Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!info-mac From: info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) Newsgroups: ont.micro.mac Subject: Toolbox equates for peons Message-ID: <4280@utcsrgv.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-May-84 10:53:15 EDT Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.4280 Posted: Tue May 15 10:53:15 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 15-May-84 11:35:00 EDT Sender: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto Lines: 94 Date: 14 May 1984 06:38-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Toolbox equates for peons To: INFO-MAC@SUMEX-AIM, STERNLIGHT@USC-ECL, REICH@NYU-ACF1 In-Reply-To: Msg of 9 May 1984 04:27-EDT from Jerry E. Pournelle [Last message on this 'subject'..... Ed.] Let us set the record straight. I know of three cases of applications for "Developer Status." All were refused. I probably would have turned down one of them myself. The other two seem highly qualified, and if I were hoping to get software out for my system I'd have thought them owrth encouraging. I am pleased to hear from STERNLIGHT that there are apparent exceptions to what I was persuaded was the rule. One reason I ask questions on the net, or even make statements, is to find things out; unlike Dvorak, who recently bragged in his San Francisco Chronical column that "a columnist doesn't have to check his facts" I tend to do some homework before I publish. My interpretation of the facts remains my own business. I don't apologize for being wrong; why should I? On this net, one says what one thinks is true; one will get corrections soon enough. Isn't taht its purpose? Without information sources, how the devil will I know. On the other hand, it remains a fact that Apple did sufficient exhoration of hobbyists and hackers to make it a reasonable expectation from all three I know of who applied that they'd be accepted. There was also considerable hoop-lah about how much software would be developed, adn when; it was, after all, a major selling point. My suspicion is that Apple originally meant to grant "Developer" status to a far larger number of people, then found sales much better than expected. They didn't need so many discounted machines sold to get them far out on the learning curve for manufacture, so they could charge full price for more of them than they'd thought. They chose to do that. This is not an unreasonable decision. Most corporations probably would make the same decision. Whether it was a WISE decision is another matter. I repeat: certainly Apple would lose little by granting developer status to every Ph.D. gainfully employed in the computer business who applies. They would lose little by granting Developer status to any hacker with a good track record, even if the track record consisted of work on programs in other people's shops rather than on their own. Sure: they'd lose, say, 1000 full price sales, at most. That's a million dollars. No small sum. But if within that thousand there was one VisiCalc... True: the VisiCalc people had no special developer status. no one had. But the Apple II was a prety open machine, much easier to understand thd interface to. Is the Macintosh that simple? Apparently not, else there would already be some of that promised flood. I don't know where sternlight gets the notion that I dislike Apple. I don't much care what company competes with IBM so long as somebody does it successfully. I'm a little weary of the breathless hype, and VERY weary of the Apple-polished corporate image of the Good Guys who are somehow differently motivated, but I can make that statement about other companies I know of. If the Mac had 500K of memory and a second drive, then it would be worth $2500 and more; alternatively, it's worth a fair bit less in its present state. That, of course, is merely an opinion, based on considerable experience with a number of machines (including a Mac). Now: if Sternlight's angry little tirade is answered, then I too am willing to pass on to another subject. I alrady was; that's why I "changed the subject" after he pointed out that I was mistaken in one point of information. I hadn't know that I was supposed to acknowledge that I'd lost some kind of debating point; however, I'm perfectly willing to make that acknowledgement if it makes him feel better. Last point: does anyone know WHY it is taking so long to write useful applications programs for the Mac? One story we heard: Apple intended to do it all in house. They had not intended even Microsoft basic. Then, very late last year, they discovered that they were not going to be producing any useful software (other than the ability to produce 9 page illuminated manuscripts) before the Mac was to be releeased. There was panic calls, including to Microsoft; which is why the Microsoft Basic implementation is such a kludge (14 K workspace!). Anyone know whether or not that's true? Next rumour: AT&T will sell Macs with 256K chips. I keep hearing that. It makes little sense to me. I have no confirmations, only multiple sources. Anyone know? The main question remains: if it's so easy to interface with the Mac and write software for it, why has none appeared? Is it being held for COMDEX; or is it harder to write than was supposed?