NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/misc-part1/1123

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 6.0 KB

Path: cs.uwa.edu.au!jasonb
From: [e-mail] (Jason S Birch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: A4000 HD Drive, FORGET IT!
Date: 12 Jan 96 03:29:19 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ckgd8$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4cqd7c$[e-mail]> <4cre1d$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4ctmbi$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4cvo4g$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: decadence.cs.uwa.oz.au
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #3 (NOV)

[e-mail] (Maxwell Daymon) writes:

>Jason S Birch ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: cheap, but the cost of the disks is at least five times as much as a
>: CD (assuming 25M) with only 4% the storage, and duplication of Zip
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Yet reusable. I have 20 CD-ROMs that have junk software on them that I
>can do NOTHING with. At least I could use a Zip disk. Non-reusability is
>a major drawback both to the users and producers.

Yes, but this is a non-issue from the distributors point of view. They
pay, say, $5 for a Zip disk, or $1 for a CDROM - for a game that cost
$35, I would imagine that's significant.

>Zip disks are less per megabyte - many low end users would be happy with
>ONE or TWO zip disks. As it is, you will need far more floppies than Zips
>to store the same information. Floppy speed is already frustrating, and
>the Amiga can't even offer the benefit of the 500kbps speed of a normal
>HD floppy.

Agreed. I didn't consider floppies a reasonable medium. I think CDROMs
are more attractive for software distribution, and Zips more useful for
everything else. Floppy disks don't really come into the picture.

>As other companies take the lead, Zip disks will become cheaper. By the
>time AT have them as standard they will probably cost much less to
>distributors (and they have reuse/resale value - so you won't get charged
>with 'overstock protection' a cost added to CD-ROM distribution to
>protect the seller)

This is an effect I hadn't considered, but I don't know how big a
problem it is. OTOH, Zips are probably more defect-prone than CDs, so
there are at least two unknown factors in the final cost. :-)

>Finally, I have read in a number of reports that media cost is actually
>much less of a factor in price than we would be led to believe. Just a
>cursory analysis of software prices of disk vs. CD-ROM games shows that
>cost stayed the same or went UP when media cost went DOWN. (Yes, even for
>shovelware).

Sure, it went up even though the cost of media went down and they made
a whole bunch of excuses for it. Do you expect them to *not* use more
expensive media as an excuse for increasing it more? Of course they
will.

>When I said finally, I didn't mean it:

>There is also something called the '25MB' Zip disk. A wonderful
>alternative to 100MB disks and expected at around $7 in SINGLE quanitity
>and at a much lower price to bulk buyers.

Yes, this is what I had assumed (check "^" above). I had assumed a
cost of $5 in quantity. While $1 -> $5 may not be a big difference for
applications, it *might* make a big difference for games, which is the
main focus of the low end.

>The 25MB disk will have all the
>advantages of speed and reusability, yet it won't cost any more than some
>floppies (to distributors) who are looking at 6 and 10 disk distribution.

Sure, floppies are a pain for distributors, especially compared to
CDROM.

>25MB disks will also decrease in price, especially if companies like AT
>adopt (fortunately, Mac and clone companies are already looking into it,
>and some have started).

This is true.

>: floppies) than CDROMs (stamped from a master). So, for software
>: distribution, CDROM is a big win over Zip cost-wise. However, CDROM

>Perhaps, but I'll pay the same or $2 more (which is likely what it would
>amount to) for a disk that I can reuse if I want to.

If the software game is anything like the hardware game, a $4
difference in the cost to distributors will become a much greater than
$4 cost to users. Of course, for the reasons you give, users might be
willing to foot the bill - the question will be whether distributors
can be convinced of that. Another thing, which game companies might
not like, is being limited to 25M. Given Zips exist, there's even more
pressure to fill up a CD with 600M of crap to make piracy difficult,
so they're unlikely to be satisfied with <25M that a user can make a
copy of in, what, 30 seconds? Given it's a SCSI device, I don't think
any of their favourite annoy-the-hell-out-of-users-trackloader-scheme
copy protection methods would be viable. If it's in the order of 100M,
or so, then the cost of the Zip disk (either 100M or multiple 25M)
becomes high enough that the user may as well have forked out the $35
for the original. Unfortunately, the cost of the Zip disk(s) now becomes
a *big* part of the equation for the distributor, whereas the CDROM is
still only $1.

>: So, we're back where we started. Zip seems like the perfect
>: replacement for HD and floppy, until you look at how expensive it is
>: to distribute software on compared to CDROM. CDROM alone, however,

>You are completely ignoring 25MB disks and the fact that final cost
>doesn't always reflect actual media cost. These factors convince me that
>Zip is the answer.

I was basing it on the former, but was assuming the media cost (and
ease - as I said, duplicating CDROMs is fairly painless in large
numbers, plus there are many places now that will do it) would be a
significant factor for distributors, yes. From a consumer's point of
view, I agree, a bundled Zip would definately be the way to go. The
question is whether the game companies would go for it.

--
Jason S Birch                        ,-_|\ email: [e-mail]
Department of Computer Science      /     \ Tel (work): [phone]
The University of Western Australia *_.-._/ Fax (work): [phone]
Nedlands  W. Australia  6907             v  Tel (home): [phone]