Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!mordor!sri-spam!sri-unix!ctnews!pyramid!oliveb!sun!pepper!cmcmanis
From: cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: WHAT ATARI NEEDS TO DO...
Message-ID: <48977@sun.uucp>
Date: 10 Apr 88 05:03:08 GMT
References: <166leigh@byuvax.bitnet> <2059@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> <81@avsd.UUCP> <48536@sun.uucp> <92@avsd.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 51

In article <92@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes:
>    --> True.  Nevertheless, the software cost should be proportional
>    to the cost of the computer.  

I strongly disagree with this. Are you saying that programmers that write
software for lower priced machines should be paid less too? The size of
the market and the amortizing the cost of production should be the *only*
factors. If you ignore this rule you will go out of business, smart developers
already know this and won't even enter the market if you folks won't pay
what it takes to make a profit.

>> The Atari User community has to understand that it is impossible to stay
>> in business by selling a complicated, quality program for less then $200. 
>
>    --> Are you serious?  Tell that to Borland.

Dead serious, Borland made there original market selling Pascal to a very
hungry CP/M market. It worked and they got a good penetration. Now with
a market that is TEN TIMES the size of the Atari market they sell their
programs for $89.95. With a good general purpose program like a compiler
you can get maybe 25% penetration, with something like CyberPaint maybe
10%. Not to much to make a company on. You can sell things like games and
other one man/one year projects for less if they are published through 
a publisher that can absorb the production costs. 

>    --> Nonsense.  I used to work at what used to be one of the biggest
>    software houses, and I know how critical it is to beg and 
>    threaten ISVs to port their software to new boxes.  It is true
>    that ISVs probably won't port unless the installed base is
>    large enough, but they certainly won't port if they don't
>    get adequate support from the box maker.  And I'm not convinced
>    that Atari has done what it takes to persuade U.S. ISVs.

Used to be one of the biggest software houses? No, I suspect (yet I will
be the first to admit that I am not an expert on this) that the success
of a software company depends entirely on estimating whether a package
is marketable given the size of market and demographics of its participants.
If Atari was aggressively selling its machines into any particular market
one could use this information to target packages for those users. An
example of this is the TV studio graphics market that the Amiga has been
making inroads into. The people that buy these machines are 'accustomed' 
to software packages that cost several thousand dollars. But they are a
very small market. So as a software developer who has spent two years 
writing GizmoTitler you can expect to sell it for $1000 (assuming it 
offers some of the same features) and sell 100 copies to various people. 
Not so to someone who keeps complaining about price, price, price.



--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.