🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12174475176.8.MRC@PANDA> MRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA (Mark Crispin) writes:
>
>     There are several ways you can build and market a computer
>to replace (or compete with) some other computer:
>(1) build a better machine and charge more
>(2) build a better machine and charge the same
>(3) build a better machine and charge less
>(4) build an equivalent machine and charge less
>(5) build an inferior machine and charge less
>
	So, what do you think is the classification of ST ???
	If #5, in comparison to what ??? There is something
	called price/performance ratio, and ST is well placed
	with that respect.
>
>This is fine for throwaway computers (a.k.a. toy computers), but
>not for serious computers.  A software developer writing a
>serious application is going to want the machine to be on the
>market for some time so his software product would be saleable.

	Are you saying that if there is 5,000,000 ST's out there,
	than a developer will ignore it simply because it somehow
	appears to be a throwaway computer because of its cost ??
	How about the market forces exerted by a product like ST ??
	Or did atari make a mistake by not pricing their hardware
	in some inflated fashion ?? And just what is a throwaway
	computer ?? C64 ?? Apple ][ ?? Perhaps our stance from
	VAXinated ivory towers does not quite mesh with what
	that 13-year-old thinks of "throwaway" computers. I have
	a feeling that how the ordinary folk think about a computer
	is much more important than how this entire net thinks about
	a computer.
Oz
	


-- 
Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz
Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti]
		In the beginning, there was Word all right, except
		it wasn't fixed number of bits.

> >This is fine for throwaway computers (a.k.a. toy computers), but
> >not for serious computers.  A software developer writing a
> >serious application is going to want the machine to be on the
> >market for some time so his software product would be saleable.
> 
> 	Are you saying that if there is 5,000,000 ST's out there,
> 	than a developer will ignore it simply because it somehow
> 	appears to be a throwaway computer because of its cost ??
> 	How about the market forces exerted by a product like ST ??
> 	Or did atari make a mistake by not pricing their hardware
> 	in some inflated fashion ?? And just what is a throwaway
> 	computer ?? C64 ?? Apple ][ ?? Perhaps our stance from
> 	VAXinated ivory towers does not quite mesh with what
> 	that 13-year-old thinks of "throwaway" computers. I have
> 	a feeling that how the ordinary folk think about a computer
> 	is much more important than how this entire net thinks about
> 	a computer.
> Oz
> 	
Here, here, right on.

I know personally a software developer who wrote an application for the
so called throw away machine; 400, 800, 800XL, etc.  He wrote Action! and
his name is Clinton Parker.  I don't know how much longer the old Atari line
is going to be around, but I can tell you first hand that good ole Clint has
done alright financially with his Action! and is continuing to do alright.
There were approximately 2,000,000 machines out there who could use Action!
If only one percent of them purchased Action!, there would be proceeds from
20,000 sales and at ten dollars commission per sale, this could be $200,000
bucks.  Of course if you were really a good programmer and came up with a    
really good application you could perhaps reach 10% or more, really big bucks.
Of course the catch here is you have to be good and write something the people
want.  No easy task, but don't blame the type of computer you are writing for 
if you don't hit it big, after all it only does what YOU tell it too. 8-)

ray