🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8604060607.AA07358@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> CON.REILLY@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA (Brian Reilly) writes:
>the MacCartridge might be helpful to those developing this product, but
>how can they be convinced that the $100 or whatever they might make
>on each cartridge isn't just a loss of $2500 for the Mac and peripherals
>that they didn't sell (and Atari did)?  It would be great if Apple
>gave the okay and allowed them to market their cartridge, but I don't
>know if there are too many good reasons why Apple would want to do that.
>David Small also said that selling the cartridge without the ROMs was
>not something he would consider.
>
>- Brian Reilly
>-------

May I make a suggestion? There was mention of something to the
effect of getting Apple's approval before the product is marketed.
Mr. Reilly is right? Why would Apple ever want to approve something
that would hinder one of their products? 
I believe that David Small should take his product to Digital Research
or Atari directly to market his product. When I saw this, the first thing
that comes to mind is how useful this would make the ST in terms of
taking advantage of available software. And to me, having a machine
of the caliber of an ST being Mac compatible is a helluva lot more 
meaningful than an ST being IBM compatible, simply because the Mac and the
ST are much more similar to each other
than either is to an IBM.

I hope he can pull it through! Good luck with this David! My vote
has been cast.

Aloha,


-- 
Jonathan Spangler
{ihnp4,vortex,dual}!islenet!jons
"On Thursday, the world came to an end."