WHAT ATARI NEEDS TO DO...
le...@byuvax.bitnet
they need to get rid of their game-machine image. To do that, they need
to form a new subsidiary that doesn't conspicuously bear the Atari name
and use it to market the STs, ABAQ, and UNIX-boxes and leave the Atari name
for the 8-bit machines and Game Systems.
Chad
Thomas Wolf
I hope this was meant as a joke. The problems that Atari is having with
regards to establishing themselves as a "credible" computer company goes
deeper than just their name. For Commodore, this strategy may have worked;
they made the Amiga name MUCH more prominent than the company's, BUT they
were successful with this because they changed their attitude towards their
customer (ie. they became more attuned to the customers' and developers' needs)
whereas Atari still treats customers & developers as they have for their
8-bit products: crummy.
I know I know, this is becoming yet another Atari-bash. But what else can I
(or we, in general) do? Oh we keep hearing promises from the Atari management
and the Atari guys that post to this net BUT after waiting for nearly TWO YEARS
for some of these promises to come true, I'm becoming too disillusioned to
believe in anything that Atari decides to announce. I'll believe Atari again
when they start fulfilling some of their promises and when they "grow up" as
a company.
As usual, these are my personal opinions. But it seems that numerous other
people share this view.
Tom Wolf
ARPA (I think): t...@cscosl.ncsu.edu
or wo...@csclea.ncsu.edu
John Kawakami -0^0-
and what about REAL names for the machines. 'st' is rather pasty and
boring.
how about 'the sturgeon micro from algae computers' little would
the buyer know it was a 1040st in a scaly gray case(-:
John Kawakami > c60...@buddy.berkeley.edu
Of course, there's no < -O~O-
guarantee it _won't_ work. > )o(
David Govett
It has been said before, but I'll repeat it because few seem to
have understood.
Except for a few hackers, most people buy computers as a platform
to run SOFTWARE. (Would you buy a TV if only crap were shown?
What am I saying?)
High-quality standard packages are NOT available in quantity
for the ST, and Atari doesn't seem to care. When they do
become available (e.g., WordPerfect), they cost more than they
do in the DOS world. I did not buy an ST to pay more for
software.
I'll repeat: SOFTWARE is paramount; the box is not.
le...@byuvax.bitnet
>In article <166l...@byuvax.bitnet> le...@byuvax.bitnet writes:
>>If Atari would like to be somewhat successful with their non-8-bit machines,
>>they need to get rid of their game-machine image. To do that, they need
>>to form a new subsidiary that doesn't conspicuously bear the Atari name
>>and use it to market the STs, ABAQ, and UNIX-boxes and leave the Atari name
>>for the 8-bit machines and Game Systems.
>>
>>Chad
>I hope this was meant as a joke. The problems that Atari is having with
nope. no joke. Of course you are right, the problem isn't just their
name, but I would be willing to wager that even if they did *repent* :-)
and become the most 'honest' supporting forthright computer company that
ever existed I doubt that they would become successful quickly. Too many
people get a bad taste in their mouths when the name Atari comes up (either
because of their track record or because they are 'just' a game company...).
>regards to establishing themselves as a "credible" computer company goes
>deeper than just their name. For Commodore, this strategy may have worked;
>they made the Amiga name MUCH more prominent than the company's, BUT they
>were successful with this because they changed their attitude towards their
>customer (ie. they became more attuned to the customers' and developers' needs)
>whereas Atari still treats customers & developers as they have for their
>8-bit products: crummy.
>I know I know, this is becoming yet another Atari-bash. But what else can I
>(or we, in general) do? Oh we keep hearing promises from the Atari management
>and the Atari guys that post to this net BUT after waiting for nearly TWO YEARS
>for some of these promises to come true, I'm becoming too disillusioned to
>believe in anything that Atari decides to announce. I'll believe Atari again
>when they start fulfilling some of their promises and when they "grow up" as
>a company.
>
>
>As usual, these are my personal opinions. But it seems that numerous other
>people share this view.
>
>
>Tom Wolf
>ARPA (I think): t...@cscosl.ncsu.edu
> or wo...@csclea.ncsu.edu
>
Chad
Chuck McManis
->It has been said before, but I'll repeat it because few seem to
->have understood.
->
->Except for a few hackers, most people buy computers as a platform
->to run SOFTWARE. (Would you buy a TV if only crap were shown?
->What am I saying?)
Good point, but ...
->High-quality standard packages are NOT available in quantity
->for the ST, and Atari doesn't seem to care. When they do
->become available (e.g., WordPerfect), they cost more than they
->do in the DOS world. I did not buy an ST to pay more for
->software.
WordPerfect lists for $395 for the IBM PC, Amiga, and Atari ST. They
all cost the 'same'. Distributors get a volume discount, they pass these
on to the dealer and the dealer may sell it for more under list for the
PC than for the Atari, but that is only because they are moving more
product.
