🚀 go-pugleaf

> 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 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
>  


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?