From: boyd@apple.com (Scott Boyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: reasons to charge for 7.1
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:20:00 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.system
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Sep22.035612.12238@athena.mit.edu>, mlwiese@athena.mit.edu
(Michael L Wiese) wrote:
> 
> aside from greed, has anyone thought about reasons why Apple might want
> to charge for 7.1? here are a few:
> 
> imagine if you will -- Apple has a licensing agreement with Linotype,
> ITC (or whoever it is that owns the rights to the font outlines they
> ship), and suppose the license is a per-copy royalty. Unaccounted
> copying of the system software puts Apple at a legal risk since they
> can't determine how many copies have been made, so they can't settle
> how much they owe the font company.

Nice try.

> further imagine that this license was agreed to a long time ago when
> the LaserWriter and LaserWriter Plus came out, when the only outline
> fonts Apple shipped were in the LW ROMs, so the per-copy fee might be
> quite high.

Uh, huh.  Sure.

> Apple could license 7.1 to developers for distribution with apps that
> need 7.1 at a reasonable cost. In the past this has been done with 32
> bit QuickDraw, CommToolbox, and MacTCP. I don't think the licensing
> cost was a significant concern for any of those for any commercial
> developer. This gives Apple the accountability they need, and generally
> people don't seem to complain about the cost of applications (at least
> not nearly as much as they complain about the cost of the OS ;-) so
> adding $10-$50 to the price of the app isn't a big deal (of course I'm
> totally guessing on how much Apple would charge developers for 7.1)

Yuk.  I can't imagine I'd want, as a developer, to try to hold my
customers' hands as they attempted to install a system!  Here they
thought they'd bought my whizzy new productivity program, and here
they have to go install a whole new system?

> I think management at Apple is insecure about the value of their
> software, and wants some sales figures to back it up. They are also
> really jealous of Microsoft's raking in the $$ on upgrades, and
> marketing has found that plenty of people have paid Microsoft over and
> over again without complaining.

Hmm, been reading someone's e-mails?  ;-)

> It would be nice if the hardware could be priced to subsidize the
> software, but that makes it hard for Apple to compete against PC
> clones, which will be bad in the long run for all Mac owners. In the PC
> world, software upgrades are not free, so Apple is forced to change to
> be able compete. It costs tons of $$ to develop new system software.
> Which would you rather have: free upgrades to the same old system, or
> inexpensive upgrades to the system AND major new things like OCE?

Forced?

> A key concern here is that the upgrades be inexpensive. Pragmatically
> speaking, I'm sure individuals will pirate 7.1, and I'm sure Apple
> knows that. But I suspect they will get a lot more revenue from 7.1
> than they have from earlier system releases, which is probably good for
> all Mac owners in the long run.
> 
> It's true that I feel dismayed by Apple's change of heart in this area.
> I feel like they have broken their implicit promise of free upgrades.
> But I am not like most potential customers, who buy a computer because
> of what it can do for them when they buy it. The potential for future
> enhancements is considered, but is less important - and Apple has a
> good reputation for coming out with new stuff.
> 
> lately Apple has nearly doubled their R&D budget, which should is
> promising for Mac owners. but unfortunately I think they need to
> recover costs from more than just new purchasers.

doubled?  not in terms of % of revenues.  In fact, it's dropped recently.

Regards,
scott
boyd@apple.com
macintosh system software