CompuServe Messages

Kevin, I'm talking about software development when I say that VIS is leveraging an installed base that's 10 times the size of CD-I, even though the Multimedia PC was announced years after CD-I was. As a developer, I look at developing once for Windows and VIS, versus developing another version for CD-I. With several hundred thousand Multimedia PC machines already installed, it's a no-brainer to go with VIS, since I have to do an MPC version. I don't mean to be condescending, but this isn't exactly rocket science. More machines means more software sales. When there are 10 times as many machines, I have to have tremendous faith in Philips to believe that it can offer enough incentive to develop for CD-I. VIS isn't all that different from Multimedia PCs. Look at "Just Grandma and Me." How much do you think its functionality needs to change to work well on VIS — or on CD-I, for that matter? Hardly at all, but to go to CD-I requires far more investment than to go to VIS. Sure, Philips forecasts that CD-I will be in the millions in 1994. Big deal. MPC machines will reach a million in a few months! I'm not saying that MPC owners will buy a VIS. Why would they? I'm saying that I can sell them virtually the same software. There are certainly titles that'll work on an MPC machine that won't work on VIS. There are interface changes that have to be made for VIS. But the differences are tiny compared with the cost of going from DOS/Windows to CD-I. You can look at VIS as a crippled machine or you can look at it as an enhanced machine. If VIS is crippled by its lower-resolution screen, lack of keyboard and expansion bus, etc., then CD-I is equally crippled. Certainly CD-I has an operating system that offers some advantages for doing certain things, such as animation, but again, they're hardly worth the huge increase in risk [continued in the reply]