#Lotus Deal Dead
35 messages in this thread
If their handling of the AmigaVision project is any indication, The new
spreadsheet should be quite capable and nifty.
Did Lotus charge Apple to port 123 on teh Mac? Doubt it..
No, Apple is not (to my knowledge) pay Lotus to work on a 1-2-3 for the
Mac, but they have in the past paid major developers to create applications
for the Macintosh. Most notable (in my mind) is the large amount of money
they paid Ashton-Tate for dBase Mac–a real dog of a product. Not only was
it big, slow, and incompatible with its IBM counterpart, but by the time it
came out dBase Mac was no longer needed for "image" purposes.
Just goes to show that paying big companies large sums of money to develop
for your new computer doesn't get as good a result as you can get from less
well known developers. In fact, such expenditures are usually a waste of
money.
It also kills off the smaller developers with the innovative products,
since they can't compete if the computer manufacturer itself is paying for
a big-name but poorly designed product to compete against them.
Still, Commodore continues to look into these things, in spite of hard
evidence that it doesn't work (witness the dismal failure they had in
getting the Amiga into businesses with the availability of WordPerfect).
The true successes in "legitimizing" a computer has not come from ports of
existing products, but from new categories of software–IBM had 1-2-3
(which was light-years beyond VisiCalc), Mac had PageMaker and (to a lesser
degree) Excel. The Amiga needs something that the others don't do at all
in order to be recognized.
So why is CBM spending millions on porting existing programs from the PC,
rather than spend that money on seeding small companies that have
innovative ideas? Go(ul)d only knows.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
James,
And speaking of dBase Mac, I read that Ashton-Tate just sold the rights
to it to another company. That company is supposed to upgrade it and
provide support (good luck!).
Anyway, I just picked up ProWrite. It is version 3.0.1 . What is the
"latest" version? I think I remembers some "problems" with ProScript – was
that only with 2.0 (which I don't have) or what? (I'd *still* like to see
something with GOOD INTERNAL POSTSCRIPT SUPPORT!)
Lloyd
Lloyd,
The current version of ProWrite is 3.1.1. If you want to update from 3.0
(or 3.0.1), simply send your Program disk and a check for $10.00 to:
New Horizons Software, Inc.
Attn: ProWrite 3.1 update
PO Box 43167
Austin, Texas 78745
The 3.1 update adds new file requesters, a customizable font submenu, a
"speaking" command, and several AREXX enhancements.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
James,
Having Word Perfect for the Amiga does not make the Amiga suitable
for business applications…unless that's all you want to do with a
computer (word processing).
How about the other software? You say it shouldn't be
ported, but what's a business that has several years worth of programs and
records to do? Are they supposed to start from scratch…or should they be
able to quickly move their applications to the new machine…if and when
inovative software becomes available.
We need ports of mainstream programs first, if we ever expect to
move folks from MS-DOS to AmigaDOS.
Don
Don,
My feeling is that you will never get a significant number of people
switching from MS-DOS to the Amiga just because of ported software. After
all, MS-DOS users have a significant amount of money invested in _hardware_
as well as software, and they are familiar with PC hardware and so are more
likely to upgrade to new PC systems (like 386 VGA systems). So simply
having ports of existing PC products won't help the Amiga.
It is not the "look, the Amiga can do that too" approach that will get the
Amiga into businesses. There has to be a real reason to switch–something
the Amiga does that the PC doesn't (and something that business need to
have done). This is exactly how the Mac got established. In the first
couple of years of the Macintosh, it was ridiculed by PC users as a cute
toy. But DTP changed all of that. Suddenly the Mac was doing things that
PC's couldn't, and doing it cheaper and more quickly that conventional
methods. After DTP, the Mac didn't _need_ ports of 1-2-3 or dBase.
The Amiga still has no one thing that it does (that businesses need) that
the PC doesn't. And this is why I feel that CBM ought to not spend great
sums money trying to get ports of PC products on the Amiga. Rather, that
money is better spent looking for and assisting the development of
innovative new ideas for the Amiga.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
James,
No, you don't go dump current, working hardware without a good
reason. I don't expect that. However, when it becomes time to expand
and/or upgrade…then the Amiga could be moved into that environment if the
software was available where a simple copy of program information (data,
program scripts, etc.) and you'd be done.
