Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!pyrnj!esquire!sbb
From: sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: MacApp Licensing Fee
Message-ID: <81@esquire.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-May-87 11:36:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: esquire.81
Posted: Thu May  7 11:36:44 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 9-May-87 04:32:24 EDT
References: <3113@sunybcs.UUCP> <174400030@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu> <727@apple.UUCP>
Reply-To: sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten)
Organization: DP&W, New York, NY
Lines: 44

In article <727@apple.UUCP> dgold@apple.UUCP (David Goldsmith) writes:
>Recently there have been some messages here and elsewhere complaining about
>the $100/year licensing fee for distributing applications developed with
>MacApp.
>
>It is not because we are greedy, since a fee of $100 per year per developer
>for an unlimited number of applications is not a way to get rich quick.  
>Rather, since MacApp is an important asset of Apple, and is only licensed to
>the developer (just like the system file and finder), there are legal
>requirements that we charge some kind of fee in order for the licensing 
>arrangement to hold up (I'm not a legal expert, so any questions on this 
>should be directed to Apple's licensing department).
>
>David Goldsmith
>Apple Computer, Inc.
>MacApp Group

And of course these ``legal requirements'' don't apply to Think Technologies,
right, David?  It's bad enough that you guys are charging hundreds and hundreds
of dollars (for what is admittedly a decent development system -- at least from
what I understand, since I can't afford it), but to have to pay royalties on
top of that?  How 'bout some _pricing_ for the rest of us?

When I use Lightspeed C to develop an application I don't think twice about
crediting Think for supplying portions of my code.  In fact, I'm happy to do
so because there are a number of programs which I could not have developed
without it.  Lightspeed C is an excellent development environment, extremely
well-supported (no charge for updating from version 1.0 to 2.0, unlike the
extra charges imposed on those who bought and helped debug the beta version
of MPW), and very reasonably priced at about $120.  No problems, no hassles,
no license fees, and just generally no BS.

So except that Apple's red seems to be turning bluer these days, what gives?
And please don't say that it cost so much to develop MPW that you need some
way to recoup your expenses.  That's what Lotus used to say about 1-2-3
(although they never said it while anyone from Borland was nearby... ).

I'm sorry if this sounds a little cranky, but I just had to respond, and this
is the way it came out.  Please realize that this is directed more at Apple
in general than at you, David, since I know you weren't personally involved
in these decisions.  But please do respond and set me straight.  I do want
to hear Apple's side.

- Steve