Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!orstcs!ogicse!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!utsmips!amdahl!james
From: james@uts.EDU.AU (J Boswell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: MacinTalk
Keywords: MacinTalk
Message-ID: <966@utsmips.csd.uts.EDU.AU>
Date: 5 Jun 91 09:25:35 GMT
References: <1991May29.085135.12717@netcom.COM>
Sender: news@utsmips.csd.uts.EDU.AU
Distribution: comp
Lines: 48
Nntp-Posting-Host: amdahl.ccsd.uts.edu.au
Organisation: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

jkatz@netcom.COM (Joseph Katz) writes:



>As you may have gathered from the above, there was a falling out between Apple
>and us.  The basic problem was that when the Mac II was under development, we
>went to Apple and tried to create a working relationship with them.  At that
>time, totally out of the blue, Apple demanded source code to MacinTalk, and
>flatly stated that they would not consider any form of compensation.  When we
>balked at that, they told us that unless we agreed to their terms, Apple would
>no longer support MacinTalk.  We did not agree to their terms, feeling that to
>do so would be to support the all too common practice of big companies 
>unilaterally and retroactively rewritting already agreed upon contracts.

My hearty congratulations. I believe you acted responsibly and with integrity.
It is good to see people striking a blow for contractors otherwise trodden on
by the big guys.

In my opinion Apple blew it. Having called their bluff I'd say that you've
made them look pretty silly. MACINTALK was GREAT !!! I don't think they know
what a winner it was for them. REALLY REALLY DUMB APPLE <:-)

> 	...							It's been
>so long that I don't remember if Rick was actually present in any of our
>negotiations, or if he is simply repeating what he has heard.  In either case,
>my intention is not to castigate him personally or to start a "you did this/
>you did that" sort of flame war, but to answer some of the comments that have
>come out of Apple regarding MacinTalk.


Very honourable BUT in my opinion Apple owes it to its customers (you remember
us Apple - we're your source of income !) to explain why they would deliberately
cause the obsolesence of LOTS of software, remove functionality from our
machines and remove yet another distinction between the mac and those other
boxes sold by people in blue suits.

Perhaps we should be "upgrading" to 4.1 or 5.3 to get speech synthesis instead
of moving to SSW7.0.


I know this sounds over the top Apple, but there is only so much Mac you can
erode away and I'm tired [:-O<-==dd of losing functionality with every 
"upgrade" of the SSW unless I buy the latest platform to run it on, and in this
case that won't even help.

James.
-----------------
Of course these are my opinions, my employer does'nt even know what a Mac is !