NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/sys/atari/st/18744

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 5.7 KB | 116 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!simvax.labmed.umn.edu!DAVIDLI
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: I am NOT making this up, OK?  (was Re: Closed ... <ho hum>)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: lapis.labmed.umn.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Health Computer Sciences, U of MN, Mpls
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:49:06 GMT
Lines: 102

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Baggett) writes:
>I'm not sure of what you're faulting me for here; I expressed amazement
>that after reading the gory details of the visit you place the blame on us
>instead of Atari (this is what I've written above),

The fault, sir, is that given the context of the whole article, it should have
been apparent to you (as it was to other readers) that I was NOT finding fault
with you at this point.  You had misinterpreted the writing.  It is as though
you have decided that anything which I might say in response to your writing is
an attempt to find fault, criticize, or denigrate you.

> but the whole rest of
>this message outlines our blunders, and details how it's our fault that
>GW didn't impesss Atari, didn't make it to market, etc.

The message says nothing about your failure to impress Atari.  It does say a
thing or two about how I would have responded (and, indeed, have responded)
in a similar situation.

It is entirely Double-Click's fault that GW did not make it to market, if, as
you've said, the libraries were completed and all that remained to be done was
to come up with a manual and market the thing.

>Why should I be your personal secretary?

Did I ask you to be my personal secretary?  No.  I asked for some COMPANY
NAMES.  It takes as much time to type 'reply' as it does to type 'follow' in
News software.  I wanted those names for a reason, which had nothing to do with
any desire to show you up for a lying fool (which I don't believe you to be in
the first place, so don't try to bring it up in a future post).

>What would that possibly have gained?

Self-esteem.  Knowledge that you have higher standards than one of the sons of
the owner of a computer manufacturing corporation.  A few hours to do something
more constructive.

>Would we have made the cost of the trip back?

No.  Then again, DID you make the cost of the trip back?  One of the hardest
things about being in business is knowing when to cut your losses.

>Would we have had a better chance of making a successful deal with them after
>storming out of the meeting?

Was a 'successful deal' one of the clearly held goals of this meeting?  From
what you have written, it looks as though someone at Atari wrote to you saying
"Hi.  I hear you've written something neat for game programmers?   Would you
like to show us what you're doing?"  It's a great ego-booster, but hardly the
sort of thing one where one expects a written contract at the end of the day.

>We were entirely professional the whole time.  Once we realized that we
>had no hope of striking some deal with Atari,

See above.  I would imagine your realization of this occurred sometime within
the first few minutes of the encounter -- say, immediately after Mr. Tramiel's
quip about lawsuits...

[regarding the Syquest cartridge]

You brought a cartridge with a blank C partition and no desktop.inf to indicate
there was a D partition where all of your work was waiting to be shown.  If
I've misunderstood that, please let me know.  It is a simple task to hook up a
Syquest drive, and to mount a C partition.  If you did not EXPRESSLY tell the
technician that the C partition was blank, I do not pity you for the time and
trouble Atari had getting the software up and running.  It is NOT a 'simple
task' when you fail to tell someone that you have a non-standard practice with
regard to disk partitions.

>Atari invited us to come out and show us GW.  We didn't ask them.

Crucial bit of information here, missing from your earlier posts.  As I was
reading your other posts, it was a case of Double-Click REQUESTING A MEETING
WITH ATARI.

>They weren't going to pay our way, but why would we refuse when they were
>talking about the possibility of bundling GW with the Falcon?

Another crucial bit of information here, missing from your earlier posts.

Then again, given the fact that Atari hasn't bundled any third-party software
with the ST in the United States, and given the presumption that Atari is
probably not going to bundle a compiler with the Falcon, are you sure
Double-Click had a clear set of goals for this meeting?

>We had a contract with DC.  Generally speaking, you can't sign on with
>a company and then go looking for someone else.  What happened in the
>end is unfortunate.  But it was entirely out of our hands once the
>contract was signed.  This is the way freelance software works.

Right.  And since the origin of all of these threads dealt with the demise of
Double-Click, and the 'poor victims of Atari Corporation' was the leading
theme, it just goes to show that Double-Click was as responsible for their
demise as Atari could possibly have been.

We have only Double-Click Software to blame for the non-release of GW.  They
could have put the product out there on the market long before the Falcon was
officially announced.  It is not the fault of David Baggett that GW isn't out
there, but then again, it is not the fault of Atari Corporation either.  No one
prohibited Double-Click from marketing GW when it was first available.

-- David Paschall-Zimbel