I agree whole heartedly that what the world needs is more quality
software. What the users need to understand is that cost is a function
of
CO$T = (QUALITY + $UPPORT) / (SIZE OF MARKET)
A high quality Page Layout program for the Sun Workstation costs $3000
the same program for the Macintosh costs $800. Why ? Because the market
is bigger thats why.
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.
Sure it would be nice but until there are 4 million of you to distribute
the cost it won't happen. And until you can prove that you are willing to
pay what it costs to get the software you demand no one will write it.
Word Perfect Corp took a big chance when they introduced WP for the Atari
and Amiga. Both were 'unproven' markets. I know that they recouped their
entire development investment for the Amiga in 7 days of sales. What
that does is make people like Ashton Tate, Microsoft, and Borland look
seriously at the Amiga market. It can work for the Atari too but you have
to prove yourselves. And if the only thing you are interested in buying
are games then that is all anyone will write for you.
Atari really has nothing to do with this at all. Look at the pains people
go through to make something work under MS-DOS with 5 graphics 'standards'
no less than 10 memory models that even the users don't understand, and
zero standardization on such things as mice and peripherals. Basically,
it is worth it because they know they can recoup those costs. In a third
order effect Atari affects the cost of software, since the tougher it is
to write, the more expensive it is and thus the end cost is expensive.
But don't think about it that way. Vote with your wallet, if you like a
program, buy it! That message will come through loud and clear on the
software publisher/dealer channels.
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcm...@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
Stephen Jacobs
This is an expansion on the comment that most people buy a computer as a
platform for the software that runs on it. That is probably mostly true, but
another selling point is uniquely useful _hardware_. The example I'm
thinking of is the LaserWriter, which (I think) has been as critical to the
success of the Macintosh as Lotus 123 was to the success of the IBM PC. And
so far, Atari has nothing that super in either department. When it first came
out, Zoomracks looked like the beginnings of a breakthrough--and maybe it was,
but the most energetic follow-up is Hypercard on the Mac. Now the bare-bones
laser printer could be a breakthrough (Pick a personality-uh-I mean page
description language). With a good follow-up, Mega ST4+Laser+optical drive
could become a business system too good to keep out. Could happen, but I'm
skeptical.
David Govett
> WordPerfect lists for $395 for the IBM PC, Amiga, and Atari ST. They
> all cost the 'same'. Distributors get a volume discount, they pass these
> on to the dealer and the dealer may sell it for more under list for the
> PC than for the Atari, but that is only because they are moving more
> product.
--> True. Nevertheless, the software cost should be proportional
to the cost of the computer. I can buy WP for DOS for under
$200, but it costs about $300 for the ST. Since software is
more important to me, the implicit message is that I should
switch to the DOS world.
>
> 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.
> Atari really has nothing to do with this at all.
--> 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.
Thomas Wolf
>>
>> 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.
>
Yeah, tell that to Borland -- I don't seem to recall seeing any Borland
titles on Atari shelves lately (or ever). The intent of the statement was pro-
bably that it is difficult for a s/w developer to stay in business selling a
quality program (ie. that he spent ALOT of time on), support it, AND sell
it for less than $200 IFF the user-base is as small as the Atari's. Borland
clearly does NOT cater to the Atari user but to the IBM PC market -- That's
why they're able to sell their product so cheaply.
Tom Wolf
Dave Meile
> to the cost of the computer. I can buy WP for DOS for under
> $200, but it costs about $300 for the ST. Since software is
> more important to me, the implicit message is that I should
> switch to the DOS world.
Mr. Govett is under the mistaken impression that the cost of developing
software is in any way, shape, or form related to the cost of the hardware for
which it is developed.
Software companies are in the business to make a profit. A program which
could sell for $100 when aimed at a computer with an installed user base of
3 million computers or more (IBM world...) will not make as much money at
$100 when aimed at an installed user base of less than 1 million computers
(reasonable estimate for Atari ST at present time). In order to obtain as
much profit, the program would be increased in price.
IF software price is the main reason you purchase a computer, buy a
Commodore 64. You certainly aren't going to like the $200 and above prices
for many packages on the PC/Clone.
-- Dave Meile
Robert Jung
>> --> Are you serious? Tell that to Borland.
>
>Yeah, tell that to Borland -- I don't seem to recall seeing any Borland
>titles on Atari shelves lately (or ever).
Isn't TURBO C by Borland? And wasn't it recently announced that TURBO C
is being packaged/avaliable for the Atari ST?
--R.J.
B-)
______________________________________________________________________________
Bitnet: rj...@castor.usc.edu "Who needs an Amiga?" = == =
= == =
Power WithOUT the Price = == =
===== == =====
Just because it's 8-bits doesn't make it obsolete. ==== == ====
Greg Wageman
>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.
