cs4911ay@unm-cvax.UUCP (09/18/84)
[It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a -- ]
The following is a massive diatribe levelled at Steve Jobs and his
band of merry highwaymen down in Cupertino. Apple fans with sensitive
constitutions, consider yourselves warned.
I just received news concerning the Fat Mac, of which we have all
heard so much: the Macintosh, with 512K. It has been released and is
on its way, delivery date approximately three weeks (or thereabouts;
delivery dates haven't been Apple's strong point lately).
I also received news about its price.
Brace yourselves.
$995. Yes, you read right: that's nine hundred ninety-five big ones,
to be removed deftly from your wallet and placed just as deftly into theirs.
All that on top of the $2495 (or $2195, if you happened to get it in one
of the recent sales that have started to spring up here and there) which all
us Macfans have already shelled out.
[Background: My friends and I who purchased Macs are not the
businessmen-types that the Mac seems to be aimed at. We are but simple
college students, not fortunate enough (or rich enough, as the case may be)
to attend one of the schools in the Apple University Consortium, and get
our Macs for dirt cheap. No, we go to the University of New Mexico, in
the Land of Enchantment (Land of Enchantment? You've got to be kidding.
Do you know what it feels like to live in one of the few places in the
civilized world where you can still catch the bubonic plague? The PLAGUE,
for God's sake!!!). Therefore, we had to spring for the big bucks, and
don't get off on this account. OK, back to righteous indignation.]
They have got to be kidding! When the Mac was first announced, the
price was $1995; not bad, considering what you get in a Mac. Then, when it
finally saw the light of day, filtered through display windows, the price
had somehow escalated to $2495 -- for the bare-bones system, of course.
Steep, but still within the range of those of us fortunate enough to have
that kind of cash handy or to have a sympathetic loan officer. This, of
course, was the 128K Mac; the fully-realized Mac was on its way, by
the end of the year, just hang on, we'll get it to you, 512K, Real Soon
Now, wow, gosh ...
Well, they sure got it to us, all right. For the measly sum of
damn near a thousand bucks extra, we plebes can get ourselves the system
that should have come out in the first place. So now Apple has us all
over a barrel. We all sprung our $2995 for the Mac and the printer, and
shortly afterwards realized that the thing was absolutely useless without
the second disk drive. So, another $495 went down the drain. Next comes
the realization that with the basic 128K, the user is left with too little
memory to accomplish anything significant. So, another $995 down the tubes.
Thus Steve Jobs' vision of the computer that anyone can use has become the
computer that no one can afford, because a workable system sells for $4485.
What a bargain!
Looks like Steve & Co. are standing by to rake in the big bucks; The
Rest of Us can all bend over and grab our ankles. It's coming in dry, folks;
no Vaseline on this one.
Now, damn it, I really like the Mac -- I really do. It's got a few
rough spots, but nothing a little software and minor hardware changes
couldn't fix. That's what the Fat Mac was supposed to be all about, at least
as far as hardware went. I, personally, wouldn't own anything else, certainly
not another faceless, amorphous blob from the IBM PC CloneMakers. All in all,
I think it's the best thing to hit the market since -- well, since the
Apple II. And buying Apple is like buying Hewlett-Packard: once you buy one,
you tend to stick with it. At least, I do, and I'm sure there's a lot of
people out there like me.
But pulling little stunts like this is not going to earn old Stevie
Boy any new friends. I can hear Jerry Pournelle cackling away in the
depths of Chaos Manor now, chortling, "I told you so!" Oh, sure, eventually
the price of the changeover will probably drop -- maybe to $500. The point
is, however, that it shouldn't have to. $500 is the price they should be
charging now -- and even that's excessive. They should properly be giving
the damn thing away for the price of labor, since the price hike in the
beginning covers what the upgrade should be costing now. But they won't.
And by delivering yet another shaft to the long-suffering-but-loyal followers
of the Macintosh, Apple has shown that, in the end, they're not that much
different from any other computer company, that they don't really give a
damn about the end-user, and that the final arbiter is, as we all suspected
but hoped against hope was not true, the bottom line on the ledger books.
