Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: A minor positive remak about Mac stuff in A+/InCider Message-ID: <15653@smoke.brl.mil> Date: 1 Apr 91 07:04:09 GMT References: <13823@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <1991Mar27.201136.6459@utstat.uucp> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 40 In article declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) writes: >But I wonder how many millions of dollars were lost due to software >piracy in the Apple II community? And what would be substantially >different now if that money _wasn't_ lost? My feeling is that the vast majority of pirated software would not have been purchased had copying it proven technically impossible. It may even be that more genuine sales were lost due to problems caused by copy protection (such as, inability to use with UniDisk, inability to load onto hard disk, unreliable operation, nuisance factor) than were gained by it. Some Apple II software publishers thrived (back when Apple II software was still a hot item) without resorting to copy protection. Perhaps one of the reasons that software publishers dropped the Apple II market while it was still viable was that SPA members all conspired to do so; at least many of them were publicly uttering false statements about the Apple II's capabilities (while continuing to publish for the Commodore 64!) Certainly, the universal perception that Apple was not much interested in the future of their own Apple II product line contributed significantly to the reluctance of many software publishers to invest further effort in Apple II support. Some Apple officers (Lee, Russo, et. al.) have given assurances that Apple would decide what to do about the Apple II product line and implement those decisions, whether it be to discontinue it or to actively support it. My guess is that they decided not to tell us what the decision was, which is exactly the problem we've all had with Apple's attitude toward the Apple II for the last several years. If they do intend to really support it, we all need to SEE and HEAR enough evidence of that to spur renewed interest on the part of third-party developers. Meanwhile, I have a really nice home computer system based around my IIGS, and it's just too bad that I have a limited choice of commercial software for it. Fortunately for my purposes, which involve developing my own software anyway, it appears that we FINALLY have a suitable development platform with ORCA/C 1.2. (Apple would have us buy a Macintosh instead, which is ludicrous.)