Re: Is there a version of Lynx for the Apple II/IIGS?

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

In article <3e8cb44d_4@corp-news.newsgroups.com>, Joe
<joko@NoMoreSpam.net.invalid> writes:

>Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:
> >As I'm sure you can attest, nostalgia is not particularly loose
> >with the purse strings.  And in any event, the number of potential
> >buyers for even a _great_ product for the Apple II is closer to a
> >hundred than a thousand--and for a specialized or "OK" product,
> >closer to ten than a hundred.
> 
>As Jerry Brown said when he was Governor of California: "Lower your
>expectations." Those numbers are actually way too high.

Interesting.  Certainly, you have the data.

>The flip side to low sales is that programmer's don't really have any
>incentive to create new software.

I think you mean that they have no _financial_ incentive.  That's
exactly my point, and it should be obvious.

That does _not_ mean that they don't have the same incentive that
Woz had in developing the Apple II:  doing it because they can, and
showing off for your peers.  Then, of course, there's the altruistic
motive of doing it to make the world a better place, or to honor all
the great Apple II developers who have gone before.

Why does anyone do anything?  Certainly not just to make a buck.

> When I think back to the development
>of Spectrum Internet Suite or NiftySpell or Spectrum Automated Mailer,
>those was literally full-time jobs for everyone involved. But, these
>days, no one is going to spend six months on a project, only to generate
>zero interest. Look at Marinetti; if it'd been a commercial product
>where the programmer benefitted financially, the long-awaited update
>might have been released 2 or even 3 years ago. Yet, we're still
>waiting/hoping for it.

So those developers, at least, are not sufficiently motivated to produce
the updates.  Too bad.  That's life.  (It always amazes me when I see
deep resentment that Apple (or someone) isn't developing a "super"
Apple II, because they think that because it could be done, someone
should do it!)

>Then again, it's been an awful long time since even the Ground incoming
>directory saw any new software, so obviously, it's not just the money
>factor.

Correct.

I think that most people who develop code for the Apple II do so only
to please themselves.  That is certainly true for 95% of the programs
that I write.  It is fun to develop an idea and code it for yourself.  To
make it useful to others requires lots more polishing, particularly of
the user interface (which is a drag), and the documentation (which
is also not as much fun as programming).

I seldom design a program that is of much utility to the general
community.  For example, I'm doing some robotic control code, but
unless you have a stepper-motor driven 6-DOF robotic arm, I doubt
that you would have much use for it.

If I do write something that might be generally useful, then I have
to consider whether I am willing to take on the 2x-3x more work
to "productize" it so that others could use it without frustration.
Not many projects make that cut.

>Apple II Forever? I'd hate to think that when it comes to the Apple II
>that George Harrison was correct when he sang "All Things Must Pass."

The Apple II will last just as long as we keep having fun with it, no
more and no less.  Fortunately, that's a lot longer than most of us
can make any money with it.

-michael

Check out amazing quality 8-bit Apple sound on my
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/