Xref: utzoo comp.sys.atari.st:30870 comp.sys.amiga:66044
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!ncar!mephisto!mcnc!decvax.dec.com!maxx!tyager
From: tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Toothless Byte (Re: TT desktop & prices)
Summary: We're getting toothier every month...
Message-ID: <82@maxx.UUCP>
Date: 17 Sep 90 02:59:12 GMT
References: <49561@brunix.UUCP> <2288@atari.UUCP> <14445@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Organization: MAXX: Tom Yager's UNIX lab, Amherst, NH.
Lines: 179

I take a week off for Video Expo, and all hell breaks loose!

In article <14445@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
> In article <2218@trlluna.trl.oz> soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) writes:
> >yegerleh@handel.ecn.purdue.edu (James D Yegerlehner) writes:
> 
> >The Byte review for the A3000 was a pathetic three page write-up that
> >talked about little more than the hardware specifications.  Hardly
> >anything about the Amiga software features, etc.  

Not much was said about 2.0 because our VERY early pre-release version wouldn't
run for more than a few minutes, and we had no 2.0-compatible applications, 
except for AmigaVision. Bob (the author) talked about everything he worked
with. It's appropriate not to discuss those things you can't see and touch.

> In BYTE parlance, at least, that A3000 article was a preview.  

Actually, BYTE parlance refers to it as a "First Impression." Same thing.

> They claim that
> they won't do a full review on anything until it's actually shipping and 
> available in its finished form.  That's probably not a bad policy; we could 
> have changed all kinds of things... 

Right on--we've run early full reviews of supposedly "golden beta" hardware
and found that the vendor changed EVERYTHING when it went to market. 
That's why there is a clear distinction in the magazine between reviews 
and First Impressions. We aren't trying to fool anyone. A FI is just our 
way of introducing a new product to the public.

We also avoid injecting much opinion into FIs because it pisses the vendors
off. I'm sure you would have enjoyed an article that included "...the system
crashed every few minutes, and virtually all the Amiga software we
tested wouldn't run on the 3000." You'd have been livid, and rightly so,
because it isn't fair to fling knives at something that's still under
development.

> Of course, that's not at all to say they couldn't have done a more complete
> job.  The 15+ page AmigaWorld article was finished at the same time (early
> copies of both mags were available at the A3000 launch).  

We gave the 3000 the same amount of coverage as any other First
Impression; actually, it got a little more. Our FI of the Apollo 2500, which
was arguably just as important (maybe moreso--it kicked off the low-end UNIX
workstation market), got two pages.

AmigaWorld lives or dies by virtue of the Amiga's success. Of course they gave
it 15 pages. If we were a single-platform mag, we'd make a big fuss over the
latest box, too. Nothing wrong or dishonest about that; we all need to make 
a living.

> ...while the BYTE staff does the previews, they often count on contributors
> to do the actual review (at least, that was the case for the A2000).  So you
> often don't see much in the way of a review.  

I wouldn't say that's true. When we go outside the magazine to do a review,
it's because we (the editors) feel that an outsider has more expertise. We try
to find experts to do our reviews. We don't always manage, but there has been
some excellent work in the past few months. We have also been doing a hell of
a lot more testing and writing in-house. Virtually all of our UNIX workstation
pieces are handled that way. Future Amiga-related articles probably will be,
too.

> Any BYTE has roughly a five month
> lead time.  Given that A3000s first shipped in mid June, I wouldn't expect to
> see an actual review until the November or December issues, at the earliest.
> If at all.

Our lead time is four months, and we've got changes in place to trim it to
three. Vendors aren't the only ones aggravated by that.

I don't think we've scheduled a 3000 review. We received our loaner about
a month ago, and we're starting to get some software and accessories together
for it. The rule is, if you can't say much more than what was said in the
First Impression, don't bother. Right now, that's the case; there isn't much
we can add until more 3000 (and 2.0)-specific software and add-ons start to 
appear.

Of course, not being in the "Amiga department" per se, I'm only speculating.

> >Hopefully, the TT will get a more thorough review.
> 
> Maybe it will.  If the TT is as out in force as the Atari folk claim, it's 
> really too late for BYTE to do their typical preview on it, unless they just
> haven't found the space for it yet (hey, wouldn't want to have to displace 
> Yet Another PClone review just to write up a few pages on something with a
> hope of being a little different).

Atari has a reputation of being uncooperative with non-Atari-specific mags. We
have never, to my knowledge, gotten a review unit of ANY recent Atari machine.
We ask, brother do we ask, but we never get a response.

