#Imagine 2.0 Blues
34 messages in this thread
Shawn,
Actually, I'd very much prefer NOT to have to pay high prices for upgrades.
In the broadcast arena it's out of control. I mentioned the $2500 software
upgrade from Ampex, but that's only one thing. I have three major pieces
of equipment to keep up-to-date; two from Ampex and one from Sony. And the
management of my company is justifiably hard to convince when it comes to
throwing this kind of money around. So often the result is that we have to
do without upgrades we need because the manufacturers have priced them out
of the ballpark.
And I'm not — believe me, I'm NOT — "used to" paying high prices. While
I was still freelancing part-time in video, my full-time job was as a
software systems analyst for a California-based company. I worked on the PC
and mid-size Unix boxes. And got used to PC software prices, which are
usually pretty reasonable. By contrast, the amounts they get for firmware
upgrades on these dedicated platforms (the ADO, the edit controller and the
switcher) just blow me away.
As for the 'rough edges' Imagine 1.0 had, I should tell you that 1.0 and
1.1 of the ADO-100 software were sooooo buggy that the ADO would crash
several times a day. It would just lock up — you'd have to power it down
and restart it. Sure, they released a no-charge upgrade for it — after
we'd had it a year, struggling with those problems. And that's a box the
company had paid tens of thousands of dollars for! (This was before I got
aboard).
[More]
[Continued]
Anyway, my whole point was that if Imagine had been priced at $1,000 (and
could sell the same number of copies as it did at its current pricing),
Impulse would have had sufficient resources to develop a proper manual and
do more fine-tuning. But you are correct: at that price, almost no one
would purchase it. And there's the problem: given what the Amiga market
will bear, and how many units of a given Amiga product that can be sold,
it's impossible to charge enough to do enough development, develop proper
manuals, engage enough personnel, and do enough testing. Thus, the Amiga
marketplace continues to be what it is: largely a cottage industry, with a
few really nice products, but generally not good enough support, poor
documentation, products released prematurely, endless waiting for upgrades,
and higher prices for those upgrades than many of us would like.
Have you thought of a solution? A solution to the problem would have to
bring prices down, improve documentation and support, and result in more
stable operation. This would have to happen while developers continued to
make enough money to stay in business and hang on to capable programmers,
who might otherwise leave and change computer platforms.
What would you suggest?
Pete
I blame the hobbyists. 🙂 A casual computer user is willing to accept
lousy products because they don't need to rely on them; they just want the
lights to blink and the screen to jump and the speaker to squeek. A
serious, professional user – even a shoe-string, cheapskate professional
user – will get extremely upset at bugs and lousy manuals. They should, no
matter what size the company that made the product. My advice about
products with what you judge to be lousy manuals, poor quality control,
extortionary upgrades: don't buy them. Write the developer a letter and
tell them why. I'd be willing to bet that some software manuals were
written by the programmer, six-pack in hand, ten minutes after they
considered the program "finished." Finished for now, of course. Finished
enough, because the advertising hits this month, or the newsletter has
reached the public… The way to prevent it? Don't buy those products?
The problem is, there's ten hobbyists in line behind you. When you walk
away, they buy it, then they tell you it's the greatest thing and you
really should buy it. 🙂
I believe that the way to keep a products price down is through effective
software management. The comment from Syndesis is quite true that if you
have a familar title or even in some cases pretty cover art a comsumer will
buy the product. Case in point is ECA's Powermonger, a beautiful game but
with the drawback of no Harddisk support (this is especially a problem for
those who have accelerators and internal harddrives) or how about the
incrediable poor ports of so many games from the IBM. I have friends who
rant and rave about a game that I consider beneath the Amiga and more at a
CGA or C= 64 level.
Oops, got off the subject. Effective software management, the best teams I
have seen were made up of a few programmers, a desktop publishing person,
and a proj manager/qa person. The programmers are utimatly responsible for
the production of the code as well as the "base" documentation. The
desktop/graphic artist is responsible for the qa of the base materials and
documentaion production, and your Proj manager is responsible for (drinking
coffee?) makeing certain that there are obtainable goals and that a logical
path is being follwed. This setup helps alot with initial cost (I am
certain that most companys try to see it this way, but strangely enough
very few realize this goal).
The expensive software manuals that you and I suffer through are
unforgivable. Especially if you see the effort some game producers put into
$40.00 games
I believe Impulse was rushed to get Imagine out. If you remember the
Firecracker 24 board was comming out at the same time. I believe what
resouces the company had were tied up with that project. Just a note: I
believe Impulses Life Time Warrenty for the FC 24 is wonderful! This shows
a dedication to a product because they know about rule 1 "Customer
Support."