Sure, the Amiga would have to have a benefit that their current
machines don't have…but that could be as simple as faster but cheaper.
Don
The Amiga DOES has some things going for it that the MS-Dulls cant do (very
well): DTV. Yes, I know, this isnt putting Amigas in offices yet… but DTP
didnt take off in a few months either. As the capability of DTV
hardware/software improves, this is what will set the Amiga apart. However,
for a corporation to consider buying Amiga's, they need the mainstream
productivity progs. When I say mainstream, I mean PROFESSIONAL. Some of the
stuff for the Amy is great, but there is no doubting that the DTP,
Spreadsheet, and Database areas are a _little_ shallow. Also, 'big-name'
applications like 1-2-3 and Dbase IV would allay fears that the Amiga is a
"home computer", or a game machine. Name association is a well known
phenomenon.
Mark Eaton
Mark,
Again, the existence of big-name companies developing for your computer
isn't have much of a factor in companies adopting a new _platform_. It
didn't help the Macintosh (it was PageMaker that did that), and I don't
believe it will help the Amiga. In fact, the presence of WordPerfect did
nothing to improve the Amiga's image. And you may say that it takes more
than one big-name company to legitimize a computer, but how many? Two?
Three? Five?
Companies need a strong reasons to switch to new platforms. Simply being
able to use the same software they use now (and obsolete versions at that)
is not even a consideration. Businesses just don't work that way. There
has to be something that they can't even do with their existing computers
that the new computer does. And even then, they will initially purchase
these new computers just for the new application. This is exactly what
happenned with the Macintosh.
Since Commodore clearly has limited funds, it would be much better spent
nourishing the fresh new ideas than wooing big companies.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
James,
Of course, most places won't SWITCH platforms. But if Lotus were to
develop 1-2-3 on the Amiga and make the files compatible with 1-2-3 for
MS-DOS, it would open the road for Amigas to be added, since there's
already networking.
The only platform we would ever switch to in our company would be Unix
servers with X-Window terminals.
— Jane H. (Writing, it's easier read than done.)
Wouldn't you think that Apple's marketing, on TV especially, had as much
to do with the acceptance of the Mac as anything? Business people watch TV
too and Apple certainly knows their marketing. Most of their ads have been
very good and right to the point unlike someone else's ads we've all seen.
Like the current commercial showing the 2 bosses commenting which computer
is better to use;"But people LIKE to use the Mac". So I can see a person
whose job it is to purchase new equipment for a particular company watching
this ad and thinking that , hey, maybe these computers ARE worth looking
into. And so it goes. Now how many business people would say the same thing
after that last batch of C= commercials?
For some insights on the other platforms users opinions, see this months
letters in Computer Shopper, especially the 10 reasons not to like Windows
3.0… This guy should try using an Amiga. He would be `amazed';-).
>>>>>Skip( SKP Graphics )<<<<<
Just to second what New Horizons said, it is _other_ apps that will be
necessary for Amiga to succeed, and existence of popular ports ia a
non-issue either way. As James said, PageMaker got it started for the Mac
(along with subsequent developments like the first Postscript printer). To
this day there is no Mac version of 1-2-3, dBase III, Wordstar, MultiMate,
or many of the other apps that so many offices have standardized on. There
is a Mac WordPerfect, but it hasn't amounted to much in the Mac world
(although the promised next release – 2.0 – looks nice).
OTOH, I agree that once the machine does make in-roads for its unique
capabilities, it is important to have comparably powered traditional
applications. Mac didn't have 1-2-3, but it helped when Microsoft came out
with Excel (at the time a Mac-only program), because it meant that although
you couldn't run 1-2-3, you could run a program that was comparable –
actually superior – in capabilities. So a company buying a Mac for DTP –
perhaps their first computer – could still do other more traditional kinds
of work on it, making it an easier decision. IOW, a killer spreadheet won't
sell the Amiga, but if the Amiga world ever comes up with its "trojan
horse" (as dtp was for mac), it will be very beneficial to have a good
spreadsheet available as well, Lotus or otherwise. ===Scott
I think what would be more important than actually having the "Big Name"
programs on the Amiga would be more file compatability between Amiga
programs and programs on other computers. Word Perfect was a dud because
they didn't support the graphics Amiga owners expect, but it could
read/write to other computers.
/ / //ANDRE
Scott,
you've nailed it on the head. Once a machine has found it's niche in
the corporate world, all it needs is the file compatability to ensure it's
acceptance. At least that's what is happening here in the government
arena. If we can't have that special niche and port files over, we aren't
going to buy that machine, and I _want_ to get several ami's on this base.
Brian J. Bartlett
RE: your comments on Mac being a toy before DTP…
Apple had several advantages during that time frame that Commodore does
not have now. 1) Apple had (and still has) an extensive dealer base. 2)
Apple was known to make business machines, even though the Apple III and
Lisa were flops. Many businesses were still using Apple II's in their
businesses in 1984. C='s claim to fame, the C-64, could never be considered
anything but a toy due to the poor way external storage was implemented
(disk drives). That means that the last real Commodore "Business Machine"
was the 8032, and most businesses have long fogotten what the letters CBM
stand for. 3) At the time, Apple's only real competition was IBM (and maybe
Compaq). Now, C= faces challenges from Apple, IBM, Compaq, Tandy and a host
of other direct marketers, all telling potential customers that the Amiga
is a "game machine, and not a good one at that. Have you seen our new
CoCo…?".
IMHO, Apple has been particularly aggressive, making a claim that their
Apple MacIntosh will run more software than any other computer (2 page ad
in PC Magazine). I wrote an EMail to PCMagnet, and have not seen the ad in
the last three issues…
..tony m…
Tony,
Your points are well stated. Yes, Commodore had to start from a much worse
position than Apple did when introducing the Macintosh. The "toy computer"
image has never left them.
But to me, this is an even stronger argument for not simply porting
programs from the PC. "The Amiga has a version of 1-2-3? Really? How
cute."
CBM was never nearly as aggressive as Apple at trying to position the Amiga
as a business machine. In fact, their marketing message changed at various
times, and there were long gaps with no marketing message at all. Apple
was pretty much consistent in its message to the outside world (in spite of
massive division within the company), and this helped the Macintosh
eventually gain acceptance. _And_ they kept hammering away at it.
Sure, Apple had more money. This can explain the lack of a really
aggressive marketing campaign (which is much more than just TV ads), but it
doesn't explain the constantly changing message.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
James, I think that the changing marketing strategy may have something
to do with the everchanging leadership in CBM USA. Currently they've got
two targets: multimedia and home-computer/toy. They will also have to be
competing in the Unix and home-electronics/CDTV markets soon as well, which
is enough to make marketdroids lose their mind!
If you'd seen Lotus Improv you might not feel that porting is so bad.
One example of how Lotus is so well organized. Columns and rows are not
numbered, they are named. You can also group columns and rows such as:
Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3…… product 1
prod 2 prod 1 prod 2 prod 1 prod 2
There will be two little buttons along the top labeled quarter and
product. If you drag the product button down to the vertical axis, it will
automatically restructure the entire spreadsheet to show quarter1, 2, 3
across the top and product 1 and product 2 along the y axis.
It is VERY intuitive. Also, the formulas are kept in a 'window' and are
phrased as words. You can be sure this'll be ported to many other
platforms.
BTW, Commodore had an excellent quarter 7/1-9/30. Sales of Amigas were
up by 50 PERCENT in terms of unit sales. The A3000 must've taken off.
Earnings were 7 million.
— Ethan
I'm beginning to see your (and other peoples') point about porting
programs from MS-DULL. There have already been a number of ports from the
PC to the Amiga, such as dBMan, SuperPlan (I know there was a MS-DULL
version of its predecessor Logistix, I'm not sure if it came first), and
the most famous of all, WordPerfect. I guess WP was the most successful of
the three, and it did not sell as well as had hoped.
Nevertheless, we still need quality traditional productivity programs
that read industry standard data files. A quick history lesson: Lotus
with its 1-2-3 program made users switch from VisiCalc on the Apple. Excel
and Wingz have converted some people to the Mac as a business machine. Now
Lotus is releasing Improv on the Next to further spreadsheet evolution. If
the Amiga will ever to break into the business market, it will have to
provide a product that pushes software technology to a new level, a very
tall order.