I guess 1984 is a little more like _1984_ than we might've hoped.
From The Rest of Us to Apple: one extremely loud and heartfelt Bronx
cheer.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Mike Conley @ University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
{ucbvax!unmvax!cvax:cs4911ay}
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (09/20/84)
Seethings:
After all those wonderful words of love for Mackintosh marketing,
I could only feel a lack of extreme sympathy, having shelled out $7K for
a Lisa I with the intent of buying LisaPascal to do some programming with...
Well, first there's the problem of you couldn't get LisaPascal from the
dealers, because Apple pretty much stopped distributing the Twiggy version,
in anticipation of the "upgrade" from two 800KB Twiggy drives to 1 400KB Sony.
Of course I'm still waiting, a year later, for my dealer to get a free
"upgrade" kit to upgrade my Lisa I to a Lisa II so I can buy a programming
language for the bitch. (are you listening, Apple?)
On the other hand, I wouldn't trade my Lisa for anything but a
Sun workstation.
--
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny :-> Kirsten of Sun Microsystems Inc.)rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (09/20/84)
Of course Apple feels that the "final arbiter" is the bottom line on the ledger books. Apple isn't a privately-owned company for the purpose of helping out computer buffs, its a $1 bilion dollar publicly-traded company that must recognize its obligations to its owners, the stock-holders. Now, one can argue that the best business strategy would still be one that encouraged long-term satisfaction with the Apple product line, but that is strictly a business (ie maximize profit, long-term and/or short-term) decision. As to the prices you quote. Is anyone really paying those prices? Here in the Chicago area, Macs are selling for around $1700 at the cheapest places, and about $2300 or so gets you the basic Mac, the printer, and a few software items like MacPaint and MacWrite. This is at regular computer stores, and doesn't reflect the student discount rate to the consortium (although the presence of a couple of such schhols in the area may well exert some competitive price pressure). Anyone paying full price for a Mac ought to seriously consider mail order, as a means to save several hundred bucks. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611
kfl@hoxna.UUCP (Kenton Lee) (09/20/84)
xxx Come on guys, be real. A 512KB dynamic board for ANY personal computer is going to cost around $1000. Maybe a little less from the discount joints, but still not cheap. -- Kenton Lee, Bell Labs - WB wb3g!kfl or hoxna!kfl
cuda@ihuxf.UUCP (Mike Nelson) (09/21/84)
My favorite is the Lisa. Some 4 or 5 thousand bucks = half meg memory and NO operating system! Of course for a measily grand more you can have the other half meg of ram that the Lisa OS takes and two hundred gets you the OS. Mike Nelson AT&T Bell Labs ihuxf!cuda PS My office mate has a Lisa she uses for graphics. It is one of the best machines around for that. I just don't like the way they market it.
eve@ssc-bee.UUCP (Michael Eve) (09/21/84)
... While the prose in the original flame waxed a little excessive, I agree with the substance: Apple Computer Company is no longer the computer company for the rest of us. As a longtime owner of an Apple ][, I am very disappointed by the evolution of Apple's corporate philosophy. The early Apple believed in the masses. A general purpose machine was offered, and complete specs were given with the machine to ENCOURAGE independent work. Now, except for the ][e, Apple is attempting to force a closed architecture upon the market, and the thought of telling the mere, average person what is going on inside sends shudders through the corporate structure. Detailed specs are sold at a hefty price. Substance in manuals has been replaced with Madison Ave, gee-whiz fluff. Software developers are "certified" because everyone knows John Q. Public can't program and shouldn't be encouraged to program. [2 paragraphs of execessive prose deleted.] What really takes the cake, is Apple's refusal to stand behind the consumer. First, there was the rev. A/ rev. B ][e where the owner had to prove he needed the rev. B board. More recently, ][c owners find the serial port is improperly designed, and Apple says "Prove you need it" before they will fix it. Now, the poorly conceived memory board of the Mac has finally proven to be inadequate, and the user must pay the price (and then some). Having vented my wrath, I have a suggestion for Apple (who is on the NET, right?): Form a review board of users to comment upon the design at various steps. Keep honest reviewers, and don't get rid of the strident voices. (As a public service, I reluctantly volunteer :=) To the Apple apologists on the net: What Apple doesn't need now is a pat on the back. They have made several obvious mistakes both in design and support. Only a mass outcry and consumer boycott can penetrate their smugness. mike eve -- Mike Eve Boeing Aerospace, Seattle ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve
schnable@ihuxf.UUCP (Andrew T. Schnable) (09/21/84)
A megabyte upgrade for a 5620 DMD terminal is $1300. This is using the same 256K chips. I belive that if you buy a new unit with the 1Meg option, it is only $1000 extra. Maybe Teletype should raise their prices to compete, eh? andy ihuxf!schnable
ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (09/22/84)
This is a free country. If you think someone charges too much for a product or service, DON'T BUY IT. The only thing that makes it possible to charge anything at all is CUSTOMERS. It is silly to charge $500 for a product if you can sell all you can make for $1,000.
