Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!emory!ogicse!qiclab!techbook!waynekn From: waynekn@techbook.com (Wayne Knapp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.graphics Subject: Re: Wayne's World (was: JMan Review: RENDER & Conclusion) Message-ID: <1991May30.070050.652@techbook.com> Date: 30 May 91 07:00:50 GMT References: <1991May18.001642.11147@crash.cts.com> <192b5f2f.ARN0fef@cbmami.UUCP> <1991May24.005621.3479@techbook.com> Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix Lines: 186 billc@cryo.UUCP (William J. Coldwell) writes: >In article <1991May24.005621.3479@techbook.com> waynekn@techbook.com (Wayne Knapp) writes: >>billc@cryo.UUCP (William J. Coldwell) writes: .>>directly to end users than we can selling to distributors and dealers". .>>Remember, I said "generally". Sometimes this method is used when the .>>marketroids feel that the product doesn't compete on a 1:? level with .>>other new/established products. Sometimes it's used to give the "aura" .>>of being more that it is. Sometimes.. ;-) .> .>That is pure bull. >Depends on your dealers and your package. There are some very excellent >Amiga packages out there that are handled by educated and experienced >dealers. This is also implying that your package is "best". While there a lot of software on the Amiga, esp. relating to graphics, there is really very little highend software. Take packages like TIPS, Alias, Wavefront, Pixar Renderman render and you see very few of these in dealers. Even the higher end software the Amiga does have is hard to get through dealers. (examples are Carigali, Animation:Jouneryman, TAD; all three which have been in the Commodore booth at Siggraph before.) >>Besides, going though dealers increases the cost of the product. >Hmm. I find it cheaper to go through dealers or (ack!) mail order than >to do direct to the source. This is because most distributors require a 60% discount off the price that the product is listed to sell for. So most people that go through dealers and distributors set the list price of the product 2.5x greater than the real price. That would mean that Animation:Jouneryman would list for $1250, still cheap for a full package, but alot for an Amiga program. However, we decided to sell direct to customers for the same price as dealers, hence the current price of $500. A dealer always marks up the price of software, how else can he make a living. Most companies don't sell direct, but we do. That is the difference. >>The only >>reason why we can affort to support a program like Animation:Jounery is that >>we have very, very low overhead. This is done by: >> >> 1. Keeping advertising/promotions to a minimum. >None - that's about as minimum as you can get. >> 2. Selling directly as possible. >You sell _only_ direct. >>$500 is very cheap for a program (really a complete set of programs) like >>Animation:Jounreyman. >It's not what you sell it for, it's what it is worth to the user. We do advertise, just not to you. We also do sell through some of our own dealers. We just don't see to dealers at 50 to 60% of our price. Also, Animation:Journeyman is worth $500 to a lot of people, maybe not you, but then you aren't one of our customers. >>AutoDesk's simalar system sell for $2995. Is that >>the kind of pricing you want? >Who is selling more? I'll put my money on AutoDesk. Price is not the >issue. You would lose, but anyway since it clear you don't have either product, why are you talking? Just to make noise? .>Again the beef is not the price, the beef is that Jason is upset because we .>sell the program for the same price to everyone. There is nothing to stop .>dealers from buying Jouneryman for $500 and selling for whatever price they .>can! >I recall some "personalized" protection involved here. Besides, it was also >the fact that "dealers" were out of the question in general. No, it isn't. Just requires an extra step. The product you sell to a dealers uses key disk copy protection, the user then must register to get the personalized copy protected version. >> What Jason wants is for us to sell him Jouneryman for say $250 and then >>he could sell it for say $400. >Gee, that sounds so unreasonable? That means that I would probably pay >~$300 for it mail-order. Yes, it is unreasonable. You see, he wants to be able to sell the product for less than we sell it for. Tough luck, the price of Jman is $500, and it won't go down. In fact if I have my way it will double within a year, or a least a much better version of it will carry a higher price. >>At that rate, our sales would have to increase by ten times before we would >>make any money. >Too much of a challenge? ;-) >>Why should we give away our modest