Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!rutgers!att!cbnewsd!tainter
From: tainter@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (johnathan.tainter)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Shareware Mac
Message-ID: <3346@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>
Date: 28 Nov 89 01:39:14 GMT
References: <5466@orca.WV.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: tainter@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (johnathan.tainter,ih,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 27

In article <5466@orca.WV.TEK.COM> jeff@quark.WV.TEK.COM (Jeff Beadles) writes:
>In article <6997@portia.Stanford.EDU> zimm@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dylan Yolles)
> writes:
>>- It would hurt the ST. David Small has done a great job with the Spectre,

>Does this mean that I should not go out and write a share-ware 
><insert generic type of program here> because it might hurt
><insert generic software house/publisher/author>'s business?

    [Analogy substituting Lotus for Spectre deleted]

>Jeff Beadles		jeff@quark.WV.TEK.COM

There are two significant differences here.  Lotus is sold for a premium price
so a shareware version could be expected to be successful and therefore
desirable and probably would be supported.  Spectre is reasonably priced and
therefore a shareware version is not going to be particularly competitive
and therefore should be expected to be poorly maintained.  Thus substituting
a poor piece of work for a good piece of work.

Lotus is sold high volume at high returns.  It would not be expected that
a reduction in its sales would destroy the company.  Spectre is sold low
volume with small margin, a reduction by 1/3 would probably be fatal to
Gadgets by Small.

--johnathan.a.tainter--
   att!ihlpb!tainter