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (09/22/84)
[]
Why is it that any sleezy, slimy, dirty action by a corporation
is excused as the corporation's obligation to it's stockholders?
Are there no decent owners of stock in this country? Is it really
a businessman's ethic to be a greedy, moneygrubbing SOB at the
expense of his customers?
For some reason, I thought Apple was a little different. Note
the past tense.
I paid list price because when I got mine that's all there was.
If I had thought the $2400 machine I was buying would devaluate ~$1000
in six months, I can assure you that I would have waited.
But then if I and all the others who bought in the first 100
days had waited, all the rest of you would have been able to
pick up the Mac for $100 - and you would have said no, thank you.
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (09/22/84)
Let's hear more about this Megabyte upgrade for the 5620. Also, what do the internal switches do? When is a tech manual going to be available??
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (09/22/84)
If you didn't think that the Mac was going to drop $1000 from the list price you are overly naive. You could have expected it to drop 20% alone from list as soon as the distribution got set up such that they were fairly available. Technology in this industry marches fast and now Apple has a new computer that they can productively sell for a comparable price as the old one. This is the only way a company can stay in business in this market. DEC will be in this boat if they don't come out with a newer computer soon, they are getting walked all over by people with brand new fast and cheap minis that beat the shit out of the 780 family. What would you have had Apple do? Inflate the price of their new product so it would devalue the existing products selling price? -Ron
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (09/23/84)
[] >What would you have had Apple do? Inflate the price of their new >product so it would devalue the existing products selling price? I would have Apple recognize that those of who bought early, at list price, were a little freindlier than the Pournelles who waited. I would have Apple give us a break on the price of the upgrade. I agree that I was just incredibly naive to think that Apple was any different than any other money-grubbing corporation. I hope Apple realizes what they've given away when the Japanese drive them out of business. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
bass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass) (09/23/84)
I am not associated with Apple, but the childish flaming at Apple for charging a FAIR price for the FAT MAC requires a defense. TESTED 64k DRAMs are under $3.50 each in volume ... TESTED 256k DRAMS are still floating around or above $30.00 each and the price market COULD easily suffer the increases caused by heavy demand as people switch from 64 to 256 parts .... just as the prices on 64k parts soared in 1981 as people switched from 16k parts. simple math is 18*$30 = $540. Dealers discounts are typically %40 off list so an expected dealer can recieve the upgrade at about $999*0.6 = $600. The remaining $60 plus or minus $50 is not enough to cover the paper work and testing/restocking of old digital boards ... which CAN NOT be simply stuffed into a new machine (used parts in new equip is against the law I understand). Apple is going to end up with a lifetime supply of spares on the 128k mac boards. In realistic terms Apple is probably EATing $300-500 dollars by offering the upgrade at near componet costs ... and may eat a lot more if the price on 256k parts soars back above $40.00 a part. The upgrade price is the nearest thing to a free lunch I have seen ... in an industry where multiples of x2.5 to x3.5 are min list prices above costs .... thus a fair price for the upgrade today would be above $30 * 18 * 3 = $1,620.00 plus installation labor and a restocking charge (and testing) for the old board ... a real value of closer to $2,000 even. Apple is both VERY kind to its installed base ... and praying that the prices of the rams drop before it looses it's shirt on both the upgrade and the NEW price for the 512k MAC. Go try to by 256k parts on the salvage/hobby market ... about $50 a chip including tax/shipping is common for untested parts. 18 * $50 = $900 ... take a batch of those and do your own upgrade ... hope it works ... John Bass
adrian@eagle.UUCP (A.Freed) (09/24/84)
I suspect the marketing style of Apple was a result of the success of a boring machine, the IBM PC. At least Apple did not produce another PC compatible. The macintosh is a good bit-mapped graphics show-piece. It is not easy to get that much code working that reliably. I think it is a mistake to buy a nice machine and a bunch of promises. If you want a machine to help you get some work done, there are probably other people already doing similar work with an old machine with fulfilled promises. The exciting thing about the Macintosh is that people are seriously thinking how to build systems with good user interfaces and which are well integrated as well as modular. I think we will see alot of nice bit-mapped graphics machines around in the next few years. What will be the standard bit-mapped operating system? Who will define it? A big corperation or someone working in their garage? How can we write portable bit-mapped software? In the meantime, the Mac. is not a bad terminal to my favourite operating system and it is food for thought. Can anyone figure out how their Icons can be non-rectangular and how to do a non XOR mouse? A good exercise in bit-map arithmetic. The above views are my own.
phil@amd.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (09/24/84)
I don't have an interest in Apple either but did want to say that
as a design engineer in a division which makes single board microprocessor
products, John Bass's numbers look reasonable to me. I know what we
pay for 256K rams and what our required markup to pay for overhead is
and actually, we'd charge a lot more than Apple is asking for the upgrade.
Does anyone remember the HP-35 and how it cost $395. HP dropped the
price on it and didn't offer discounted upgrades to anyone, I recall.
--
Phil Ngai (408) 982-6554
UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!phil
ARPAnet: amd!phil@decwrl.ARPAdjmolny@wnuxb.UUCP (DJ Molny) (09/24/84)
What's all this noise about old Macs losing their value? Unless you're planning to sell the thing tomorrow, depreciation is only a paper loss designed to keep accountants busy. You want to see depreciation? Buy a new car. It will depreciate 10-20% the first day you own it. The price was bound to come down; how could it not? Us early birds (I got mine in April) paid for product development costs, tooling costs, and a high demand/supply ratio. So what did we get in return? Six months of machine time, that's what. Was it worth it? Maybe yes, maybe no. So far, my Mac has helped me generate $1500 in consulting income (using MS-Basic of all things! I feel so cheap...) Every Mac owner knew the price would come down and memory would increase. Everyone who writes software knows that product release dates are fairy tales. If you paid the premium for an early machine and couldn't use it, then I'm sorry for you. But I think everyone knew what they were getting into. Regards, DJ Molny ccom consultants, inc. at AT&T Technologies ihnp4!wnuxb!djmolny
toby@apple.UUCP (Toby Farrand) (09/24/84)
John Bass has finally hit it right. If you think Apple is making any money on the upgrade, you are sadly mistaken. I wish we were -- I own stock. If you want to complain to someone, try the dealer you bought your Mac from. They are the only ones making money on the upgrade. Actually, you might try Japan inc. as well, I believe they are making money on this as well. Sorry to disappoint you all, but you'll have to think of something else to flame at Apple for. Think hard, something will come to you. These are *my* views and they do not represent those of my employer. toby
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (09/24/84)
> I just received news concerning the Fat Mac, of which we have all >heard so much: the Macintosh, with 512K. It has been released and is >on its way, delivery date approximately three weeks (or thereabouts; >delivery dates haven't been Apple's strong point lately). > > I also received news about its price. > > Brace yourselves. > > $995. Yes, you read right: that's nine hundred ninety-five big ones, >to be removed deftly from your wallet and placed just as deftly into theirs. >All that on top of the $2495 (or $2195, if you happened to get it in one >of the recent sales that have started to spring up here and there) which all >us Macfans have already shelled out. Question: is the item worth $995? If it isn't few if any persons will pay it. If it is, what's the gripe? > [Background: My friends and I who purchased Macs are not the >businessmen-types that the Mac seems to be aimed at. We are but simple >college students, not fortunate enough (or rich enough, as the case may be) >to attend one of the schools in the Apple University Consortium, and get >our Macs for dirt cheap. Ok, that's the gripe. This thing is priced at its presumed value, rather than what those who would like to have one can afford. > Well, they sure got it to us, all right. For the measly sum of >damn near a thousand bucks extra, we plebes can get ourselves the system >that should have come out in the first place. So now Apple has us all >over a barrel. We all sprung our $2995 for the Mac and the printer, and >shortly afterwards realized that the thing was absolutely useless without >the second disk drive. So, another $495 went down the drain. Next comes >the realization that with the basic 128K, the user is left with too little >memory to accomplish anything significant. So, another $995 down the tubes. >Thus Steve Jobs' vision of the computer that anyone can use has become the >computer that no one can afford, because a workable system sells for $4485. >What a bargain! The question remains: what was the basic Mac system worth? If is wasn't worth the $2995 it cost, why did anyone buy it? If it was, what's the gripe? $995 for 384K of memory doesn't strike me as exorbitant. > Looks like Steve & Co. are standing by to rake in the big bucks; The >Rest of Us can all bend over and grab our ankles. It's coming in dry, folks; >no Vaseline on this one. >...Apple has shown that, in the end, they're not that much >different from any other computer company, that they don't really give a >damn about the end-user, and that the final arbiter is, as we all suspected >but hoped against hope was not true, the bottom line on the ledger books. Looks to me a bit like the old "I want it, I can't afford it, therefore those who sell it at the price I can't afford are money-grubbing hogs" line. I am sure of one thing; the author of this complaint will eventually depend on some business institution for his bread and butter (he does now, but perhaps doesn't realize it). If that company prices its products higher than their worth (to the market that buys them), they won't sell, and someone will come up with the same thing at a better price and capture the market. On the other hand, if it sells at prices that do not respect that "bottom line", they won't exist; and this person will find his employer bankrupt. Businesses (including Apple) exist ONLY because they are able to market a product at a price that satisfies that market and produces revenues sufficient to pay its bills, its employees and management, and produces with some regularity a profit for the owners of the business. If you want to get something for less than it costs to produce it, who are you expecting to take up the loss, to subsidize you? If you believe, as you indicated, that the price will drop, then perhaps the thing to do is to wait until that time. Until then, I can't see any basis for criticizing Apple. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (09/24/84)
> Why is it that any sleezy, (sic) slimy, dirty action by a corporation is >excused as the corporation's obligation to it's stockholders? Are there no >decent owners of stock in this country? Is it really a businessman's ethic to >be a greedy, moneygrubbing SOB at the expense of his customers? What do you mean by sleazy? If you mean that you think everyone in those glass towers is another J. R. Ewing, you're entertaining a myth. If you mean that the management won't sell something unless the sale is profitable then that is not sleazy, it's inevitable, and desirable. There is a word for businesses that are not run that way: bankrupt. > For some reason, I thought Apple was a little different. Note the past >tense. No, it follows the same rules. You can tell because they are still in business. > I paid list price because when I got mine that's all there was. If I had >thought the $2400 machine I was buying would devaluate ~$1000 in six months, I >can assure you that I would have waited. But then if I and all the others who >bought in the first 100 days had waited, all the rest of you would have been >able to pick up the Mac for $100 - and you would have said no, thank you. Most new items are placed on the market at a price gauged by the manage- ment to be appropriate. When sales figures arrive that show the decision was inappropriate, adjustments are made. Sure it's annoying to see the sale price drop after you've paid the higher price, but consider this: if the price had not dropped, would you now be any richer? What would the cost be? You must have felt that the item was worth what you paid for it, otherwise you'd not have made the purchase. Has the item changed? Neither Apple nor the company you work for can exist without engaging in profitable enterprise. Your paycheck attests to that. If it were not for "moneygrubbers", you'd be out of work. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
ma155abl@sdcc3.UUCP (Orion The Hunter) (09/25/84)
Come on. Apple is a company that may soon fold, so quit crying about how Apple is shafting America. The thing with Apple is that the managers there may not be producing macintosh's at the optimal point, ie. where the rate of return on investment equals the market determined rate of interest. (Apple lovers please send Flames to /dev/ULTIMATE-NULLIFIER) -non-economist.
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (09/26/84)
> So what did we get in return? Six months of > machine time, that's what. Six months running what software? Garbage that crashes and wipes out your disks? Development? Not on the Mac! Business programs? Not if you really have to get an answer! No, the people who are getting their Macs now are the ones who are getting the value for their dollars. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
waynekn@tekig.UUCP (Wayne Knapp) (09/26/84)
Apple being kind? Come on who are you trying to fool. Apple
is out to make a buck on EVERYTHING they do!
The MAC doesn't use 18 memory chips, Apple is too cheap to put
parity checking in its computers. MAC has only 16 memory chips.
Also I really doult if Apple is paying $30 a chip! But even if
they do pay that much, 16*$30 = $480 dollars. Looks like a lot
of room for some profit.
Lets keep all the facts straight. Apple exsists only to make
money and you can be sure that everything that Apple does is
to make more money.
I hope people will forget all this nonsense about Apple being
kind. Otherwise the next thing we will hear about is how IBM's
great social virtues took it to the top.russell@muddcs.UUCP (Russell Shilling) (09/27/84)
[] Eat this square box, and you'll get indigestion... > This is a free country. If you think someone charges too > much for a product or service, DON'T BUY IT. The only > thing that makes it possible to charge anything at all > is CUSTOMERS. It is silly to charge $500 for a product > if you can sell all you can make for $1,000. I agree that this is a free country, and that the ultimate choice rests with the purchaser, but didn't someone at Apple have the ambition to make the computer for the Rest of Them ?? (I wouldn't think that anyone on the net could be included in the 'Rest of Us' part of their Ad.) Apple Computer may be selling all they can make right now, (since they have just introduced a new product,) but the really important thing to Apple will be the sales of the Mac in two to five years. The durability of a micro is influenced more by the NUMBERS of units out there than by the quality or friendliness of the product. (Have you ever used a Commodore 64 ?? There must be zillions of those suckers around by now. If you have used a C64, you should understand what I mean by 'friendliness' or lack thereof.) How much *GOOD* software will be written for a Mac if the developers have to buy a Lisa, (see some of the other articles for a few flames about those) and cannot get software or hardware for a reasonable price; and then after all that, their market is ~10% of the size of the IBM PC market. If you were a developer, which would you buy: a $5000 Mac with nothing, plus an $8000 Lisa with very little; or an $8000 IBM PC/XT system, with available software for *ANY* development task ? (* Prices approx. *) I would like to see the Macintosh succeed, and make another standard for IBM, et.al to copy. But I don't see it happening now that IBM and the cloners have been dropping their prices to realistic levels for the performance they deliver; (and what of the IBM AT? upward compatibility ?? Where is Apple's successor to the Lisa ?) That's almost enough for now. Just so there's no misunderstanding of my micro-preference, I own an IBM PC, but I prefer the Macintosh *DESIGN*, and abhor the *MARKETING*. I guess you can't please everyone.
