🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <90004.202106IMS103@PSUVM.BITNET> IMS103@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
>>If Atari, or anyother company publishes software for other systems,
>>it isn't a sign that their own system is a failure, but as a way to
>>make money, THAT'S BUSINESS!
>
>>Yes, and in no uncertain terms, this is a flame. [...]
>
>>Mark Newton-John
>
>IBM does not make Apple software,  Commodore does not make IBM software,
>Apple does not make Atari software,  Hewlett Packard does not make
>C64 software, but Atari makes Amiga software.  Atari is just wasting
>time and enegry that they could use elsewhere like fixing bugs, updating
>computers and bringing out software for their *own* computer systems.
>

	No, but Infocom makes software for the IBM. And the Apple. And the
Atari(s) etc. If you are talking about the software portion of Atari, you have
to compare with software companies. Conversion of software is a sound
business idea.

	If your complaint is that you don't think Atari should make software,
fine. That's a marketing decision they made that is different from yours. If
they are going to produce software, it's silly not to make all the money from
it that they can, and conversions are cheap compared to licensing/developing
new software.

	(Infocom may seem a poor example, since I believe they just decided to
stop producing for Ataris, but you get the idea anyway.)

Robert C.

-- 
"Helen's the only one who knows what scruples are, and she won't tell us"
John said. "Have we got scruples about it, Helen?"
"Not a trace," Helen affirmed.		-The Reefs of Earth, R.A.Lafferty