfect. > Somewhere way back in the trail of this message (way way back 8) someone made the point that if Commodore paid SuperBase to make the port, why couldn't they have paid Lotus. And then someone brought up Commodore having paid WordPerfect. That's what I was trying to respond to. Of course, I've probably lost the thread by now... 8-) >BTW, I tried to email you (Ethan), but for some reason my machine doesn't know >about your machine :) routeto also isn't working here. If you give me >your bang address I'll send it that route. > That's wierd, Columbia is directly on the internet. There might've just been a problem that night. I see you're a .edu as well. Try it again. If there is a problem then something is wrong on your end (or there is a REAL long problem going on). I haven't noticed any down time from my end. -- Ethan FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. Take one down, Short it to ground, FE buckets of bits on the bus.