>Sure it would be nice but until there are 4 million of you to distribute
>the cost it won't happen. And until you can prove that you are willing to
>pay what it costs to get the software you demand no one will write it.
>Word Perfect Corp took a big chance when they introduced WP for the Atari
>and Amiga. Both were 'unproven' markets. I know that they recouped their
>entire development investment for the Amiga in 7 days of sales. What
>that does is make people like Ashton Tate, Microsoft, and Borland look
>seriously at the Amiga market. It can work for the Atari too but you have
>to prove yourselves. And if the only thing you are interested in buying
>are games then that is all anyone will write for you.
I agree with you to a certain extent; however, the market is really
more complex than that. One big factor in software sales is that of
the software's PERCEIVED VALUE. This is also known colloquially as
"Bang for the Buck". Personally, I rarely hesitate to buy a package
priced $50 or less that claims to do what I want. In the $75 - $100
range I might ask around for opinions of other users. Over $100,
though, and I'm going to do some SERIOUS thinking before I invest.
Why? Because with virtually ANYTHING ELSE I buy, if it doesn't work
or doesn't work properly, I can RETURN IT for replacement or refund.
Personal computer software, you may have noticed, doesn't work that
way (why is another thread...). Buying an expensive software package
that I can't try out ahead of time (seriously, how many computer
stores are willing or able to demo a major product for you?) is a
gamble, and I'm not a betting man.
So, to companies out there who want to sell me expensive software, I
say: You must either PROVE to me (by having respected publications,
such as Byte Magazine, STart, etc. review your product) that it
does what you say and is worth the cost, or allow me to try out your
product (by releasing "demo" versions that have key features disabled
as Aldus did with PageMaker on the Mac) on my own so that I can make
an informed decision.
A company's reputation on another hardware platform isn't enough; just
look at what Microsoft did with Word/Write (or whatever they call the
Atari version). Did they release the latest and greatest Mac version
to the Atari community? Hardly. Can you tell that by gazing at the
pretty slipcase through the shrink wrap? Hardly.
By the way, I must point out that Antic Publishing has been doing
marvelous things with/for the Atari, and yet they seem to get very
little attention from the Atari community (not their products; those
are doing well). They have consistantly offered useful, quality
software for extremely reasonable prices, and show no sign of
stopping. Some examples: Flash (Communications software), CAD-3D
(solids modeller), Cybermate (CAD-3D animation editing tool),
Cyberpaint (2D Animation/Screen Painting tool). They provide upgrades
to their customers for only the cost of a disk plus postage. They are
responsive to the requests of their customers. Why aren't there more
publishers like them? Beats me.
(I have no affiliation with Antic except that of a satisfied
customer.)
Greg Wageman
Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: ...!decwrl!spar!snjsn1!blfca1!greg
1601 Technology Drive ARPA: gr...@blfca1.com@spar.slb.com
San Jose, CA 95110 BIX: gwage
(408) 437-5198 CIS: 74016,352
"Nest deeply, and carry a big stack."
------------------
The opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the
author.
Chuck McManis
> 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.
David Govett
Mindreading is obviously not your forte.
No, I do NOT believe software development cost correlates with target
machine price. Software retail price had better, though.
How many of you netlanders would be happy to pay a 50% premium for
ST software?
A software company has to amortize its development costs over projected
sales. Attempts to recover them immediately usually doom a product to
market failure.
If Atari cannot compete on price/performance, how can it compete?
Chuck McManis
> Over $100, though, and I'm going to do some SERIOUS thinking before I invest.
Very sound advice.
>Why? Because with virtually ANYTHING ELSE I buy, if it doesn't work
>or doesn't work properly, I can RETURN IT for replacement or refund.
>Personal computer software, you may have noticed, doesn't work that
>way (why is another thread...).
Well my dealer lets me return software if it doesn't work like I expect
it to. He also lets me sit down at a machine in his store and use the
program for several hours if I want to see how it works before I buy
it. The key message here is that I support my local dealer by
actually buying software there even though I could save money by
ordering it through the mail.
David Beckemeyer
In article <9...@avsd.UUCP> gov...@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes:
>A software company has to amortize its development costs over projected
>sales.
Right. And so there's no argument for developing any ST software. Somebody
said before that there was less than a million ST buyers. Well let me tell
you; there's A LOT LESS. More like less than 50,000 actual, qualified buyers
(not computers collecting dust and pirated software). Of the 50,000, you're
doing well to penetrate 10,000 of them over the life of the product. So
saying it sells for $40 retail, which you're saying is the most any ST buyer
will pay (and I agree); that means $16 wholsale, of which say $5-$10 is gross
profit (higher profit margins can only apply if you have "economies of scale"
which few ST publisher have). Ok so over the life of the product there is
$50,000 to $100,000 gross profit. That has to pay for development and all
the overhead it takes to sell those 10,000 copies: advertising, office
operations, sales overhead, administration, telephones, computer operations,
office/sales space, and a lot more. If you can sell all 10,000 copies in
the first year, and you keep you're expenses low, guess what: you break even!
