Re: Spectors put-down of SQC (was: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next

[rubywand@aol.com]

In article <11NOV199617100283@vax2.concordia.ca>, spec@vax2.concordia.ca
(Mitchell Spector) writes:

>.... Well why did Burger Bill just post he _was_ able to perform an 
>AWGS 1.1->2.0 update, but Quality Computers refused to pay him and so 
>he stopped? ....


     Most likely, the explanation is that Bill Heineman was chapped.

     The only mystery in this AWGS update business is that someone would,
truly, find the responses of programmers, the company, etc. surprising,
shocking, or, even, mean-spirited.

     Obviously, the way to update a dinosaur like AWGS is to rewrite it. A
programmer who offers to do a 1.1 to 2.0 version "patching" of a system
like AWGS is saying: "Okay, you don't want to pay for a re-write; how
about $$$ for a patch job?"  Yet, he or she knows very well that a bunch
of from-scratch rewriting is going to be involved, anyway.

     Will the programmer, especially one who would enjoy doing the update,
be annoyed when such a bargain basement offer is rejected? Yes. Will II
users feel let down? Of course, they will.

     There is no question that companies do adopt images. Apple adopted
the personna of Caring about its II users. SQC has projected a similar
image with regard to support of the Apple II series. It is inevitable
that, while we are talking here about 'good PR', to some extent the image
becomes the reality. Apple, SQC, (Applied Engineering, Activision, Roger
Wagner, ...)  did-- in some cases, still do-- 'care'.      

     SQC's main mission is to 'make money' so that it can pay its
employees and stock holders. If the company passes up an opportunity to
update AWGS, we can debate its jugement regarding potential profits from
such an enterprise. We may feel disappointment that actions do not meet
our high expectations of SQC's Apple II support personna. Even so, there
should never be any question about its chief motivation or, indeed, its
primary duty.

     As for a way to get an updated AWGS, one approach would be to aim for
SQC support with lowered risk. For example, SQC could agree to sell a
shareware version 2.0.  Original, from-SQC, buyers would be owners. Those
who acquired AWGS 2.0 as a copy would encounter a shareware message and be
obligated to send a fee to the programmer(s).

     SQC would retain ownership rights to AWGS, gain a free update, and
obtain revenues from direct sales. The programmer(s) would get shareware
fees and have an inside track on doing future upgrades and add-on modules.
Users would have an opportunity to obtain a much-needed upgrade.

Rubywand