🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2460@ihuxy.ATT.COM>, rnss@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Ron Schreiner) writes:
> If major players in the software publishing world put a sticker on the
> package that read, "Requires Color Monitor and ROMs by BDT", people
> are going to want the "ROMs by BDT".

I don't think this will fly for two reasons, the first is that an
outside source OS will be vulnerable to hardware changes (revisions) in
the ST. The second reason follows:

> In general publishers that use a supported OS are going to provide
> better products.  Can anyone tell me why companies like SubLogic have
> had products like "Jet" on the coming soon list for over a year?
> Or why Generic Software has not bothered to port many of there PC
> products to the ST, or for that matter release a new version of
> "First CADD", the only real ( bugs included ) thing they do for the ST?

I have a friend who develops PC software for a major publisher.
When he asked if the publisher had any interest in doing ST software the
response was that there is not enough potential market to
for it to be worth while (especially considering the risk involved).

Thus reason two: If there isn't enough money to be made porting PC software,
is there going to be enough potential customers to warrant the cost of
a new, incompatible OS? Especially as the potential market is an
established base of ST's whose owners don't want to shell out big $$ for
it? I don't think Atari is going to refund the $25 for the ROMS I bought
2 years ago...;-)

Let's face it developers: the ST is a niche market providing
opportunities for small companies. The PC market is much tougher nut to
crack. Also, at the profit margins Atari is getting for the ST's
(they're STILL cheaper than equivalently equipped PCs!),
and also its potential for continuing sales in the near term (I fully
expect that a 68030 running UNIX to capture people's imaginations in 1990)
make further (costly) development efforts on Atari's part unlikely.