With ST software, it's not very likely you will ever sell 10,000 copies. Ask
around. Very few ST packages have achieved these numbers, even some that
have been out for three years. Admitedly, a few ST packages have sold
lot's more than 10,000 copies; but there are a lot more products with
numbers well below this level, even well known packages.
Combine with that the fact that ST software sales are not even as strong
as they were a year ago, and things only look worse.
I'm not saying that the user should bear the burden, but don't make the
small independent software companies bear it either. Just becuase you
pay $39 for a piece of software, don't think that the guys that developed
it are "ripping you off". I think everybody on the net by now knows
who I think should bear some of this burden. Can you spell Atari Corp?
--
David Beckemeyer | "Yuh gotta treat people jes' like yuh
Beckemeyer Development Tools | do mules. Don't try to drive 'em. Jes'
478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | leave the gate open a mite an' let 'em
UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david | bust in!"
David Govett
Two comments:
If I may be allowed to generalize, people who buy STs are, on the
whole, quite different from those who buy PCs and clones. Many PCs
go into businesses where money exists to buy expensive software, but
ST users seem to have trouble buying even moderately priced software.
Rumor has it that WordPerfect Corp. is so disgusted with ST users
pirating ST WordPerfect that it is considering withdrawing it from the
market. As I said, it's only a rumor. If true, however, it seems
to support my thesis that software should be priced for the intended
audience, and I know no ST users who would buy it for $300.
Leo Wilson
>Rumor has it that WordPerfect Corp. is so disgusted with ST users
>pirating ST WordPerfect that it is considering withdrawing it from the
>market. As I said, it's only a rumor. If true, however, it seems
>to support my thesis that software should be priced for the intended
>audience, and I know no ST users who would buy it for $300.
Sorry to kick this same old dog around, but I can't believe some of the
prices people have been throwing around. I don't think I've EVER bought
a program for "Suggested Retail Price". They always sell for pretty close
to a third less than list at retail outlets. I bought WP for the ST for
the company I used to work for for (I think) $195.00, and it was enough
worth the price to also pay for the person using it to go to a couple
of seminars, which incidentally cost quite a chunk more than the software.
Personally, I don't see that the cost of software should reflect anything
more than the market will bear. If the use you get out of Word Perfect or
for that matter any other software, isn't worth the price you pay for it,
DON'T BUY IT. Don't steal it, either. You made the choice by not buying it.
What has purchase price got to do with anything at all? "Geez, if I buy
this software I can save 19 man-hours per week (at $9.00/hr) for the next
two and a half years, but I'll pass because the initial cost is $200."
Makes LOTS of sense to me to pass it by...
===
Leo E. Wilson 364 West Delavan Avenue Buffalo, NY 14213 (716)883-7573
(l...@gort.cs.Buffalo.EDU) ...!sunybcs[!leow]!leo l...@sunybcs.bitnet
Ron Schreiner
>In article <1...@avsd.UUCP> gov...@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes:
>>Rumor has it that WordPerfect Corp. is so disgusted with ST users
>>pirating ST WordPerfect that it is considering withdrawing it from the
I got a copy of First CADD for my ST more than a year ago. The last time
I talked to Generic Software about when I could expect an update, they
said that they are not expending very much effort on the ST version. When
I asked why, I got an earfull about how ST users are such pirats. This
statement they claimed was backed up by the large ratio of tech-calls to
number of products shiped. I feel there high ratio is due to the combination
of a lousy, unsupported os and the fact that the product lacks luster, but
then what do I want for a $50.00 CAD package, right!!
--
Ron Schreiner AT&T Bell Labs ...ihnp4!ihuxy!rnss
Dave_Ninj...@cup.portal.com
D. Govett says 'I don't know anyone who would buy WP for $300' (in the ST
community). Well he doesn't know enough ST people 'cause WP corporation has
sold a lot at $300. The pullout rumor is only about 5 weeks old and WP put
out the word in no uncertain terms that it wasn't going to happen. I never
cease to me surprised and how some folks will seize on a rumor to support
something they want to believe and pass it on as tho' it were true, without
any apparent effort to check on the validity. Well educated people too, who
should learn from experience. What you want to believe is easy shore up,
no matter how false, for whatever reason. If you want to know what is going
on in the world of Atari, check CI$ or GEnie. Don't depend on the naysayers
of the Usenet for up to date info.
Duncan C White
>>Rumor has it that WordPerfect Corp. is so disgusted with ST users
>>pirating ST WordPerfect that it is considering withdrawing it from the
>>market. As I said, it's only a rumor. If true, however, it seems
>>to support my thesis that software should be priced for the intended
>>audience, and I know no ST users who would buy it for $300.
