Re: Big Text Machine press release

[taob@r-node.hub.org (Brian Tao)]

In article <C7yM9z.GK3@utstat.toronto.edu>, Philip McDunnough writes...
> 
> That's fine. That doesn't preclude GS support. People are capable of
> writing software which adapt to the computer in use. In the NeXt world
> it is called "fat binaries".

Fact #1:  Writing fat binaries takes a lot more time
Fact #2:  Longer development means higher expenses
Fact #3:  Apple II companies can't and won't charge hundreds of dollars
          for their products because it wouldn't sell (unlike the
          PC/Mac/NeXT markets)
Fact #4:  The market is already very limited, none of it in the
          business/government sector where the big spenders are
          (again, like the PC/Mac/NeXT markets)

Conclusion:  There isn't a whole lot of money to be made, therefore you
             target the audience which maximizes your return on a
             minimum investment.  In BTM's case, there isn't any
             advantage to writing a GS-specific version.  OTOH, if you
             are talking about a MIDI/MOD sequencer and performance
             software, then the effort should be directed at the GS.

> >So, your argument has no validity.
> 
> Why? All you're saying is that the majority of Apple II's are not GS's.

    The market defines the product, rarely the other way around.
-- 
Brian Tao:: taob@r-node.hub.org (r-Node BBS, 416-249-5366, FREE!)
::::::::::: 90taobri@wave.scar.utoronto.ca (University of Toronto)