From: jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: 7.1 not free?
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:17:56 GMT
Organization: USC-ISI
In-reply-to: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG's message of 28 Sep 92 19:36:16 GMT

In article <1015362.2AD172EC@cmhgate.fidonet.org> Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes:

>MY OPINION:
>
>the core OS should be free, so that developers aren't put into the same
>situation as DOS/Windoze developers--which software with which capabilities
>does the user have?  

I see this issue raised quite a bit, and I can't understand it.  From
a purely business point of view, how can you think that it would be a
negative thing for Apple to want to be "in the same situation as
Windows/DOS"?  And, by extension, their developers?

I don't see Microsoft filing bankruptcy, nor do I see Win/DOS
developers leaving the platform in droves, so whatever problems they
have must be more than outweighed by something...

>This problem will still exist to some extent even if core
>System software is given away, but if the sole source for the OS is buying it
>off the shelf, the problem will only be exacerbated.  Plus, developers may
>lose interest in developing software that takes advantage of new System
>software features if it's not taken for granted that a large number of users
>will go to the new System version.

Your causality reasoning is slightly questionable here.  Perhaps they
(developers) will figure that the new featuires they're adding are so
great that everyone will find that they HAVE to get System 7.2 to run
them.  If not, they probably aren't too worried about implementing the
features anyway.

>I'm still at System 6.  I have Sys7, but don't use it.  I consider that my own
>business, and if I see a nifty kean-o program that requires Sys7, I consider
>it my own problem that I can't use that program.  If I see enough nifty kean-o
>programs that require Sys7, I'm likely to move up to it--if it's readily
>available.

Exactly.  You see no need to move up to System 7, so you're not much
of an appealing target for developers, who see that you're not even
willing to jump to a new OS level that can be gotten for free.  This
says a lot to people who expect you to pay for their programs.
Possibly, it says that you're not a customer they should worry too
much about not potentially having.

>On the other hand, if I have to shell out $20 to $99 every 6 months to a year
>just to keep up with OS developments, I'm not likely to bother.  And
>developers will know this, and will keep their features more general and less
>OS specific, and the downward cycle begins.  And we end up like DOS users-
>with software written only for the lowest common denominator that makes the
>developer money.

I don't know how Windows developers are thinking, but if they're
stagnating in this way, theyy sure seem to be making a ton o' cash
doing it.

Hell, I'd like to see free OS forever too, but I think I'd rather see
Apple get a bigger market share with lower-cost machines, and reap the
rewards of even greater software choices.

Besides, if I really want the new OS, I'll juts buy a new machine.
It'll still be bundled, right? ;-)

jas
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Sullivan             | Research Scientist et al.
jas@isi.edu (Internet)          | Information Sciences Institute
72511,402    (Compuserve)       | University of Southern California
Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.system:12751 comp.misc:3978