From: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Subject: Re: CDTV is dead.
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:31:07 GMT

pepin@CAM.ORG (Jean Pepin) writes:
: The next line was reply, this comment is postsynchrone paradoxal.

I asked the question, I did expect an answer.  It was NOT a
rhetoricism.  I seriously want to know if he expected C= to spill
their guts.

: You fail on the instinctive association of Marc Barrett = Amiga enemy,

No.  I said he stretches the truth.  I think he does quite a bit of
damage to the Amiga and its reputation when he makes fact-free posts
like that.

: logically do you think CBM need enemy when they excelling to stop
: developpement of a great potential was Amiga corp. machine. Do you think Marc

I don't think they "excel in the ceasing of development of the machine
with great potential originally devised by Amiga Corp."  I think
they're doing rather well, now.  They could do better, but they're
surely not working to kill it.

: Barrett have time to loose of flaming the CBM vedgies, if is not because he's
: frustrated, like many first time (1985) users and developpers, to see this
: potential wasted. Open your eyes you are near find the thuth in Krishna.

I don't CARE why MB does it.  I don't CARE if he posts fact-filled
cuts on the Amiga.  And/or C=.  I don't want him posting bullshit that
people take for gospel because they think MB has the inside track,
even though his posts have ALWAYS carried that tone.

Too many people believe what they read, and, to say the least, it was
highly INCONSIDERATE of MB to do that to the many people who read this
newsgroup and would take his "felgercarb" as gospel, to steal a word I
read recently.

: Do you think only developper know what C='s doing, the only informations was

I'm saying not EVEN developers know what C='s doing.  That's the
point.  Certified developers don't really know all that much.  If he
were a Commercial Developer, I'd think quite a bit differently.  But
it's obvious he doesn't have access to as much information as he would
have some believe by that "CDTV is DEAD" post.

Do you see what I'm typing yet?

: not spreaded at this time is source code (maybe?). CBM security is
: professionnally like their marketing, etc. Under an extreme paranoia they
: claim security for future developpement since all the competitor announce
: long time before. They don't understand future announcement are related with

It doesn't even have to be for "paranoia" reasons.  By announcing
something that has been in development for a long time and was unknown
to the general public, they can get more of a "surprise factor".  It
would, theoretically, aid in marketing said product, I imagine.
They're not great marketers, they need all the help they can get.  ;)

: sale strategy. Maybe CBM marketer think they have to submit schematic for
: press release. This paranoia is related to Tramiel vaporware era, now they
: don't announce before but majority of user know they exist, and we see some
: products never going out because out of date, like Lowell board. Of course,

That's the point:  Everything I've ever heard said the Lowell board
was more-or-less just a big research project, it was never actually
going to be produced or sold.  In R&D, stuff like that happens all the
time.  Things get desgined and built that will never make it to
market, they're just there as tests of theories which may be
incorporated into future products.  Weeding out which ones are sold
and which are junked is something else altogether.  How do you make a
press announcement if you're not even sure this thing will make it out
of development stages?

: registered developper can see what CBM doing, but nobody, developper or West

No they can't.  Any certified developer could tell you that.  And as
to what West Chester works on, only West Chester knows.  ;)

: Chester team can predict when came out or what append. Only Gould decide, the
: great dictator of Computer Bananas Monarchie.

: The information from Marc Barrett, look most credible, try to call Gail

It ALWAYS _LOOKS_ credible, doesn't it...  Anyone here old enough to
remember the "War of the Worlds" radio announcement???

:Wellington for example, I know CBM since 7 year, and i see many tricky gamling
: who are most related to CBM bad reputation then just vapoware wolf call. You
:will receive noting for defend CBM, you are a victim, you need more experience
: with CBM for understand that.

Nobody cares what you see.  Get used to it.  Because anything you see
is subject to your opinions of C=, obviously bad, and your lack of
inside information, shared by most of the people in this newsgroup.
The only people who should be saying things like "The CDTV project is
dead" are the people who know:  People at C=.  Correct?

: If you don't have logical reason for secret, you fall in paranoia, nobody ask
: for chip schematic or OS source code, and i'm sure nor Apple or IBM try to
: copy via a spec announcement, at this time they don't know CBM exist.

I don't need a "logical reason" for any secrets I keep.  That's why
they're secrets.  I just don't want people knowing.  Do you think
Apple tells you EVERYTHING they do?  Don't bet on it.  They just
happen to tell you their major products which they plan on taking to market.

: No but their (potential) & customer. They try to supply computers and the
: future will lean.

: How much CDTV sale now, don't be afraid with word, a dog is a dog, Window 3.1
:is not a fiasco. CDTV is a stupid concept, the software on that, is ridiculous
: quality and the target market is wrong. This product have nothing to do with
: computer but it can be better if marketed in the video club way like nitendo.

The people at C= and all of the people at Phillips don't believe that
a "multimedia player" is a bad idea.  That's why CDTV and CD-I exist.
Stop spouting your opinions as god-like facts.  They have quite a bit
to do with computers, and quite a bit to do with vcr's.  They're idiot
boxes for information.  Dream-wise, they're meant to give ordinary
people access to vast amounts of information that couldn't be gotten
through television or newspapers as readily.

BTW, it was a nice try, throwing me with big words.  But, like I said,
I know a... few big words.

Greg

--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :) :)
(:	  "Flesh-pressing:  It's not just for politics anymore."         :)
(:	gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu			Gregory R. Block         :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy