Re: AppleWorks GS 2.0 GONE ?

[nathan@cco.caltech.edu (Nathan Mates)]

In article <2tn5uq$jcm@mary.iia.org>, Neal Pitts <niteeyes@mary.iia.org> wrote:
>After a moment of shock, I asked if there were any plans for a word 
>processor, and he said he did not know.  I also asked if Quality 
>Computers would be willing to give the source code to someone else, and 
>he told me that they could not, because there was no source code!  
>Apparently, the reason the project was cancelled was because Claris 
>failed to hand over the original source code, meaning that the 
>programmers had to start AWGS from scratch, believing they would get the 
>source code sooner or later I guess.  After a long period of time, Claris 
>still didn't give them the source code, predictably putting back their 
>programmers 3-6 months, and Quality predicted that half the people that owned
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>GS machines now would not own them in that time, forcing them to cut the 
>project in order to save the company the losses it might incurr.  

    So, basically the IIGS market will be cut in half in the next 3-6
months? Sounds like a likely excuse to me. The GS market is falling,
definitely, but a half life of 3-6 months is far less than that for
even the most top-of-the line machines. 

   What really makes me suspicious is the rumors that I have heard
from others. I had assumed that Claris had turned over the source;
some sort of outside confirmation would be nice. 

   But, the part that is much less of a nice thing was that a
well-know, and quite good Apple IIGS programmer had been contacted
(but not contracted, that was one of the faults) to write critical
sections of the code for AWGS 2.0. Said programmer did so, and was
ready to deliver it to Quality, for which they offered only $5K.  For
the importance, size, and quality of the work, that was a pittance.
Apple IIGS programmers do have to live somehow, and the programmer
wanted more. Quality refused, and instead decided to drop the project.

   Disclaimer: that above paragraph is 100% rumor heard from
well-connected sources to the programmer end of things.

   Quality has done a number of things for the Apple II, it's sure.
They're one of the last Mail-order dealers for the Apple II series,
and have had a hand in other Apple II projects, namely AW 4.0. But,
they are out to make money, primarily. 

   Their 'II Alive' magazine did fill somewhat of a void, but the
impartiality has always been somewhat suspect. As far as I can tell
from their catalogs, they have never carried a Procyon product at all,
(even such general-use programs as Switch-It; they carry a competing
The Munger) and they have apparently run a quite inaccurate review of
Twilight II; to no surprise, they've had and published an inferior
clone. 

   Quality is out for their own interests. The fact that a decreasing
amount of the time those interests concur with ours does not mean that
we should give blind allegiance to them.


Nathan Mates

-- 
* Nathan Mates nathan@cco.caltech.edu * MSC #850, Pasadena CA 91126 *
* Ftp humor archiver: ftp to cco.caltech.edu, look in pub/humor     *
* Largest collection of Clinton Jokes, other canonical lists        *
* Support Twilight II, the best screen saver for the Apple IIGS!    *