From: sdorner@qualcomm.com (Steve Dorner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm
Subject: Re: MacTCP license fees & Eudora
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:09:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: 0.sdorner-121192215919
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.comm
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc.

In article <1dub6kINNb14@morrow.stanford.edu>, Malcolm Pradhan
<pradhan@camis.stanford.edu> wrote:
>  Could someone post the "official" channel for comment/complaint/pleading
> to Apple about the ridiculous decisions regarding MacTCP and MacX
> licensing.

I'm told that the MacTCP product manager is Alistair Woodman.  If you
suddenly wanted to converse with him, you could send mail to him at
woodman1@applelink.apple.com.

Coincidentally, I have sent this note out to the Eudora mailing list:
--
In the past, Eudora has come bundled with MacTCP, because the University of
Illinois had a redistribution license for MacTCP.  Now that I have moved to
Qualcomm, that license no longer applies, and I have been encouraging sites
to get MacTCP site licenses, which were reasonably priced.  The old MacTCP
pricing was:

Single copy - $100
Educational site - $1000, one-time fee
Commercial site - $2000, one-time fee

For developers (like me) who wished to distribute MacTCP with their
products, the prices were as follows:

Educational developer - $2500, one-time fee
Commercial developer - $5000, one-time fee

I have yet to receive official word from Apple, but according to what I
hear from other developers and from the trade press, Apple is imposing a
new fee schedule:

Single copy - $60

That's where the good news ends.

Educational site - $4000 *annually*
Commercial site - $5000 *annually*

Finally, Apple is planning not to allow developers to bundle MacTCP with
their applications at all.

What this means is that you're going to have to shell out $4-5K per year to
use MacTCP, or else $60/Mac, just to be able to use free software like
Eudora, Fetch, Gopher, etc.  Those of you who have commercial TCP/IP apps
can expect to pay Apple for the privilege of using them.

I have no objection to Apple making money, or getting a fair return on
their investment of time and energy.  I do have an objection to them
pricing TCP/IP out of contention in the Macintosh networking world, and
hence taking Macintoshes off the Internet in large numbers, both directly
(because of people who cannot afford the price of MacTCP) and indirectly
(because fewer good MacTCP applications will be developed, making
Macintoshes less attractive as Internet stations).

The product manager for MacTCP is Alistair Woodman.  Mr. Woodman can be
reached by sending mail to woodman1@applelink.apple.com.  I suggest that
you send him your thoughts on this matter.

It probably won't do any good to question his parentage, or berate Apple
for faithlessness to developers or users, or to impugn the collective
intelligence of the people at Apple who make these kinds of decisions.  It
is probably useless to appeal to their kindness and generosity, or to
lament the financial burdens placed on the eductional system from all
directions.

However self-evident these facts may be, they are likely to leave Apple
unmoved.  Rather, I suggest you express sentiments such as the following,
should they apply:


My group/business/university cannot afford/refuses to accept the new prices
for MacTCP, and we will not buy it.

My group/business/university feels that the new prices for MacTCP will
shrink the market for TCP/IP software, and we are seriously considering
slowing/halting development of TCP/IP software for the Macintosh.

I will find it more difficult to influence my group/business/university to
purchase Macintoshes because of this decision.

My group/business/university is much less likely to buy computers that lack
the ability to cheaply connect to TCP/IP networks.

My group/business/university has decided to cancel/delay/reduce the
purchase of Macinoshes because of this decision. 

My group/business/university was planning to buy Macintoshes, but has now
decided to buy NeXT/Sun/IBM/HP/... instead.

My next computer will not be a Macintosh.


It is probably best to be courteous and businesslike, however much you
might be reminded of an old Apple ad that featured the revision of a letter
containing many instances of the phrase "mush for brains".

I must stress that my information is only hearsay.  Apple has not chosen to
clarify their position on the matter, though I have asked.  However, it may
not be a bad idea to jump the gun; perhaps the decision will be easier to
reverse if it never becomes public.

Thank you.

--
Steve Dorner, Qualcomm, Inc.
Why does Apple want to eliminate cheap MacTCP applications?
Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.comm:10900 comp.sys.mac.system:14038