>
[stuff about Suggested Retail Price deleted]
>
>Personally, I don't see that the cost of software should reflect anything
>more than the market will bear. If the use you get out of Word Perfect or
>for that matter any other software, isn't worth the price you pay for it,
>DON'T BUY IT. Don't steal it, either. You made the choice by not buying it.
>
But how do you know how much use you will [in the future] make of a product
which you have to buy/not buy NOW ?
Being able to "test-drive" a piece of software, in the comfort of your own home,
would certainly be attractive to me: mind you, perhaps it would be a cut down
version - so that piracy wouldn't be a problem...
>What has purchase price got to do with anything at all? "Geez, if I buy
>this software I can save 19 man-hours per week (at $9.00/hr) for the next
>two and a half years, but I'll pass because the initial cost is $200."
>Makes LOTS of sense to me to pass it by...
You appear to be talking, here, about BUSINESS USE of ST's.
What about PERSONAL use - games playing, programming, music etc?
I don't put a price on the time I spend on my HOBBY COMPUTER...
so if I see a $200 package [for the sake of argument]
I would want to be REALLY SURE that I was going to use it a lot.
In fact, I probably wouldn't buy it - on cost grounds alone! - if it cost much
more than 100 pounds.
The original poster [David Govett] wrote, in the paragraph before the one
Leo quotes:
>If I may be allowed to generalize, people who buy STs are, on the
>whole, quite different from those who buy PCs and clones. Many PCs
>go into businesses where money exists to buy expensive software, but
>ST users seem to have trouble buying even moderately priced software.
If I may be allowed to meta-generalize :-)
I think this is right: many ST users [at least in the UK] are upgrading
to 520STFM's from earlier home micros, such as the BBC Micro and the Spectrum.
Typically, then, they [or their parents!] just manage to fork out the 300
quid for the basic computer, and then are faced with high software prices
[such as the typical game being 20 quid and Fast Basic being 70 quid or so -
because most of them have used BBC BASIC and want a lookalike]
Not surprisingly, many of them pirate various software - games, Fast Basic,
assemblers, drawing tools etc.
Other buyers [like most of those on Usenet/BITNET/FIDO/whatever else] may use
Unix or similar big systems at work, and were interested much more in
"1MB RAM, 68000, bit mapped graphics, CHEAP" than "look at all the flashy games"
These people probably make some serious use of the machine - it is these
who yell about the quality of the documentation.
It is these sort of people who tend to prefer command-line-interpreters, hate
GEM, and are interested in multi-tasking O/S for the ST...
[Of course, the above is a simplification... what isn't!]
In the above context, I think that the market for something like WordPerfect -
an expensive professional word processor for business use - would be extremely
small in the UK.
Products like First Word Plus and u-emacs/Proff/TeX are much more likely to be
used by the typical user community - the first by those who like GEM and the
second by those multi-tasking lovers.
Now, ok, the ST may be a good cheap small business machine - and Atari
certainly seem to be targetting the desktop publishing market - but with
the advent of cheap PC clones [Amstrad PC1512 at 400 pounds, for instance]
the ST is going to have some stiff competition on price, to get into the
business market.
As many people have remarked, one of the ST's biggest problems [blocking
its use in business] is being seen as a games machine.
The situation may be different in the States, of course... I have little
[or no] knowledge of the typical buyer there...
>===
>Leo E. Wilson 364 West Delavan Avenue Buffalo, NY 14213 (716)883-7573
>(l...@gort.cs.Buffalo.EDU) ...!sunybcs[!leow]!leo l...@sunybcs.bitnet
Duncan White.
I woke up this morning, hit a few random keys, and lo and behold, this article
appeared. Should I have stayed in bed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan White, | Flying is the art of aiming oneself
Dept. Of Computing, | at the ground and missing.
Imperial College, | -- Douglas Adams, So Long and Thanks
London SW7, England | for all the fish.
David Beckemeyer
>>
>>>sales.
>>
>> Right. And so there's no argument for developing any ST software.
>Two comments:
>
>If I may be allowed to generalize, people who buy STs are, on the
>whole, quite different from those who buy PCs and clones. Many PCs
>go into businesses where money exists to buy expensive software, but
>ST users seem to have trouble buying even moderately priced software.
>
>Rumor has it that WordPerfect Corp. is so disgusted with ST users
>pirating ST WordPerfect that it is considering withdrawing it from the
>market. As I said, it's only a rumor. If true, however, it seems
>to support my thesis that software should be priced for the intended
>audience, and I know no ST users who would buy it for $300.
You missed my point and seem to be just saying the same thing over again,
and so that's what I'll do too.
From a business standpoint, you said it yourself, you must amortize the
development costs over the projected sales. Yet you also state that
there are fixed price limits in the ST arena. I agree with both counts,
and I therefore re-state that there is no sound reason to develop
Atari ST products.
The equation doesn't add up. You can't expect large volume with an ST
product; and you yourself state that you can't increase the retail price
either. So there's no way you can ever recover the development costs.
So there's no reason for a commercial enterprise to spend any development
money on Atari ST products. You're saying it, not me. I'm just agreeing
with you.
Following this logic, there's no reason to buy an Atari ST computer, becuase
nobody is going to develop software for it. And there's no reason to develop
my own software, unless it's my hobyy, becuase I'll never recover my own
development costs either. This means that my ST will only have non-commercial
software available and eventually it will die. Umm... seems like I agree with
you here too. Now I only wish didn't already have a pile of 'em.
David Beckemeyer
>In article <10...@sunybcs.UUCP> l...@sunybcs.UUCP (Leo Wilson) writes:
>>In article <1...@avsd.UUCP> gov...@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes:
>>What has purchase price got to do with anything at all? "Geez, if I buy
>>this software I can save 19 man-hours per week (at $9.00/hr) for the next
>>two and a half years, but I'll pass because the initial cost is $200."
>>Makes LOTS of sense to me to pass it by...
>
>You appear to be talking, here, about BUSINESS USE of ST's.
>What about PERSONAL use - games playing, programming, music etc?
>I don't put a price on the time I spend on my HOBBY COMPUTER...
>so if I see a $200 package [for the sake of argument]
>I would want to be REALLY SURE that I was going to use it a lot.
>
>In fact, I probably wouldn't buy it - on cost grounds alone! - if it cost much
>more than 100 pounds.
And this is the reason that the ST will follow in the footsteps of the VIC-20,
TRS-80, and a slew of others. There aren't enough computer buyers for the
number of computers trying to stay alive in this "home-computer" market. And
there certainly aren't enough ST software buyers in this market. The ST is
relatively new "home" computer (compared to C-64, C-128 and PC Clones). It has
a MUCH smaller installed base. There's enough of these machines out there to
finance new software development. Not so for the ST.
This is also the reason Atari is trying desperately to move into the "real"
computer business. They're seeing devlopers drop off like long horns in
a snow drift. But this brings us to the next point...
>Now, ok, the ST may be a good cheap small business machine - and Atari
>certainly seem to be targetting the desktop publishing market - but with
>the advent of cheap PC clones [Amstrad PC1512 at 400 pounds, for instance]
>the ST is going to have some stiff competition on price, to get into the
>business market.
>As many people have remarked, one of the ST's biggest problems [blocking
>its use in business] is being seen as a games machine.
Not only cheap PC clones, but what about real brand-name machines like
cheap Macs, cheap IBMs. Atari is always advertising that the ST is so
much cheaper that IBM and Apple. But how in the heack to they back that up?
A recent Atari Mega ST ad said that the Mega ST is "faster, more feature-rich
that a Mac SE. For just about half the price." How do they figure?
I'm not even a Mac fan, but realistically I'd have to say the SE has a lot
to offer compared to the Mega ST. The SE has a real bus, with real (not
vaporware) boards I can buy today. It has industry wide support. It has
software that works in real world and is supportted by the vendors and the
industry. etc. etc. The Mega has a Atari proprietary bus that's never going
to have much hardware available for it (I' not going to hold my breath for
Atari to release something, and not too many big players in the hardware
dept. are going to develop something for an Atari computer (witness the
number of big-name software companies that have done Atari software).
Now what about the price. I can buy a Mac SE with a 40MB hard disk for
about $2300. If I could buy a Mega ST2, mono, it would cost me at least
$1200. Then I need a 40MB hard disk. Hummm... I don't see a 40MB HD on
my Atari Price list. I guess I'll have to use a 3rd party. (What exactly
do they mean by feature-rich?). OK a Supra 40MB drive at my local dealer
is $995. That makes a 40MB Mega ST2 mono. total system price of just about
$2200. Wow a whole $100 savings over the Mac SE! The ads always compare
list prices, but never talk about real-world prices. Not to mention the
savings of a Mac Plus over a Mega ST!
The same comparison can be made with IBM PS-2 systems. The Ataris aren't
really much cheaper, if at all, when you go out in the world and really
try to buy a system.
And of course the clones are usually way cheaper than an ST. So how
does Atari back up what they claim in their ads?
Ji...@cup.portal.com
Off the topic a little bit. Last night in the TV "Computer Show" they
showed the Amiga 2000. A comment made by the guy from Commordore about
how many Amigas have been sold was "over 600,000". Now if my memory is
right Sam Triemal mentioned a number of STs sold in a GEnie conference
is 300,000 (I read this from ZMagazine a week ago). Is the ST number a
little too low?
