Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!nrl-cmf!ames!oliveb!sun!plaid!chuq
From: chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard
Subject: Re: Look out Hypercard, its Supercard!
Message-ID: <80839@sun.uucp>
Date: 9 Dec 88 19:19:36 GMT
References: <16310014@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> <21793@apple.Apple.COM> <12322@cup.portal.com> <12351@cup.portal.com>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: Fictional Reality
Lines: 114

>I admire Silicon Beach for their decision to compete with HyperCard.
>How would you like to be the one to propose competing with a virtually
>free product? A virtually free product from a company with an
>imaginative legal department? A virtually free product with a zealous
>cult following?

An insane gesture, to be sure. Just about as insane as shipping SuperPaint
against MacPaint. We all know what a failure THAT was....

>System software
>components haven't kept up with the times. It's a crime that QuickDraw
>is basically unchanged from what ran on the first Macs.

Huh? When the 128K ROM came out, QuickDraw was speeded up significantly. 

And that statement completely ignores, for example, color on the Mac2.

>Boot a typical Macintosh and you'll see a testament to the (lack of)
>real developments in Macintosh system software popping up in a row
>across the bottom of the screen: Suitcase, QuicKeys, Laser"Quotes",
>SuperLaserSpool, Tops... all are third-party hacks at system software
>that SHOULD have grown up to handle fonts better, DAs better, keyboard
>control better, print spooling better, and transparent file sharing.

I disagree strongly with this. A couple of reasons why it's dead wrong.

1) Apple doesn't have a monopoly on programming talent. Other folks get
   great ideas, too. 

   This doesn't mean Apple shouldn't buy really good third party stuff
   and integrate it in. Quickeys is arguably lightyears ahead of Macromaker.
   At the same time, though, QK takes a lot more memory, would cost Apple
   more (royalties, documentation costs, etc, etc) and add to the cost
   of the Macintosh you buy. 

2) which leads to my next point. Not everyone needs this stuff. Yes, I'd
   like Tops. Not enough to pay for it. Not enough, frankly, to have it
   suck up more of my memory for it to be there when I want it. I don't
   want it often enough. Quickeys, on the other hand, I can't live without.

Apple loses on both sides of the argument here, which isn't fair. If they
*do* go ahead and put in all these neat toys you want, they get yelled at
for stomping all over the third-party market (remember the screams in the
Good Old Days about MacWrite and MacPaint?). If they purchase a given third
party product, all the other ones will scream and yell in outrage --
besides, do you want them to decide which one is better for you? If they
chose Tempo over Quickeys, and by bundling it caused QK to go off the
market, I'd be pissed. And if they chose QK instead of Tempo, the Tempo
folks would feel the same way. Finally, if they don't do anything, they get
yelled at for not doing anything. That's not fair to Apple. (Besides,
MacroMaker is definitely not nothing. It's not QuicKeys to be sure. But it's
a reaction that macro facilities are *good* -- and if MM isn't powerful
enough, you ought to be willing to shell out for QK or Tempo).

Look at the bottom line on a sample product. Apple decides to buy the rights
to QuicKeys from CE software. QK sells list for about $100. CE makes a
royalty deal with Apple at, say $10/Mac. Apple gets the rights to ship it
with every mac sold. No big deal. 

Except that QK comes with a manual as thick as the rest of the Mac manuals
shipped with the system. That's an expense. And Apple can't sell it without
it's own markup. Say we're at $25 now. It goes in the box, to the
distributor and the retailer. Each has a markup. So that $10 royalty ends up
adding $50-$60 to the cost of each and every macintosh, whether the person
wants (or needs) it or not.

That's why third party products exist -- to supply useful, but not essential
products. QK and Suitcase and Tops and spoolers and stuff are really neat,
useful tools -- to the people who need them. But that need isn't *close* to
universal, and if Apple DID start a policy of adopting and bundling these
products, people would start screaming at it for stifling innovation.
Remember the howls from Owl when Hypercard shipped?

>So what is in it (HyperCard) for Apple? I think Apple views its
>software as more of a marketing tool for hardware than an end to
>itself.

Speaking from my experience working for varied computer manufacturers,
software is rarely overly profitable. It sells iron. Good software sells
lots of iron (as in Mac's and Sun's). Bad software sells very little iron
(as in a previous employer I won't embarrass). So this view is probably
pretty true -- but also not unusual in the computer industry. 

>HyperCard _is_ a truly pioneering product that is changing people's
>lives... the same issue of MacWEEK that reported SuperCard also has a
>story about HyperCard being used in museums. But will Apple want to
>take HyperCard much farther? If third-parties are willing to bear the
>expense of enhancing HyperCard, why bother?

Why bother, indeed? To keep Bill Atkinson and Dan happy, which are 
definitely not reasons to be laughed at. And to make sure the market 
they're fostering grows to self-sufficiency. Dropping it too early may
kill it. And there's little danger in taking it too far -- It'll 
spur development further and faster.

Remember macpaint -- and superpaint, and fullpaint, and Adobe Illustrator
and Freehand and Pixel Paint.

>Why would Apple want to get into a battle with Silicon
>Beach? I think they'll _help_ them by maintaining HyperCard as an
>"entry-level" product and leave the rest of the market open for other
>developers.

The big difference here is Bill Atkinson. He's got more control of Hypercard
and he's not going to let it sit until he's done with it what he wants.
Hypercard 2.0 sounds fascinating. I expect Hypercard to continue to get
better as long as Atkinson wants it to -- and with any luck, the rest of the
market will try to keep up. Which menas we, the user, will win big.


Chuq Von Rospach	Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms		chuq@sun.COM

When you're up to your *ss in alligators, it's hard to remember your initial
objective was to drain the swamp.