Oh Well I'm going back to Imagine to play around with some of the Turbo
Silver 2.0 Dinosaurs I recently obtained from Antic (wilely creatures that
they are).
By the way I converted the Dinosaurs to Turbo Silver 3.0 useing Syndesis's
Interchange/TS Module…..Ciao from the funny farm!
A lifetime warranty in an industry that's only ten-eleven years old? That's
optimism. 🙂
Shawn,
I totally agree with you.
Trouble is, the kind of organization you describe implies MONEY! Why?
Because being a programmer is one discipline, being a documentation writer
is another, and being a good businessperson is a third. Few people can
combine all three attributes (I've never met anyone who really did, and I
sure as heck don't myself!). Due to their size and financial condition,
most Amiga developers are little tiny operations with people who need to do
everything themselves in order to survive. It's not the best way, for sure;
but what's the alternative?
It's the cart before the horse: the companies need to be bigger to be more
organized; they need to be successful to get bigger; and they need to be
more organized to become truly successful. And the user community has to
grow, which depends on the vendors being bigger, more organized and more
successful.
Anyone have some aspirin?
Pete
I think Shawn described a five-person team – let's say they cost $75K a
year each, in salary, benefits, overhead, etc. With a $300 retail price on
the professional product, the company gets $120 from a distributor, let's
say the parts cost is $20, so they have $100 for each copy. Divide
$375,000 by $100, get 3,750 copies. Except we haven't advertised yet, or
paid for an Amiga trade show, or the tech support, or the next twelve
month's rent.
I remember your article on the costs of running a garage software
company…. talk about eye-opening copy!
BTW, when is your series on networking going to continue. What do you
think of this new network solution announced over in AUser? I'll be in
need of a 2-3 Amiga network, as transparent as possible, this year, and was
hoping that your series would start soon?
–jp–seattle–
That article left out the details; it only covered the problem in broad
strokes. Want to come work at Syndesis for the summer? It's a beautiful
place, when you aren't entering registration cards in the database we can
have you weed the garden or mow the (five acre) lawn. 🙂
As for the INFO networking "series", I haven't been paid for the second
half. Considering that I wrote it about a year ago, and that it appeared
more than six months ago, I don't know if there will be a follow-up.
As for ENLAN, it's theoretically a competing product for my company's
DECnet, so I can only be diplomatic. We've aimed our TSSnet at the
corporate market who need to integrate Amigas into an existing DECnet
network. Because of the problems behind implemented an Amiga file system
interface on an Amiga-only network, we've never developed the volume-level
interface that ENLAN's Amiga network has.
There will be several volume-level networking solutions available soon.
Keep in mind that Commodore's had one in-house for quite some time, and I
suspect they'll give it away, eventually. There's another about to be
released from Canadian Prototype Replicas, the people who did the CDROM-FS.
At the last dev con, a German company demonstrated one, too, and I'm sure
they'll adapt it to Ethernet – they showed it with a very low-cost
disk-drive-based network hardware. I think the Hydra Systems "AmigaNet"
network died an early death when they discovered they couldn't get it
working under 2.0, ever. And there's Progressive Peripheral's network,
there's no reason they can't make that work over Ethernet instead of
AppleTalk-like interfaces. I think the situation is about to switch from
drought to flood, in other words. I know I've left out one or two other
solutions that might be released soon, too.
Thanks for the reply. Could I get some more info on your TSSnet product
mailed to me? Or could you upload a text file with info? Or even steer me
to a mag review in the past year I might check out?
I am going to need a 2-3 amiga network soon, and figure that I'd better
start my research here with you. Thanks….
Re the garage software developer. I'm thankful that you (and other amiga
developers) were able to preservere, since you've given us such wonderful
software. I liked your description of Interchange. Not flashy, but
productive. Gets the job done. I'm not a 'professional' at this, but
certainly appreciate 'professional' software. Looking forward to 2.0!
–jp–seattle–
Exactly. That's what I was trying to get him around to. (Thanks for doing
the math).
It's one thing to bellyache about what the vendors/manufacturers/developers
do or don't do. But complaining about a problem is not constructive unless
you are prepared to offer a solution that takes the real world into
account. I'd say you've provided a decent dose of 'the real world.'
Now it's Shawn's turn.
How 'bout it, Shawn?
Pete
J. Foust:
Interesting philosophy. The reason that we have poor quality software and
manuals is because 90% of the buyers are hobbyists. The market demand is
be created by computer users who don't rely on the products but are
concerned with lights that blink, screens that jump and speakers that
squeak. I assume that these observations are based on in house
experiences.
