Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!goya!turia!esink
From: esink@turia.dit.upm.es (Eric Wayne Sink)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: What if ? was:Re: Not another NeXT defector???!!!
Message-ID: <397@goya.dit.upm.es>
Date: 13 Nov 90 11:14:57 GMT
References: <2909@unccvax.uncc.edu> <396@goya.dit.upm.es> <108420@convex.convex.com>
Sender: newsadm@goya.dit.upm.es
Reply-To: esink@turia.UUCP (Eric Wayne Sink)
Organization: dit
Lines: 51

In article <108420@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
   >1) Companies do not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
   >   developing software for a machine simply because it has
   >   a "killer development environment."  They will do it only
   >  a if they see a market.  With an expensive, high-end machine
   >   like the NeXT, you have to sell programs for big $$$ to 
   >   survive.  The lack of inexpensive software keeps more users
   >   from coming to the machine.   

Good point.  I don't entirely agree, but I grant that my
assessment of what motivates a developer was a bit naive.
The market will be a driving force, no doubt greater than
the nice tools.  However, I take exception with the phrase
"expensive, high-end machine" as applied to the NeXT.  It
has traditionally been true that the words "expensive" and
"high-end" go together.  IMO, the NeXT works towards breaking
that relationship.  For this reason, I *hope* to see some
inexpensive software crop up from that machine.  If I am
lucky enough to get one, I will be developing some.

   >2) "Than" is not the same word as "then."  Not in Pascal, 
   >    not in English.  Please fix your syntax. :-)

My sig is a bit confusing.  I'm an American, this error
comes under the heading of "typo", not "lack of fluency". :-)

   >this machine, which has been a sales disappointment to Apple,
   >is the standard by which NeXT's prices are judged.

This is because the IIfx is the only thing that competes with
the NeXT in performance alone.  A fairer comparison is
strictly on the basis of the ratio of price / performance.
Here, obviously the Station beats the IIfx hands down, but
as I have said before, I think the Classic competes nicely
in this statistic.  Unfortunately, the Classic and the
NeXT are not in the same market.

   >In about six months we should see 68040-based accelerator
   >boards for the Mac II.  About six months after that we
   >should see cheap "brand X" 68040 boards.  Adding one of
   >these to a IIsi will give you a machine that blows away
   >the IIfx and is at least competitive with the NeXT for
   >far less money.

I'm looking forward to it, but I still want the OS advantages
of the NeXT on my Mac.  I know Apple doesn't like the idea,
but I repeat it : I'd like A/UX and MPW bundled with the Mac.
Eric W. Sink                       "Are you sure this would  |All opinions
Departamento de Telematica          not be time for a        |are mine and
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid   colorful metaphor ?"     |not necessarily
esink@turia.dit.upm.es              - Spock                  |yours.