Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!nsc!pyramid!infmx!robert From: robert@infmx.UUCP (Robert Coleman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Shareware Mac Message-ID: <2716@infmx.UUCP> Date: 28 Nov 89 23:15:50 GMT References: <641@nixpbe.UUCP> <1989Nov26.172437.10709@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> <6997@portia.Stanford.EDU> <5466@orca.WV.TEK.COM> <3268@brazos.Rice.edu> Reply-To: robert@infmx.UUCP (Robert Coleman) Organization: Informix, Menlo Park, Ca. U.S.A. Lines: 116 In article <3268@brazos.Rice.edu> bro@eunomia.rice.edu (Douglas Monk) writes: > >A few points: > >1) In order not to violate Apple's copyrights, ROMS must be made available >for this guy by way of a cartridge. That is going to be expensive, so the >likely result is the shareware fee will be paid even less often than usual. > >2) In fairness to David Small and as an obvious business move, don't make the >cartridge steal his thunder. (His software has checks to make sure the ROMS >are in one of his cartridges and aren't EPROMS. Making a cartridge to get >around this like the Discovery cartridge tries to results only in OUTRIGHT >PIRACY of his software for use with the alternate cartridge. Also, if the >cartridge is compatible, VIRTUALLY NO ONE WILL EVER USE THE SHAREWARE >SOFTWARE OR PAY THE FEE: they'll just use his software and hurt his business >AND yours.) > >3) Comparing David Small to Lotus is laughably self-serving, the kind of >defense that pirates sometimes make: "No one gets hurt, only some big >business..." David Small is a small businessman trying to make a living while >producing outstanding technical achievements on a machine that much of the >world can easily afford to ignore. The market for STs in general is too small >to take the existence of such guys for granted: if they get burned enough, >they'll just go work somewhere else. We cannot afford that. Dave Small sells >STs with his work, and that helps keep my machine viable. > I cannot believe I am reading this. The hidden suppositions in this way of thinking are truly amazing: 1. DAVID SMALL IS A SMALL BUSINESSMAN AND THEREFORE DESERVES SPECIAL PROTECTION. Nonsense. There is nothing magical about a small businessman. Small businessmen should be subject to the same level of competition as everyone else; if they are good, they succeed and become big businessmen. If they are not good, then the person who can produce it Better, Cheaper is the one we "cannot afford ". Incidentally, when is the magical point when we decide that David Small is no longer a small businessman? Potentially, he stands to make a lot of money producing, in "cooperation :^)" with Atari, a very cheap Mac. Lotus was once a very small company with a big idea, too. When is it going to be OK to "steal David's thunder"? 2. DAVID SMALL IS A GENIUS WHO MAY FAIL IF HE FACES COMPETITION. Nonsense. Amazing how people who respect his accomplishments think he may immediately fall flat on his face because he faces competition. That doesn't say a lot for your opinion of him, does it? In fact, if he does face serious competition from someone (I personally do not think it likely) he will move onwards and upwards, produce new products, constantly push the technology edge, JUST EXACTLY AS HE IS DOING NOW! 3. SHAREWARE IS NOT OK IF IT DUPLICATES SMALL BUSINESSPERSON'S SOFTWARE. Hmmm. I wonder what shareware/freeware you own that you could have paid for, that could have supported a small businessperson? You may very well be consistent in this philosophy, but I guarantee most other people aren't. You using Uniterm, for instance? Gulam? Remember, even if a BIG company is issuing a product, it may have purchased the product for distribution from a small businessperson. Does that small businessperson have royalties? Will the company purchase any more products from a small businessperson who's products have been undermined by shareware/freeware? Are you against shareware/freeware as a concept? If it duplicates anything a profession group has done, it is going to hurt someone "small" (as opposed to big, not "David" :^) ) somewhere down the line... 4. UNSUPPORTED SHAREWARE WILL BE SNAPPED UP IN PREFERENCE TO SUPPORTED PROFESSIONAL SOFTWARE. Well, I notice Flash is still selling, in spite of glowing reviews and the easy availability of Uniterm. In fact, the competition to Dave would be in price points. Anyone who is willing to spend 400 bucks for a Mac will probably opt for the supported Mac emulator by the man with the big rep; anyone who is not interested enough to spend 400 bucks but might still want a Mac if the price is right and they don't care for much support will purchase the shareware (or just use it, as is the risk of shareware). They will not be competing in the same market. 5. IF DAVID GETS BURNED BY SHAREWARE, HE WILL MOVE ON TO SOMEWHERE ELSE. Where? Every computer I know has shareware/freeware. This is not an Atari-only phenomenon. Sorry, I think David is smarter than to assume that "moving on" will solve his problems. I'd be much more concerned that he might realize that the potentials to sell anything he does on more major computers is likely to gross greater returns... 6. THIS OTHER GUY IS NOT WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION. I may misremember this mail, but what I recall is that both these products were developed independently, and found different market niches (American vs. Europe). This other guy (I wish I knew his name! I'm not intentionally being insulting) got stomped on by Apple, and was put out of business. David has not been stomped on by Apple...yet. This other guy may very well be in the same league as Dave, but "nipped in the bud". Why does this make Dave more worthy of support? Just about the only thing I can agree with is that the product should check that the Mac roms are roms, not EPROMS. I think that this may be necessary, anyway, to avoid getting sued by Apple (it happened to this guy once, you know...Apple is quite prepared to do this if they can, and tie up assets if they can't). I am not interested in a Mac emulator at any reasonable price (OK, 10 bucks? Well, if I don't have to do any work...). If I was, I would personally use David's, because I would want the support on such a complicated product, and because I wouldn't want to build the necessary hardware myself. However, I find this "David Small is a Ghod and we must do anything to keep him happy" philosophy repellent and, in a backwards sort of way, insulting to Dave. I respect him (not worship) and I believe he will do just fine, competition or no. You should, too. Incidentally, has anyone asked Dave how he feels about this competition? I bet he's not particularly worried... Robert