I think you have confused hobbyists with game players, although I do not
wish to slight them either. I think we "hobbyists" rely on high quality
products because we don't have the skills of the "serious, professional
user" or the "shoe-string, cheapskate professional."
I don't accept lousy products. I rely on evaluations and feedback on what
to buy. I have bought software products that received high points from
both arenas and they were lousy. Have you ever tried to return software
that is lousy. I think the software reviews are made by serious,
professionals who are amazed at bells and whistles and don't even bother to
crack the manuals.
I bought Imagine 1.0 and InterChange and I wasn't impressed with either,
but since I am a so called hobbyist I am sure my opinion doesn't mean much
as long as I spend the almighty buck. The buck which supports the R & D
for all the terrific software.
So don't blame the hobbyist who is often misinformed on what to buy and is
too embarrassed to tell anyone that some respectable software company
ripped him off.
CHEERS!
BARRY – via Whap!
"Pro's from the Desert" Sierra Vista, AZ
I think I agree with some of what you're saying – hobbyists *are* content
with lousy manuals, and don't get as upset as professionals when they
encounter a bug. And you're right about reviewers. Most reviews are poorly
done. Some aren't. I wish more reviewers would really sit and think, is
this worth $150 of my dollars?
And you're right, InterChange is not a flashy product. It's rather boring.
It's workhorse. It works, it does what's advertised – but there are no
HAM-colored gadgets, no animations, no flashy ads with melon-breasted women
being rescued by flaxen-haired bodybuilders.
A better question to ask is, why shouldn't Amiga hobbyists expect and
demand quality software? PC hobbyists get great software. Look at
anything from Borland, for example.
J. Foust,
I think if I had to categorize the AMIGA hobbyist I would place them in the
silent majority, but I wouldn't blame the state of the AMIGA software
industry on them. Maybe your right a hobbyist wouldn't recognize a good
product if it stood on their keyboard. I guess the hobbyists rely on the
professionals to clean up the industry they depend on.
Or maybe your suggesting that the AMIGA hobbyist should pull out their 90%
contribution to the fragile AMIGA market and go for the "PC great
software." I don't think that is your intent but perhaps your trying to
wake up the hobbyists. If your going to wake up a sleeping bear you should
be prepared to point him in the right direction. But, please don't insult
our inteligence, that is why Americans are now buying foreign cars.
BARRY – via Whap!
"Pro's from the Desert" Sierra Vista, AZ
Interesting discussion. I hope you misunderstood, because the hobbyists
certainly aren't the problem and don't deserve any less than the pros. As a
pro user (which I'd define strictly as somebody who uses it to earn a
living), I'm very grateful for the "hobbyist" because the prices would be
out of sight if we were the only market, as Pete pointed out with Ampex,
Grass Valley, et al. For example, a "Pro" Nikon F4 camera no doubt would
cost 10 to 15 times its $1600 price if only professional photographers
bought it — there aren't enough of them to support R&D, tooling, etc.
etc..
However, all I really have to sell is time and if it takes me 10 minutes of
testing to learn which direction the rotate function rotates because it's
not in the %$#@ manual and a competitor using another system can find it in
the manual in 60 seconds, then I can only charge 1/10 his hourly rate and
better stay away from projects with tight deadlines. So it's very easy to
justify a few hundred dollars more for a real manual, 'cause I can make it
up in a week. A hobbyist can't.
What should the hobbyist do? Keep buying, and encourage others to. And
hope the percentage of pro users doesn't increase before the total user
base gets large enough to support better testing, manuals, support, etc.
Otherwise the pros might demand it, pay for it, and drive the prices up for
us all.
Bill,
It's an interesting situation, isn't it?
Just to clarify my position: I'm not BY ANY MEANS knocking the hobbiest. I
started as one. All I'm saying is that if you purchase a piece of software
intended for a professional application — as contrasted with, say, a game
— you should expect to pay a somewhat higher price. It's great that it's
not thousands (or even many hundreds) of dollars for a product like
Imagine.
What got me started was not the application, but the idea of ripping
Impulse over the cost of the upgrade. And all I was saying was that by
comparison to the marketplace they're playing in, they're practically
giving the product away.
Pete
Bill,
Thanks for the reply, but I am a bit miffed. I guess your refering to my
reply to J. Foust who was stating that he blamed the poor software and
manuals on the hobbyists. I didn't misunderstand, I was implying that the
problem shouldn't be blamed on the hobbyists and I thought it was a cheap
shot. In fact, a statement like that lacks responsibility for one's
professional field.
I enjoyed and appreciated your comments about hobbyists and actually feel
as if some professionals don't consider "we" hobbyists as "red-headed
stepchildren". I'll do just as you suggest.
I have enjoyed my Amiga 2000 and DPAINT III & IV tremendously. I would
hate to see the Amiga software support disappear because someone doesn't
understand marketing. Most programs I have purchased have lacked the
luster and sexual appeal that J. Foust thinks hobbyists are attracted to.
Once again, Thanks for your reply.
Take Care!
BARRY – via Whap!
"Pro's from the Desert" Sierra Vista, AZ
First, the only difference between a pro user and a "hobbyist" is a pro
depends on it to earn a living. If anybody implied that one is more
sophisticated than the other, I don't buy it. If anything, it's the pro
who is more tolerant of poor software and high prices because we NEED its
capabilities to earn a living. Some pros don't have enough experience with
computers to recognize bad software. The hobbyist can and will say: No
thanks until you clean up your act. We'll all suffer if publishers of
Amiga desktop video software re-orient their marketing to pros, which I
think unlikely.
Taking for gratned that Amiga software and documentation isn't at the level
of quality we'd prefer, wouldn't you agree that there are more hobbyists
than pros using the Amiga? That contradicts your notion that hobbyists
aren't willing to settle for less than the best. The problem is, they do –
worse than that, a lot of them pirate software, too. That's the ultimate
in lack of concern for quality and professionalism.
I didn't say hobbyists aren't willing to settle for less than the best. I
said pros are more tolerant of bad software and will pay through the nose
for it. You don't have to look any farther than the editing or digital efx
software used by any major post production house.
Bill,
I hope your right. It would be real competitive out there if we hobbyists
decided to become Pros. Besides, it is the huge demand that hobbyists have
put upon some market areas that have caused manufactures to evolve their
products into something much better for all. The 35mm camera is one
example a lot of people are familar with, as you stated earlier.
You stated" Some pros don't have enough experience with computers to
recognize bad software". I would like to think Pros have a lot of
experience with computers and software in their field, thus having the
skills to work through poor software or manuals. I know personnally, I
lack the skills and time to spend on frustrating, poorly documented
software. I originally bought Turbo Silver 3.0 and InterChange with great
creative plans for videos. Right after I received that software I received
a letter from Impulse to buy their new product Imagine at a special offer
price. I bought these programs because of the reviews in AmigaWorld. I
waited a long time for Imagine's release and second release and I'm still
wrestling the manual (over my head).
I was in Portugal (4 years) while all of the above took place. I get back
to McDonalds Land, join CompuServe, and find out that there is a new
version of Imagine out. Impulse never notified me, which was suppose to be
one of the highlights of being a registered owner. So I'm still wondering
if the $100 upgrade is worth the bother. Based on my hobbyists experience
I will have to see it in action before I sink another coin into it.
I test drive automobiles and motorcycles before I buy them and I guess I
will apply the same philosophy to software. Now if only Sierra Vista had
an Amiga dealer (same problem in Portugal, although Amiga is much bigger in
Europe).
Well, so much for long winded nothings. Thanks for your reply.
Take Care!
BARRY – via Whap!
"Pro's from the Desert" Sierra Vista, AZ
Already is real competitive out there, and the fact that desktop computers
are beginning to emulate our million-dollar toys makes it more so.
My comment about pros sometimes being less familiar with computers has to
do with the fact they generally use dedicated hardware/software packages: a
paint box, an editing system, a character generator, a digital effects
system. Not a general-purpose computer with a variety of separate
applications. A video editor (person) generally knows a lot about editing,
video engineering, continuity and esthetic considerations. More so than a
typical hobbyist, let's hope. But they don't necessarily know much about
computers beyond the specific system they're using, unless they also happen
to be a hobbyist. Consequently, they may not be familiar with software
with truly superior user interfaces. The high-end systems generally have
terrible documentation — you learn by attending very expensive training
(or "free" training, depending on how anxious the mfgr is to sell the
system).
I think we all agree a comprehensive manual would be nice, and we aren't
there yet, are we? Nice chatting with you.
Barry,
>> …thus having the skills to work through poor software and manuals …
The whole point is, if you use a piece of equipment professionally, you
don't have TIME to work through poor software and manuals. If it takes me
two days to build a graphic that should take four hours because I can't
figure out the documentation, I'll end up having a service bureau construct
the effect because I can't SPARE two days for a single effect.
So I would say rather the reverse is true. If I'm using an Amiga for my
own entertainment, I'm not under the gun to be productive. So I can work
on my project every night for a month, if that's what it calls for. Plus,
I can experiment and do whatever comes naturally, as opposed to working
commercially where the client will say, "that's very nice, but can you make
it do THIS?" and you'd better know how to do whatever it is.
