Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!ccicpg!felix!john
From: john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: APDA - any satisfied customers?
Message-ID: <15596@felix.UUCP>
Date: 8 Dec 87 21:55:36 GMT
References: <1228@runx.ips.oz> <17000073@clio> <2039@uwmacc.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@felix.UUCP
Reply-To: john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert)
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 71

In article <2039@uwmacc.UUCP> rick@unix.macc.wisc.edu.UUCP (The Absurdist) writes:
>The only thing APDA has a monopoly on is the distribution of unsupported,
>draft and/or beta versions of Apple products.  These are available
>through the mail at a reasonable price.  APDA did have distribution 
>problems when they started up, but this isn't all that unusual in
>the computer industry.  

OK.  Perhaps I have missed something.  Where do I get the first official
release (FINAL, not draft) of the Multifinder internal documentation?
Where do I get the first official (not draft) version of thge HyperTalk
documentation.  I think, if what you said is true, then perhaps many
of the documents never make it out of DRAFT.  Frankly, I often prefer to
wait for the final version so I can have an index.  I honestly have no idea
where to get these.

Also, where else can I get the field releases of MPW, MPW C, or MPW Pascal.
Again, I seriously have no idea, but would consider an alternative.

>
>Finally, APDA is an organization which has no equivalent that I know of
>in the microcomputer industry.  Does IBM provide any drafts of documentation
>at all?  No.  Does Microsoft, or Lotus, or Ashton-Tate, or Borland?  No.

This means only that they are a good idea in principal.  I suggest
that the practical implimentation lets down the principal, and am not
sure why we should be content with just that.

>You have to wait for the release version.  (Which may be as buggy
>as a beta, but for which you pay full price...).  As for Commodore,
>I once tried to apply for a developer's kit for the University.
>Here we are, holder of IBM's single largest grant to any University
>for micro development;  holder of a substantial Apple grant;  beta
>site for several programs;  test site for early versions of DEC
>workstation products -- Commodore wants a proposal detailing whether
>or not we're SERIOUS developers before they will consider whether or
>not they will allow us to BUY a buggy compiler and draft documentation.
>I did not continue my efforts to get us involved in the Amiga.  (I don't
>know what Atari does for developers).
>
>APDA is just fine by me:  RA for Apple and APDA both.

Not by me.  Just because they are the only ones who do this kind of thing
does not mean it is GOOD that they are the only ones.  I do feel that
someone like MacConnection could do a much better job with the same
products.  Just because something is Draft doesn't really mean you need
a specialized, independant distribution channel.

They hold a Monopoly on the developer services, and do not do a very
good job at it.  I, and numerous other folks here on the net, have
had problems.  They are only marginally better now than before.

Since I have joined, they have established a minimum of $6.00 shipping charge.
that meant if I ordered the MacIntalk stuff I wanted, I would have to wait
until (if) I needed more, or pay $6.00 shipping for a $10.00 product,
when the charge is really something less than $1.00.

If you want to argue that "they are a small company and have to offset
their overhead", then I argue that perhaps they are too small to do a good
job of what they are trying to offer, and maybe Apple should consider
another outlet that is better geared to handle it.

I am sure some folks have no problem with APDA.  But a (seemingly) high
percentage of users have a gripe.  Places like "Icon Review" have to
shape up or die (or fester for a looong time) due to competition.
APDA seems to have no real reason to improve.


John G.
--
John Gilbert
!trwrb!felix!john