profit? >To sell the 10x more that you need to when you lower the price. >>Almost all of our money goes back into the product. Since, I have access to sales figures, I can tell you that going though dealers would NOT give us then amount of extra sales needed at least at a lower price that would make dealers happy. >Yeh, you probably spend at most $40 on the whole package. The main cost is >feeding your developers (and we haven't heard too much from Ken lately - did >he die from starvation? ;-)) The whole 3DPro1.0 package cost ~$40, and I >can't fathom that your packaging is more extensive. You have no idea of what you are talking about. It is clear you don't know anything about the costs selling or supporting a product. Also it is clear you have no idea of who does what is Hash Enterprises. Just for your interest, the packaging cost is the least of the expenses. Anyway, as for Ken, he just refuses to reply to any more of these articles, because he thinks there are just too many people on this net just flapping their jaws without any brainwork. >>The only change we have made in pricing is NO DISCOUNTS to dealers. >That doesn't sound like a change at all. That was the issue to begin with. SO WHY THE SENSELESS FLAMING FROM YOU? .>People are .>welcome to resale the program, but they are going to lose money if they sell .>it less for less than we do. >Don't worry, they won't. .>The facts are, that direct sells have always accounted for a very large part .>of our sales. In fact we seldom made money on software sales to distributors/ .>gone belly up! Second it is very hard to get distributors and dealers to .>pay. They often delay paying and then later just return "used" software. .Hmm. If this were the case, then all of the Amiga developers who went >through distributors/direct dealers would be in the same position. This >just isn't the case. See above statement about "worth". Many Amiga developers have left the Amiga for the above reasons. The only reason we have survived at all is because we do so much direct business. << lots of senseless junk cut >> >You seem to be missing the point on how dealers work in this grand scheme >of selling products. You would be making the most money since your sales >would be direct. Your dealers would make the next largest amount, then >your distributors, then mail order houses. It's all based on quanity and >quality. Believe me, I know far more about dealers than you realise. First of all most dealers buy from distributors. Second, you have no idea of the kind mark ups involved along the way. Third if the wrold was as you think it is then we would be using dealers. .>>>Perhaps they don't want their ray-tracing engine .>>>compared side-by-side to Imagines... .> .>>Impulse has been in the ray tracing game longer than Hash, and that makes .>>a difference. Martin (IMHO) appears to be heading down the road of "let's .>>make the Amiga into some high-end animation workstation". At least the .>>features of his program tend to lead me to that conclusion. The only .>>problem with this approach is that you tend to leave the mid-level .>>renderer/animators out of the picture due to price and machine requirements. .> .>No. We are doing animation period. There is no high-end animation work- >>station kind of thing going on around here. .That's too bad, I thought that there was a direction that he was heading. .>So many people are hung up on ray-tracing. But the render is only 1/7 of >That's also too bad, since the output is everything. I'm not hung up on >Ray Tracing, that was last year... I'm hung up on Radiosity and Photo- >realism this year, so we'll have a Radiosity renderer available early '92. Output can only be as good as then input. Besides photorealism has very little to do with animation. >>However, rather than go that direction, let me >>say again that we are not a ray-tracing company but instead our focus is >>computer animation. >Then why was that option put in? Seems that if you didn't want to enter >the ray-tracing arena you wouldn't have a ray tracer. That's even what >AmigaWorld thought when they put JMan up there with 3DPro, Imagine, and >LightWave (which is not an RT - I hate comparing Macs and Oranges). Because ray-tracing is sometimes useful for animation. It is a useful tool, but it is a very long shot from being the whole game. Our Siggraph animation "Joyride" has very little ray tracing in it, but it looks great! Besides, who make AmigaWorld God, or who even cares what they think? Wayne Knapp -- waynekn@techbook.COM ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!waynekn Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257 Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks