• Updated 2023-07-12: Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this follow-up post about our outage a week or so ago.

Why are newton developers such greedy pigs?

beachycove

Well-known member
Not a small part of the problem seems to be that some software serials were generated only when you supplied the ID number of the particular Newton unit itself on which you wanted to run the package to the developer — thus you were unable, say, to move your copy of a particular title to your MP2100 when upgrading from your MP130 without going back to the developer for a new serial. This also has the effect of making use of these titles today very difficult, even when the software can be had.

There are, of course, developers who have released freeware versions of their titles, presumably because they did not require the Newton's ID to generate a serial in the first place, or because the code has been altered so as no longer to require the more convoluted approach. There are others who continue to sell if you prod them a little, and they often sell at greatly reduced prices. This is not only fair, but more than fair: I wish more software were still maintained in this way, rather than just abandoned along with the older hardware. But there are other developers who would, it seems, be unable to sell or to release freeware versions of their old titles without continuing to provide a modicum of support in the form of having someone to generate the serial and send it by return email. Naturally, as some of them are now disinterested/dead/departed/developing for Palm they don't want to get into that hassle.

In other cases, the problem is just the ephemeral nature of computers and what you find on the internet: the 19 year-old who developed a package circa 2000 as a lark now has a job with a six figure salary, a good woman and maybe a child or two, a big car and a bigger mortgage, and understandably couldn't be less bothered about old flames like Newtons. He has grown up, got a life, moved house a few times, and as he wasn't a proper company to start with, but a savant, smalltime shareware developer working from a bedroom, has no infrastructure to support the old stuff with which he once tinkered. Some of you, God willing, will be like that with your old Macs, too, in a few years' time.

It is a shame. I'm a Newton fan and daily user, but the software hunt for the machine can occasionally be frustrating. For many and most purposes, however, there is a large-ish (alas, not comprehensive) software repository at unna.org .

 

Charlieman

Well-known member
Please consider that some authors do not want their software to be freely developed after they have abandoned it. It is all fine and dandy to label them as greedy because of that, but I also think that our demands for free software is also a bit greedy. It goes both ways.
I tend to agree. The counter argument, of course, is why doesn't the developer release the source code so that others can follow up? Having looked at some code that I wrote ten years ago, I know the answer: it is inelegant, looks awful, the comments made some sense at the time, but there is no easy way to explain all of the cludges and workarounds that seem bizarre if you are coding strictly to the APIs.

 
Blame Apple. Top secret fees, overpriced docs.

Apple wanted 895 dollars for the programming manuals for newton.

DOCUMENTATION! Microsoft that same time frame gave away cdroms full of documentation and compilers and debugger for a grand total of 35 dollars shipped to you.

35 dollars for prerelease windows dev cds vs 895 dollars for apple newton.

Apple kept that price that high until the bitter end, and when newton was down the toilet started lowering the price for newton programming manuals.

heres a real laugh riot... that money for newton apps did not go to developers... some went to APPLE !

All newton apps to bind with the apple libraries and ship had to sign a top secret license agreement with apple with massive penalties if the follwinge information is EVER revealed. But I am revealing it here :

APPLE IS TO GET THREE PERCENT OF THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF ALL NEWTON SALES. (not net, Gross receipts).

Well than means apple is responsible for no less than 3% of the inflated price, and when you factor in the overpriced developer manuals, you get so called "greedy newton" prices.

That info above had a "fire and brimstone" clause protecting its secrecy from wall street, or the public.

Palm Pilot kicked apples butt eventually and created a Multi Billion Dollar empire, all because Palm tried to do the opposite of apple in every regard with developer relationships.

Apple should have PAID developers to read newton manuals, let alone have the gall to charge developer program members 895 dollars for documentation on the newton.

Microsofts 35 dollars developer cd-rom helped propel Windows 95 into history and jack up its stock over a third of a trillion dollars.

Apple is the greedy fools.

 

papa_november

Well-known member
Really?

That is AMAZING. It's like the iPhone but even worse. I'd love to see some scans of this secret contract bullshit.

Shit, if this is true then it's no wonder the Newton never caught on.

 

paws

Well-known member
Shit, if this is true then it's no wonder the Newton never caught on.
I don't think available software was the main problem for the early Newton. In fact, I think the success of the Palm demonstrates the opposite: the Palm is much less 'computer' than the Newton is. I'd say most people use the built-in apps almost exclusively, and it gets them right. It's got a great calendar and notebook which sync properly, and it's got an input method that's not going to make you want to pull your hair out - even if you don't happen to speak English. The first Newtons weren't very good in these respects, and I think that's what doomed them.

 

Anonymous Freak

Well-known member
If a programmer ceases support of a product they should either make an unprotected full version available for distribution...their software will be made available in unprotected form.
And in fact, many do. Look at all the Abandonware that's been legally released for old Macs, for example. It just makes us sad pandas when someone forgets to or can't do this.
While we're reviving old dead threads.........

Just watch out for "Abandonware" and "legally released" in the same sentence. Yes, many programmers have done this; but many more have *NOT*. In fact, the term "abandonware" is usually used to refer specifically to software that *hasn't* been "legally released" by its author. Once it has, it becomes "freeware". (Like iCab 2.9.9. It's not 'abandoned', it's just 'free' now.) The term abandonware is generally used when referring to non-free software that is so old and forgotten that the original author either can't be found to ask for permission, or has never given specific permission, but has not made an effort to block its distribution, either.

For example, old Apple OSes are not "abandonware" because either: A. Apple makes it available for free (6.0.8, 7.5.5,) or B. They block attempts to release (the oldest Mac systems, OS 9, etc.)

 

freudling

Active member
This is actually a relevant thread. If you look at all the free help offered on NTLK list over the years... in relation to all that free help in the Newton community, Newton developers still in existence that charge for their software are a tad greedy.

 

Jelly

Member
I did the eMate-wireless trick from geektechnique and it works!

Dead thread or not, suckers like myself keep reading them every now and then.

Jelle

 
Top