Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!vanvleck!uwmcsd1!bbn!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!calgary!brinsmead
From: brinsmead@calgary.UUCP (Mark Brinsmead)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Midi Mega's
Keywords: The facts
Message-ID: <1684@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jun 88 20:35:15 GMT
References: <1073@atari.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Calgary, Calgary, Ab.
Lines: 65

In article <1073@atari.UUCP>, good@atari.UUCP (Roy Good) writes:
> In a recent posting, Keith Hedger flamed Atari's policy of marketing Megas,
> with particular reference to the Midi world. [...]

> The following is the response from Larry Samuels, Atari's corporate VP of
> Strategic  Markets, who has a special interest in the music market. I quote
> it verbatim:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Answer from the "guys at Atari"...
> In answer to the recent "FLAME" on USENET regarding Atari's Mega system sales
> requirements for music dealers: the Mega 2 and Mega 4 computers CAN be
> purchased by music retailers separately from laser printers. The Mega system
> sales program described in the message from Keith Hedger pertains to computer
> specialty dealers only. 

    Whoa! Wait a minute. I was going to respond to Mr. Hedger's posting myself,
in the form of a NASTY flame at Atari regarding the foolishness of "bundled"
laser printers. Then I stopped myself, saying "this cannot possibly be the 
case -- surely Atari's marketing department cannot be this reckless."

    Now it seems (from a *VERY* official source) that if I want a MEGA without
a laser printer, I'm going to have to buy it from a MUSIC store!!!  I hope that
this is simply an error in wording on the part of Messrs. Samuels and Good.
The problem is certainly not in MY reading, so maybe its their writing :-)

    At the moment, I'm still an impoverished student (income < 15000 p.a.) so
chances are, I'll have to wait awhile before getting a MEGA 4, and just suffer
with my 1040. (that or sell my car.)  

    However, when I do buy a new system, I will almost certainly *NOT* want to
by a laser printer to go with it, and will definitely not want to but an
ATARI laser printer. No offence, it just does not and cannot suit my needs.
Besides, I have access to laser printers in my office (and I won't likely take
a job anywhere that I won't have such access).

    Besides this, laser printer technology is OLD and OBSOLETE (I'm told)
and overpriced as well. The new solid state technologies are claimed to be
both cheaper and more reliable (at least according to BYTE, as far as you
can believe that...).  I feel that if Atari tries this bundling stunt, they
will very possibly be jeopardizing sales of a very worthy product (namely
the Mega ST's) simply for the sake of unloading a large stock (?) of printers
which would have sold just fine, if they had hit the market when promised.

> One would think that Mr. Hedger would collect his 
> facts carefully before launching such a vitriolic attack in error. 

   I certainly hope (for Atari's sake) that the basis for MY posting is
also erroneous (in which case I will happily retract any unkind statements
I may have made). While *my* information is an official (i think) statement
of one of atari's vice-presidents, my main complaint is with a single 
sentence which may have simply been stated incorrectly.  Perhaps somebody
out there will clear this matter up by telling us what Atari's officials 
policy regarding laser printers IS, rather than what it IS NOT.

> ... Atari appreciates the fervor indicated by Mr. Hedger, and his
> obvious concern for our strategic direction and distribution policy. We are
> concerned, however, that such misinformation would be placed in a public forum

   You have ever right for concern, and in fact, probably deserve an appology.

> and accordingly we request that in advance of such statements in the future,
> Atari be called and the facts of such perceived policies be confirmed.
> 

   What's the number? Perhaps spreading it around will prevent future errors.