By the way, I'll agree with Bill — professional equipment often has poor
documentation; you have to attend a class or apprentice yourself to someone
to learn to use half the gear. One of the drawbacks of Imagine is that no
such course is, as yet, available. Largely because there is not enough of
a market for one (such classes typically cost upwards of $500 — some over
$3000. Would you attend?)
Pete
>> Why shouldn't Amiga hobbiests expect and demand quality software? <<
I think the problem in that regard is that there's often no alternative.
If I don't like Impulse's manual, I can't refuse to purchase Imagine if I
want its capabilities — there's nothing else out there that does what
Imagine does.
Same thing with Innovision. There's a company that has had lots of
problems with support, although they're getting better. But how would you
"teach 'em a lesson"? Not buy Broadcast Titler II? What do you buy
instead? The alternative is ProVideoPost, and Shereff Systems has their
own problems.
I mean, you're absolutely right in what you say, but if every available
piece of software that does what you want to do is flawed in one way or
another, what do you do?
Pete
To answer obliquely, do you see how this problem relates to what Todd
Rundgren said about the Amiga? His initial impressions were quite correct,
I'd say: he found the Amiga unpleasantly un-Mac-like, the CLI cumbersome,
and a general low level of quality in commercial software. But he's since
stuck with it, right? He may have spent $30,000 to make "Change Myself", it
was a real pain to push the hardware and software to do it, yet he's stuck
with it presumably because he's saved $250,000 in production costs from any
high-end alternative. I think the same thing is true of cheapskate
semi-pro users. Sure the software might be junky, but if they can get it
to work most of the time, they'll gripe and get on with their lives.
This also reminds me of conversations I've had with pirates: you seem to
express the opinion that someone is holding a gun to you head, forcing you
to acquire any software that's mildly attractive. Just say "no". (Or in
the words of Nancy Reagan's anti-illiteracy campaign, "just spell 'no'."
🙂
>> You seem to express the opinion that someone is holding a gun to your
head… >>
No, no — you missed my point. There's no gun to my head, and I don't feel
like there is. My point is that I often have a choice between struggling
with the various problems we've discussed, or not being able to perform a
given task. Since this thread started about Imagine, let's use it as an
example. Remarkable software, actually. But the old manual was — let's
be charitable — inadequate, and the new one is a great tutorial, but
where's the reference manual? Just say no, you say. But if I 'just said
no', I wouldn't be able to do any of the stuff I can do with Imagine —
there's no alternative program. (Yes, there are other 3-d renderers, but
not that do what I need for my precise application).
Besides, the point I was making was not that I blame Impulse for their
manual (I guess I should…), but rather that I understand the problem:
they've positioned their software at a price point where corners have to be
cut somewhere or they'll starve. They chose the manual. Fine — better
that than the software.
My question is what has to happen to get us to the point where there are
enough Amiga users that these companies can sell at the current price point
and make some money due to volume? (Yeah, I know — I'm dreaming).
Pete
I don't think price is the problem. They could hire a professional writer
for less than the cost of an ad in AmigaWorld. As for a definition of
"professional", I'd say it was anyone who was making more than 50 percent
of their income as a writer. Bad manual writers starve. 🙂
Pete,
Does Impulse always have to "cut corners" with the manual? I wasn't
thrilled with the Turbo Silver or Imagine manuals. The only other product
I have bought from Impulse was Vo-Rec-One which has mistakes in several
places in the manual. I have not bought Foundation but from what folks
here on CI$ are saying that manual is hard to follow too. Do you really
think Impulse is cutting corners or that they can't get someone to write
and proofread a good manual?
Leslie,
From what I have seen, they either do it themselves in-house (Mike wrote
the current manual himself) or they have a friend do it. I don't believe
they have ever engaged a professional technical writer to come in, learn a
product and write a proper manual. I'm not sure of all the reasons why,
but a good part of the problem is sure to be financial.
Pete
Personally, I would rather spend more money had have both program and
manual done right. A program as complex as Imagine should be in a three
ring binder with the ability to update and make additions to the docs. Both
Director manuals are fantastic and should be a guide to the way such
complex docs should be written.
Another problem not mentioned with many of these "Hobbyists" is that many
Don't Bother with the Manual(in other words Piracy)
What didn't you like about InterChange? Did you let the company know about
it?
Steve
Again, agreed. But the platform seems to attract more casual users -people
who are into the machine just for the fun of it — than professionals.
Now, there's NOTHING wrong with the 'just for the fun of it' user — I
started as one. But without a sufficient number of pro users, nobody will
produce enough pro software for the thing.
Pete