From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm
Subject: Re: MacTCP license fees & Eudora
Date: 16 Nov 1992 10:53:09 -0500
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: intercon.com

todd@DIALix.oz.au (Todd Hooper) writes:
>TCP applications on the Mac probably haven't influenced sales a fraction.

<raised eyebrow> Ask large industrial and academic sites in the U.S.,
Japan, and Europe.  The people buying TCP/IP applications for the Mac
aren't exactly hot dog stands and lone hippies.  TCP/IP is quickly becoming
one of the basic requirements for new hardware purchases.  Why do  you think
that Microsoft is including TCP/IP (and even a few apps) with Windows/NT?

>I would be surprised if more than 1% of Macs are running MacTCP. And Apple
>probably isn't too concerned about sales into education markets right now
>since a) they are totally saturated and b) the profits involved are minimal
>due to low margins.

>I appreciate the work that people put into apps like Eudora and it's ilk, but
>in cold commercial reality, Apple is just following an industry trend which
>is inevitable. 

Well, I live in that cold, commercial reality.  While I understand, I
think, the motivation that would drive such a decision (and in fact,
sort of wish Apple had made MacTCP a shrink-wrapped product in the
beginning), things are complicated by the past four years.  Market
share is a direct result of how people think of your company.  If
Apple's customers and potential customers see something as a "bait and
switch," they will be unhappy, and Apple's competitors will not miss
the opportunity to get their digs in as a result.

It doesn't matter how good an idea is within your company if it makes
your customers unhappy.  Now, if Apple does find a way to restructure
MacTCP's market position *without* pissing off large corporate
customers, I won't have much objection.  I also think this will be a
very good trick indeed, since it involves changing course in
midstream.  My principle concern is quite capitalistic: I don't want
to lose business because of Apple's actions.

>And it already has a large base of applications, so you can't deny it
>must be good.

All that the applications need is the API.  Any competing TCP/IP stacks
would certainly be able to provide a MacTCP-compatible API...

>People can complain all they like, but it comes down to this. Nothing is
>free.

True.  But if you give something away for four years, you shouldn't be
surprised if people object to suddenly having to pay for it.  If Apple
had charged for it from the beginning, and sold it through its own channels,
there would be no problem.  Instead, though, Apple decided that it couldn't
make money with it or support it, and used it to fulfill check-off lists on
government and corporate RFPs.  Now that third parties have developed the
market by putting their own money and reputations on the line, it may be that
Apple is interested again, now that the risk is over.

Nope, nothing is free.  However, goodwill is an important economic
factor as well.  If Apple can preserve that goodwill, life should be
fine.  If they cannot, be sure that others will step in and take a
crack at it.  I'd actually love to see MacTCP in the retail channel.
It's the prospect of blocking the current channels that worries me,
because of its affect on the current customer and developer base.


Amanda Waker
InterCon Systems Corporation
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm