Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:44456 comp.sys.next:4415
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!okstate!norman
From: norman@a.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: What do I want to see in the Apple of the 90's?
Message-ID: <5225@okstate.UUCP>
Date: 16 Dec 89 16:18:57 GMT
References: <2179@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater
Lines: 27

From article <2179@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by mccoy@aristotle.Berkeley.EDU (Jim McCoy):
> It was not difficult for this software base to grow on the Mac, and
> because the NeXT is not a programmer-hostile as the Mac was, I expect
> that the NeXT softare base will soon rival the Macs [...]

On the contrary, it was *EXTREMELY* difficult for "this software base
to grow on the Mac." It took a lot of effort on Apple's part to convince
software developers to write programs for the mac; Then it took a lot of
support from Apple to see that the developers completed their projects. 
To quote Guy Kawasaki "Apple dedicates over 150 people and spends over
$20 million per year to support developers. That's about 140 people and
$18 million more than any other [hardware] company." 

Commercial software houses care very little about how programmer-friendly
the NeXT is. The bottom line is usually the deciding factor. 'Are there
enough NeXT users who need my particular product and are willing to pay
a price that allows me to make a substantial profit?' NeXT must convince
them that either this is the case or this will be the case by the time
the project will be completed.

Software for the NeXT box won't just happen. NeXT must expend much effort
and resources to build a software base. Is it?
-- 
Norman Graham                            Oklahoma State University
  Internet:  norman@a.cs.okstate.edu     Computing and Information Sciences
      UUCP:  {cbosgd, rutgers}           219 Mathematical Sciences Building
              !okstate!norman            Stillwater, OK  USA  74078-0599