I guess I'm concerned that the absence of quality traditional business
programs will spell the end of the Amiga as a general purpose machine,
instead becoming a box to plug the Video Toaster in and to run
video-related software…
..tony m…
Tony;
At least in the case of the WP folks, they took advantage of some of the
amy's characteristics. Enough in fact that I can't stand to use the IBM
version of WP because most of my favorite command short cuts are not
available.
73, bill
Wouldn't a program like WingZ make more of an impact? Seems that people
are making a big deal about that program on the other machines but it
sounds awfully like Micro-Fiche Filer to me. >>>>>Skip( SKP Graphics )<<<<<
Actually, PC Magazine did a once-over on Wingz. It was impressed by its
many bells and whistles, but said it was weak in basic spreadsheet
functions. Go figure…
I wouldn't mind an Improv clone…
..tony m…
Tony,
I don't read PC mag but we use Informix at my regular job. It's hard to
really comment on Informix itself because of it being a programmers
database. Apparently the people that wrote the application for us, using
Informix, either don't know what they're doing or don't know what we're
doing or a combination of the two. It's running on a PS/2 70 fully loaded
and can't get out of it's own way. Oh, Informix is from the same company
that did WINGZ. Or maybe Informix is the company:^). Anyway, I don't like
it. I always miss my multitasking Amiga;-)
>>>>>Skip( SKP Graphics )<<<<<
You mean they HAVE been spending money? On AmigaBASIC, perhaps? (hee hee..
That fits into your examples). I do think AmigaVision is a very positive
product, but you are right about coaxing big vendors with money and I also
agree about needing unique software to gain recognition.
Commodore didn't write AmigaVision. Imsatt did.
— Ethan
Yes, I know, but AV was still made to Commodore's order.
I've heard several times that AmigaVision was written before Commodore
approved it. Apparently the GUI was made to Commodore's specs and the
program itself was probably adapted. Just guessing. 8)
— Ethan
Does it really matter whether or not Commodore was the brains behind Amiga
Vision? Just having it available at all, has produced alot of grateful
Amiga users. It's a fine first step into serious applications for the
Amiga, by the company that produces the Amiga. *8>
**** Vance ****
:::Did Lotus charge Apple to port 123 on teh Mac? Doubt it..
There is no Mac version of 1-2-3. ===Scott
Scott,
No, but there was JAZZ (and Symphony too?).
Lloyd
ummm, I believe there are recent GUI releases of 123 (or at least
announcements of them) and seem to recall the Mac being one of the new
platforms (including Unix).
Lotus did announce that there would be a 1-2-3 for the Mac, I think about 2
years ago, but it hasn't happened, and there has been no target date
announced. It's a non-issue right now in the Mac world. I think that
announcement was designed to bolster Lotus's PR, not Apple's. It is
possible though, that the Mac might run any UNIX implementation they come
out with, but only a very small percentage of Macs are running UNIX.
As someone else pointed out, they _did_ come out with Jazz (not Symphony)
in 1985, but its development was pretty much abandoned quickly (they did
have a version 1A after the initial version 1, but that was it). It has not
been marketed in years. Interestingly, Jazz was not a bad product. It
wasn't 1-2-3, but it was a decent product in its own right. I think poor
marketing killed it more than anything else.
Today Lotus _is_ about to push a new product on the Mac though, it's a
CD-ROM called MarketPlace, that provides marketing information for
businesses (you can target people and companies in specified areas that
meet certain criteria). ===Scott
Lotus has stated they are making a 1-2-3 type of program for the Mac. But
Apple is not paying them for this one (after the failure of Jazz).
Besides, Apple doesn't _have_ to pay anyone anymore, since the Mac is
firmly established in mainstream businesses.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
There is a 1-2-3 for Windows, and 1-2-3-G for OS2.
Mark Eaton
Scott,
But I believe that Apple _did_ pay Lotus to create Jazz for the Mac.
Another massive failure.
James Bayless
New Horizons Software, Inc.
My understanding is that the new versions of Lotus 1-2-3 were done in C
C-code, thus easily ported to different platforms. This is how Lotus
released a Unix version of 1-2-3 shortfly after the DOS version was
released. If this rumor is true, then porting it to the Amiga is merely a
matter of altering the C-language for machine specific stuff… which II
can not image will require 3-4 million dollars worth of development.