Jinfu Chen
ji...@cup.portal.com
...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!jinfu
Kit Kimes
> D. Govett says 'I don't know anyone who would buy WP for $300' (in the ST
> community). Well he doesn't know enough ST people 'cause WP corporation has
> sold a lot at $300.
to distributors who resell them to retailers. Retailers can then sell
tham at whatever price they want to up to SRP. I suppose they could
sell them at more than SRP if they could find anyone willing to pay it,
but that is rare.
>The pullout rumor is only about 5 weeks old and WP put
> out the word in no uncertain terms that it wasn't going to happen. I never
> cease to me surprised and how some folks will seize on a rumor to support
> something they want to believe and pass it on as tho' it were true, without
> any apparent effort to check on the validity.
This 'rumor' came from WP Corp. itself. They reversed themselves and
then went on a CompuServe conference and made it sound like they never
said it, but several people swear that they were told by WP Corp that
they were dropping Atari ST support and pulling the product.
> If you want to know what is going
> on in the world of Atari, check CI$ or GEnie. Don't depend on the naysayers
> of the Usenet for up to date info.
Believe it or not, a lot of the information on the net comes from
CIS, GEnie, Delphi, etc.
Kit Kimes
AT&T--Information Systems Labs
...ihnp4!ihlpe!kimes
Bob Rogers
>And this is the reason that the ST will follow in the footsteps of the VIC-20,
3rd parties.
>They're seeing devlopers drop off like long horns in
>a snow drift.
Is this true? Seems to me that its more a problem of developers never getting
into the ST market in the first place. Can anyone name some developers who
have dropped the ST?
>Not only cheap PC clones, but what about real brand-name machines like
>cheap Macs, cheap IBMs.
Good point - I was surprised to find that both the Mac Plus and low-end
PS-2s are now cheaper than comparable ST systems. Atari _had_ price as
a selling point -- what's left now?
>And of course the clones are usually way cheaper than an ST. So how
>does Atari back up what they claim in their ads?
It's a Tramiel operation - they don't have to back up their claims!
--
Bob Rogers rog...@StPaul.NCR.COM
NCR Comten, St. Paul, MN
Jeff Gortatowsky
than a mega. And, the public domain applications software is in most
cases better than commercial grade ST software. I do blame atari for
claiming what nice support I was going to get on my $3000 purchase, and
when it came right down to it, all that was tripe. During Deskcart!'s
construction, several hardware/software questions were asked of atari
and absolutely NO decent answers given. In fact, at one point QMI was
told it cannot be done. Water under the bridge... QMI will be lucky to
break even on the product. I rasied real comotion(sp?) on a local BBS
by asking a simple question "Why should I develop software for the ST?".
By the time it was done with, 3 people sold there ST's, and, still no
decent answers. PRINT-IT!, another program I coded that never made it to
market (another story completly) was given to Beta testers... And one day
I recieve a phone call from a chap I had'nt talked w/ since early 8 bit
days. We chatted botu' this and that... and, I was told (to my total
astonishment!) that PRINT-IT! was on bulletin boards in california...
He downloaded it and showed it to me! And I'm gonna make enough money
to justify the time and effort put into an application? (har! har!).
A mac II developers system was/is able to be had for $3500... Apple has
an upgrade for AUX thats free... a total motherboard replacement...
I would love to think that atari could reverse the trends that snowballed
during their "we don't care syndrome". I like coding on the ST (did I say
that?), beyond the masses of bugs, and the "I can only run this program
if I dont have that program resident & that program I need because I want
to do this... So, I'll go spend useless money on a program that works."
(I wish atari had put the reset button on a function key, as, it gets as
much action as any other key.) The root I guess is that the market has me
(and I guess many others) totally perplexed.
(P.S. This is a borrowed acnt. send any email to the address below. It'll
be forwarded to me).
cheers... Rick
--
Jeff Gortatowsky .....allegra!rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg
Eastman Kodak Company
These comments are mine alone and not Eastman Kodak's. How's that for a
simple and complete disclaimer?
Barnacle Wes
| The pullout rumor is only about 5 weeks old and WP put
| out the word in no uncertain terms that it wasn't going to happen. I never
| cease to me surprised and how some folks will seize on a rumor to support
| something they want to believe and pass it on as tho' it were true, without
| any apparent effort to check on the validity.
In article <28...@ihlpe.ATT.COM>, ki...@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Kit Kimes) writes:
> This 'rumor' came from WP Corp. itself. They reversed themselves and
> then went on a CompuServe conference and made it sound like they never
> said it, but several people swear that they were told by WP Corp that
> they were dropping Atari ST support and pulling the product.
I'd be careful about what you hear about/from Word Perfect Corp. for a
little while. There has been a persistent rumor that WP is pulling
out... OF UTAH! Yes, folks, they are moving out from behind the Zion
curtain to the Silicon Prarie in Texas. Or so the rumors say.
Perhaps the people above misinterpreted what WP was `pulling out of.'
This rumor makes more sense; another branch of my company is doing the
same thing.
--
/\ - "Against Stupidity, - {backbones}!
