Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!oresoft!rick
From: rick@oresoft.UUCP (Rick Lahrson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Technical excellence in publishing (or a lack thereof)
Message-ID: <73@oresoft.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Sep-87 14:11:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: oresoft.73
Posted: Mon Sep 14 14:11:59 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Sep-87 02:26:38 EDT
References: <13323@amdahl.amdahl.com> <467@esunix.UUCP> <67@oresoft.UUCP> <1488@gryphon.CTS.COM> <900@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>
Reply-To: rick@oresoft.UUCP (Rick Lahrson)
Organization: Oregon Software, Portland OR
Lines: 22
Keywords: publications BYTE Dr. Dobb's
Summary: Business at its best, eh? 8-)

In article <900@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> thornton@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ken Thornton) writes:
>Some recent revealing comments:
>> >>> Dr. Dobb's have chosen to largely ignore technically superior machines
>> See his column in Infoworld this week ? Raving about the Atari ST and
>> all but dismissing the Amiga as an "Artists machine".
>> >A note to Commodore:
>> >*** A D V E R T I S E ***  the Amiga!  Advertise it!  Then Advertise it!
>> >And Advertise it some more.  Ever notice?:  IBM advertises, in a BIG way.
>> >Ever notice?:  They're bigger than you, getting bigger still, and thriving.
>
>What conclusions can be drawn? Perhaps that:
>
>   1. Commodore does not heavily advertise the Amiga in the US
>   2. Publishers are to some degree responsible to their advertisers
>   3. ..and therefore publishers have largely ignored the Amiga

Good point!
-- 

Rick Lahrson  ...tektronix!oresoft!rick

Disclaimer:  If I ever speak for anyone but me, I'll warn you in advance.