Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!apple!portal!cup.portal.com!Seitz From: Seitz@cup.portal.com (Matthew Eric Seitz) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: TOS 2.0 Message-ID: <35717@cup.portal.com> Date: 8 Nov 90 04:45:01 GMT References: <1238@digi.lonestar.org><1990Nov06.213749.13906@ecst.csuchico.edu><1990Nov 7.144925.10232@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <90311.172547PHB100@psuvm.psu.edu> Organization: The Portal System (TM) Lines: 26 On Atari's TT desktop competing with 3rd party developers: The best results seem to occur when the computer manufacturer develops a reasonably priced basic item (such as a peripheral or program). The existance of an item supported by the manufacturer builds consumer confidence by making the item widely available. Making the unit a basic model leaves room for other developers to enhance the product. Take hard drives for the Atari ST. When Atari produced a hard disk for the ST, that gave a baseline expectation for the capabilities of the machine. Consumer confidence is bolstered by knowing there is an easily available, manufacturer supported hard disk. On the other hand, by not underpricing the unit, Atari allows 3rd party developers to thrive by providing less expensive, improved version. Desktops work the same way. Atari's desktop will be viewed as the "regular" or "average" configuration. When people compare Ataris to Macs, Windows, or Amigas, they will compare them to Atari's desktop. It is therefore important that Atari's desktop compare favorably with these competing interfaces. However, Atari should only do the minimum necessary to provide a favorable comparison. It should not attempt to co-opt the 3rd party developers by implementing all of their improvements. If Atari simply undercuts 3rd party developers, they'll leave the market, and creativity is stifled. I'd rather see Atari bundle NeoDesk than simply copy all their features and leave Gribnif high and dry.