(I'm answering to Tonys mail, since I never recived
Charles')
I got a somewhat different momory on this topic. Back when
the Mac was new, it was like a 180 Degree shift in Apples
information policy. In my view Apple did anything to hinder
developers. And that'S not only my opinion - back then I was
part of a 'gang' of A][ freaks, and of course we where interested
in the Mac, but beside the deadly high price for the Mac,
the even higher costs of documentations and the lack of a
real choice in programming language was prohibitive. With
the Apple ][ you recived a full machine and OS description
free of additional charge - for the Mac with a price, at least
double to tripple the price of an A][ you go _nothing_, you
rather had to spend again almost again the money for an A][,
just for documentation and very minimalistic tools. And if
this isn't enough, you had to sign a contract with Apple to
get all the stuff - you know, they didn't want to sell just
to geeks anymore. Only two of us did jump onto the Mac - all
other stayed with the A][, and eventualy became IBM-PC guys.
IBM did exactly the same as Apple with the A][ - give information
to the people - yes, they charged, but way less than Apple,
and you don't need to sell your soul - if your able to tell
the Name of the document you got it. Well, yes, if we walked
into the IBM store (Aeh, not store... royal dependance:) at
this time, we didn't get the same 'audience' as 'real' customers,
but we told what we want (i.e. an order number) and we get
it fast and as we want it.
And don't tell me about the complex informations etc. At this
Time I was already doing some (truly small) jobs with Xerox
systems - IMHO a way better integrated system as the Mac ever
did become. It should have been the responsibility of Apple
to give the developers info out the easy way.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa am 29./30. April 2000 in Muenchen
http://www.vintage.org/vcfe
http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe
Well, since everyone on the list has thrown in their two (or more) cents, I
finally feel it is my turn.
Anyway, Hans has a good point going here, Apple did with the Macintosh what
TI tried to do when the TI-99/4A was out: try to block out third party
developers. What can we learn from this? Very simple, never try to tell
people they can't develop hardware & software for a machine, because that
will only give people the extra push they need to develop stuff for a
computer.
But this is something I have noticed: We all know how many PC manufacturers
are abound (maybe too many), by there are how many Macintosh clone
manufacturers? (I can't think of any off the top of my head)
And the Government is jumping in Microsoft's back for being monopolistic?
They might want to look on the other end of the spectrum. (Now I can
understand why IBM & Motorola are pissed off at Apple for not letting clone
manufacturers use G3/G4's in their Maclones.) If you ask me, (and so begins
my conspiracy theory) I think the Microsoft Antitrust Trial was a sham,
because why would CEO's of major software houses go against Microsoft when,
in most cases, their software is flying off the shelves? You do not bite the
hand that feeds you, unless the hand being bitten is not feeding you! If you
ask me, I think only one man had something to gain from this, his name is
Steve Jobs.
____________________________________________________________
David Vohs, Digital Archaeologist & Computer Historian.
Computer Collection:
"Triumph": Commodore 64C, 1802, 1541, FSD-1, GeoRAM 512, Okimate 20.
"Leela": Macintosh 128 (Plus upgrade), Nova SCSI HDD, Imagewriter II.
"Delorean": TI-99/4A.
"Monolith": Apple Macintosh Portable.
"Spectrum": Tandy Color Computer 3.
"Boombox": Sharp PC-7000.
____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com