On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 at 23:19:06, Roy Wood wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> >Well that was an interesting tirade. I have no intention of going into >a lengthy discussion of this in deference to those of you who have >become as heartily sick of the whole thing now as I was in trying to >deal with Peter in the first place. I do feel, and I apologise in >advance here that there are a few inaccuracies that should be stated. I >will keep this as brief and blame free as I can. I too hesitate to join this, but I can't see I can avoid it. > > >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter >Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >>I will not explain here all the lengthy details how much effort and >>prefinancing it required until I could find any commitment from established >>QL traders in the production. I found only vague forms of interest, nothing >>I could count on, although I had written software to show that the hardware >>works, and several operating systems were under construction. Suddenly after >>Tony Tebby had already finished a running SMSQ/E, financed by me, >>at my own risk, and Tony Tebby expressed his enthusiasm for my development, >>I had the surprise to read in the public, that Qbranch and TF Services >>had made a decision towards Q40 production. I am puzzled by this. Right up to the point of my production decision, Peter and I were negotiating by email. Quite a few times I wanted to pull out, but Roy kept me on the hook. I don't know if Peter ever knew this. QUOTE (23 Aug 98 email from PG to me) Roy Wood has signaled he is willing to help me organizing the production, but I fear this could become a heavy burden for him because of his lack of hardware knowledge. It could also become a bit difficult for me, if I am involved in explaining hardware production issues, looking for the right components, testing, doing repairs and so on. Now here comes my idea: Why not ask Tony Firshman if he is interested in producing the Q40? Obviously this would also mean the right to sell it. I have not talked to Roy about this idea yet, because I want to see if you are interested at all. If your answer is Yes, I would like to talk to him first before we go into the details. ENDQUOTE The decision between Roy, Peter and I came after long and protracted discussions between me and Peter following this initial email. Up to then I knew nothing about the Q40, and had not even seen it or Peter, other than from a distance at Eindhoven. There had never been any private arrangements with Roy up to this point. >I expressed directly to Peter at an Eindhoven meeting, long before any >mention of development of SMSQ/E for the Q40, my wish to sell the >machine for him. My offer was, if I recall correctly (and it was a long >time ago) to sell the finished working boards. I would never have >offered to make them because I lack the knowledge and experience to do >so. It was Stuart Honeyball, who had been looking at the boards for >Peter, who suggested that I would build them and finance the whole >deal. I was informed of this at an Indian restaurant prior to a QL show >in Nottingham. Those present included Jochen, Tony Firshman, and D&D >who were organising the show. It was Tony who came up to me and said >'Did you know that you were financing and building the Q40 - Stuart >says it should only cost around 10 grand'. I remember this very clearly >because it was a bit of a shock. I talked Tony into coming on board >because I knew I could not build them. As Roy says it is a long time ago, and I really cannot remember the details at all - at least this part of it. >> >>My objective was a coordinated effort to cut costs by finding cheap >>sources. I estimated, that with quantity discounts for 50 boards, and >>someone who has access to larger parts distributors, DM 350 costs could >>be reached. I proposed 70% profit for the trader and DM 150 licensing fee >>for me, which gives a retail price of DM 745. The license fee was originally >>supposed to finance my development costs, but back then I already had >>expenses that could not be covered by this licence fee from 50 boards. >>I clearly stated that my fee would rise rapidly with higher retail prices >>because that means less produced units. As a trader, Roy Wood should >>know that my profit is not turnover (my fee), but turnover less expenses. >I am not too sure what this sentence is saying but Tony and I would >have been glad to see 70% profit. As it was we could not find parts at >a price to match Peter's and we argued for a long time about the costs >and end sale price. During the argument Tony said on more than one >occasion that he would quit and I had to talk him into staying on >board. Cheap sources = 'pulls' i.e. second hand parts. I was very >unhappy about using second hand processors and even more unhappy about >only getting 20 of them up front I was therefore willing to buy 50 new >ones from one of my Super Gold Card sources. This would, at the very >least, have guaranteed 50 identical units at the heart of the machine. >> >>My negotiating partners proposed a higher retail price of DM 1050 based on >>their higher expenses. We clearly stated that we do not agree about the >>retail price, but without my approval estimated price figures and >>release dates were already published. Efforts to cut costs were started, >>and I found cheaper CPU's >I think Tony has probably something to say about this. I suppose I have to come in here (8-(# I bought all new parts that were used in production - the only reclaimed parts were from Peter. The processors Roy bought were never even shipped to Roy by the supplier. I am not, really, casting any blame here. I have always bought reclaimed EPROMs, and 8749s for Hermes. I do not though have any special access to special discounts, despite Peter's optimism. I don't know how he worked out the parts costs, but my calculations (excluding ram/processor) made final board cost almost twice what Peter had estimated. There were no new parts available anything like Peter's projection. Also quite a few parts had to be bought in more volume than needed because of package qtys/price breaks. ><snip> >That is about all I am going to say on the subject you will all be >pleased to hear. I am sure Peter has a whole different view on the >subject and, after all, this is all very subjective. My main concern >was always for the end user. I may have acted rashly at times and I may >have not treated Peter very fairly in some people's eyes but he was >willing to wash his hands of the whole episode at a very early stage >and I am sure that Tony Firshman has the email in which he said this. I >deleted them all . What email was this exactly and when. I do have them all. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@<surname>.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
