🚀 go-pugleaf

Date: Tue 8 May 84 10:59:52-PDT
From: STERNLIGHT <uw-beaver!STERNLIGHT@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Toolbox equates for peons
To: POURNE@MIT-MC.ARPA, REICH@NYU-ACF1.ARPA
Cc: INFO-MAC@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, STERNLIGHT@USC-ECL.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>" of Tue 8 May 84 00:27:00-PDT

Jerry,  you're  at  it  again.  Because two "of my shills, both highly
qualified programmer types, have  been  rejected  as  developers"  you
infer that "BIG BUSINESS types who get along nicely with the new Apple
Image"  are  the  main  accepted  developers.   Cowdoody.   I  have  a
consulting  firm of two, including myself.  We are not only certified,
but also registered developers (direct  access  to  Apple,  electronic
mail  account,  etc.)   How  did we do it.  Simple.  We have a product
already in  existence  which  has  been  sold  to  several  buyers  of
substance,  and runs on an existing (IBM PC) machine, and we can prove
it to Apple.  We have NO image, just product.  Nobody ever heard of us
except our customers and others in our professional field (economics).
We didn't know anybody at Apple nor did we meet anyone there prior  to
becoming   registered  developers.   We  have  no  vast  corporate  or
financial resources.  We're just legitimate developers.  But I'll  bet
Apple  is  flooded  by  applications from programmers who say they are
developers  yet  have  not  got  any  legitimate  product  out  there.
Everyone  would  LOVE  to  get  the developer discount on hardware and
software but only actual developers do.  What about  'new'  developers
who  have  not yet produced and sold product?  I guess they first have
to create at least one product and market it successfully before Apple
will  accept  them.   Same  in  your profession.  You can say you're a
writer all you want but until you've  had  something  published,  I'll
believe you're a writer; your mother will believe you're a writer, but
writers?  Isn't it about time you got off  your  (sometimes  virulent)
anti-Apple  prejudice  and  took  facts for what they were, assuming a
legitimate explanation rather  than  base  motives  unless  and  until
proven otherwise?  --david--
-------