/\/\ . /\ - The Gods Themselves - utah-cs!uplherc!
/ \/ \/\/ \ - Contend in Vain." - sp7040!obie!
/ U i n T e c h \ - Schiller - wes
Dave Meile
>I could'nt agree w/ Mr. Beckmeyer more! I can buy a PC-Clone much cheaper
>than a mega. And, the public domain applications software is in most
>cases better than commercial grade ST software.
So. Go out and buy a PC-Clone and quit bitching in comp.sys.atari.st. It is
getting pretty boring hearing nothing but "Jack Tramiel did me wrong."
> PRINT-IT!, another program I coded that never made it to
>market (another story completly) was given to Beta testers... And one day
>I recieve a phone call from a chap I had'nt talked w/ since early 8 bit
>days. We chatted botu' this and that... and, I was told (to my total
>astonishment!) that PRINT-IT! was on bulletin boards in california...
>He downloaded it and showed it to me! And I'm gonna make enough money
>to justify the time and effort put into an application? (har! har!).
Sounds like you have more of a problem with your "Beta testers" than with
Atari. Or, do you blame Jack Tramiel for the fact that YOU let your program
out to someone without scruples? You can, of course, rant and rave about
all of those mean nasty people who buy STs for the sole purpose of pirating
software -- but do it somewhere other than in a semi-technical ... no
scratch that, THIS newsgroup is really the "I HATE JACK TRAMIEL" newgroup,
right?
Your problem is that you should be developing software for another computer.
There's an easy solution -- buy another computer and work with it. At least
then I won't have to wade through umpteen messages from folks complaining
"Jack Tramiel did me wrong".
>A mac II developers system was/is able to be had for $3500... Apple has
>an upgrade for AUX thats free... a total motherboard replacement...
There, you see. I thought you could find a computer that suits you more than
the Atari ST. Buy a Macintosh and program using AUX (fully realizing that
the folks who shell out $$ for a Mac II running A/UX will expect your
program to be worth running on their $7500-$10,000 machine.)
>cheers... Rick
I understand how difficult it is to market software -- even for computers
with great support. I understand how frustrating Atari management can get.
I just do not want to hear it, day in and day out, in this particular forum.
There are other things to do than hear people carp about a hardware company.
-- Dave Meile
Ji...@cup.portal.com
Let me throw in my cents:
Why can those frustrated ST developers/users sell their STs to recoup
some money to buy a Mac or Amiga, or PS/2 and stop whinning here? If
you are not happy with the computer, the best thing to do is go for
another one and stop crying. Just leave us 'stupid' happy users alone
will you?
To offer my best help, I am willing to buy a ST from whoever decides to
leave the ST world. My friend is looking for a used ST, it can be a
520 or 1040 in mint condition(i.e. no jumper wires in the mother board,
clean memory upgrade is okey), with a double side drive (no 520FTM
please). No monitor is needed since he has a NEC multi-sync.
For serious seller, call (612)898-5338(day), or leave me an email to:
Ji...@cup.portal.com
...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Jinfu
P.S.
A local rumor says one of the programmers from Jefferson Software (JS
Modular-2), Ken (sorry I couldn't remember his last name, his GEnie handle
is KBAD), just joined Atari in the third party development support group.
Congradulation Ken (if you are reading).
David Beckemeyer
>
>Let me throw in my cents:
>
>Why can those frustrated ST developers/users sell their STs to recoup
>some money to buy a Mac or Amiga, or PS/2 and stop whinning here? If
>you are not happy with the computer, the best thing to do is go for
>another one and stop crying. Just leave us 'stupid' happy users alone
>will you?
It's easy for you to say. I would love to be able to dump my Atari
hardware to somebody who could use it. But it's not that simple.
I can't, in good conscience, just forget about the 15,000 or so users
we have that need support for ST products. It takes ST hardware to
maintain ST products.
We originally had to pay FULL PRICE for Atari devlelopment hardware
(like $800 for an early SH204 drive!). It wasn't that bad. I knew it
was risky. Just the same, I know Atari could have done more for those
of us that helped launch the machine. We were there back in 1985.
Micro C-Shell sold one hell of a lot of Atari STs in those days!
I've got nothing against anybody out there that likes their ST. I'm
sorry if that message came accross, becuase it's not how I feel. I'm
not frustrated with the public. I'm fed up with Atari Corp.
I was simply letting off steam about what the Atari management has done
(and not done) and unless you've dealt with them, you have no room to talk.
You just couldn't possibly understand what it's like. The worst thing
that's happened to you is that you have to hit 'n' or read about it a
little bit. Oh that's real tough - a few screens of pain and agony.
--
David Beckemeyer | "To understand ranch lingo all yuh
Beckemeyer Development Tools | have to do is to know in advance what
478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | the other feller means an' then pay
UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david | no attention to what he says"