As for displacing a PC clone review, balderdash! Open any recent issue 
of BYTE, and you'll see reviews of software development tools, UNIX 
workstations, Mac stuff, graphics hardware...PCs get a lot of ink because
they are rolled out more quickly than any other type of computer, but we go
out of our way to make sure that other platforms get covered. If anything, we
kill PC clone reviews in favor of something more interesting.

We recognized some months ago that people were starting to see us as strictly a
PC book. So, we're changing. Lots of changes are already in place, but 1991
will bring an almost entirely new BYTE. I won't give away any secrets, but
we're working to bring back a lot of the nuts-and-bolts, technical leadership
that made BYTE so popular way back when. It's already happening. Check out the
September (if you can lift it) and October issues for a few tastes of things to
come.

> >I can't see why anyone should worry about what Byte says anyway
> >(except from a marketing viewpoint).  

Eventually, EVERYTHING boils down to dollars and cents. The reason 500,000
people read our magazine, and we sell millions in ads every month, is that
we ARE taken seriously. I get calls all the time from readers asking for
advice about UNIX systems and software, and I know the other editors are all
in the same boat. I'm busy enough that I figure somebody must be paying
attention.

> 
> BYTE is good exposure, since lots of computer folks read it, and it still 
> hangs, albeit a bit tenuously, to its claim of multiple platform coverage.

I assume you call our multi-platform coverage "tenuous" because it hasn't
included much Amiga. Well, that's about to change. No details there, either.
Wait and see.

> >The so-called `Journal for Small Systems' has gone done the tubes with 
> >regards to any useful technical or intellectual articles.  
> 
> That's true, but unfortunate.  Back in the 70s and 80s, BYTE was kind of a
> Scientific American of small computer systems.  Lotsa good stuff, technical
> stuff written so that you didn't have to be an expert to understand it.  Now
> a days it's about as technical on computers as "Car and Driver" is on cars;
> lots of reviews and editorials, nothing hardcore.  There's nothing wrong with
> that, but in the case of BYTE, there's no adequate replacement available for
> what BYTE once was.  It's a shame when progress means going retrograde.

I hate to harp, because I know virtually everyone reading this is saying,
"yeah, right." But McGraw-Hill, the company that publishes BYTE, likes to make
money. A lot. And any time they start to see our market share decline, they
demand that we take steps. We are taking steps, radical ones. Everything from
playing with the cover (little things) to purposely stepping up our UNIX
coverage (big things). We're constantly doing research, polling our readership,
and trying to make the magazine something more people want to read. You've
pointed out a few of our flaws, and we are aware of them (and many others).
You can't imagine how hard we're working to improve.

Before you complain about how BYTE has lost its teeth, go out and buy the
September or October issue. Read it, thoroughly, and if you still don't like
what you see, write and tell us why. Every letter we get is read and 
discussed, and readers' opinions DO have an impact on how the magazine works.
That's not self-serving bullshit, it's the truth. When you get to be BYTE's
size, you thrive or perish on the basis of reader satisfaction. One piece of
advice: Don't send a vague letter ("Howcome you don't have more Amiga
coverage? Huh?"). Tell us what you want, why you want it, and why you think
there are others out there who agree with you. I've seen changes made
based on a single, convincing letter.

There is a new BYTE coming, and I think that the readers we've lost over the
past few years will start coming back. Oddly, when I started working for BYTE,
I didn't read it. I, too, was a fan of the "old BYTE," back in the days of
Ciarcia and the like. Now, I'm up to reading about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the
editorial material, and it's really starting to grow on me again. Comments from
people I run into at trade shows seem to support that trend.

Hell, they'd pay me whether I read it or not. Probably 50% of my job is
reading, and I don't like to waste that time. Only recently have I found that
BYTE is hitting the targets I, as a reader, want them to hit. My targets
haven't changed--BYTE has. And will.

> >Soh, Kam Hung      email: h.soh@trl.oz.au     tel: +61 03 541 6403 
> -- 
> Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
>    {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy

-- 
+--Tom Yager, Technical Editor, BYTE----Reviewer, UNIX World---------------+
|  UUCP: decvax!maxx!tyager          NET: maxx!tyager@bytepb.byte.com      |
| "I just bought...the Macintosh portable. And I took it back. Pain in the |
+--butt." --Harry Connick, Jr.-------I speak only for myself.--------------+