bass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass) (09/28/84)
OK ... OK ... so I forgot the Mac didn't have parity ... but it doesn't change the numbers much ... since I omited the tally of costs associated with taking in the return, issuing credits, testing, stocking, repair ... which certainly over $60. For those who think that Apple can just name a price they want to pay for rams ... think again ... the semi producers will sell them for the highest bid. The fact is that the semi producers are coming online faster than the customers RIGHT NOW (and just like 1981 and 64k parts) ... but who has been shipping 256k parts in real volume (not just ramp up volumes) ... NOBODY! Who wants to be shipping product with 256k parts ... ALMOST EVERYONE. Anyone who can predict short run prices for 256k parts is a very valuable person ... their are both those betting on fast fall and those betting on a rise followed by a 12-18 month slow fall. Given pricing on other hot semi products released in the last 4-6 years I lean toward shortages 3-6 months out on 256k parts ... and the resulting flatness or rise in prices as most major system houses come on line using the parts. Sure the price will drop to around $3.50 a part within a few years ... but that is not today. Apple is in this market to make money ... for them to decide on shipping product at zero markup (net loss) is VERY KIND ... for those who continue to fume at this assertion please go back and look at Apples quarterly earnings for the last year ... they have missed taking big losses by a hair or less. Last Oct-Dec ... the big christmas sales ... they cleared a profit by accident ... many of us expected them to follow the rest of the market and declare sizable losses ... not yet but turning down profits on 100,000 mac upgrades could do it. As for the fella's from Fortune and Tektronics ... it's nice of you to collect pay checks from companys that still price their 64k drams with the 1981 market, and always ship product above a 2.5x multiplier ... it's truly nice to throw rocks at apples profits when your own pay check comes from someone taking what the market will bare ... STOP BAD MOUTHING APPLE ... atleast it is still giving people jobs in AMERICA ... and not over seas like Atari and a growing number of other small computer makers. If you want to set an example for charity ... start with your own pay check ... give 75% of it to a good cause ... sell your home, computer, car, stero, and color tv and donate the procedes to charity. Then you might have a cause for asserting that others (like APPLE and its employees) should also be revenue source for charity. John Bass The fair price for the upgrade today is $1500-$2000 ... enjoy the kindness of Apple in pricing that IBM, DEC, Tandy, TEKTRONICS, and everyone else aren't likely to give.
hlb@loral.UUCP () (09/29/84)
It seems to me that those individuals that quote the price of memory chips as the rationle for a lower price on the Mac upgrade need to take a course in cost accounting. It is not as cut and dry as labor and materials.
A2DEH@MIT-ML.ARPA (10/01/84)
From: "Donald E. Hopkins" <A2DEH@MIT-ML.ARPA>
Date: 20 Sep 84 10:52:21-PDT (Thu)
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!kfl at UCB-VAX.ARPA
Re: Apple Shafts America; or, The Computer For the Rich of Us
Come on guys, be real. A 512KB dynamic board for ANY personal
computer is going to cost around $1000. Maybe a little less from
the discount joints, but still not cheap.
--
Kenton Lee, Bell Labs - WB
wb3g!kfl or hoxna!kfl
This is quite correct, but there is no such thing as a 640K Mac.
[Yet.] For $1000, you do not get 512K more memory -- you get 384K.
The standard Mac, costing $1000 less than a fat one, has 128K to start
with. I doubt you could talk your Apple dealer into giving you the
128K that he or she pulls out of your Mac to do the upgrade, the way
your mechanic gives you the dead parts out of your car that were
replaced. 128K [What a normal Mac has] + 384K [What your $1000 buys]
= 512K [As in the phrase "512K Mac"] It's also quite correct that the
people who ran out and bought a Mac when they first came out payed an
inflated, premium price. What else would you expect? If you don't need
a product immediatly, and you're interested in getting a reasonably
good deal, you would be stupid to go out and buy it right when it hits
the market. If you don't want to get ripped off, then wait until the
price has dropped. If you are mad that Apple dropped their prices to
below what you paid for your Mac when it first came out, then at least
you have learned something, and that's good, because I won't have to
listen to your complaints about how you got nailed any more. I waited
until the price dropped below $500 before I got my Okidata 92. It took
a bit of waiting, but was worth it, because at $500, it had one of the
best price/performance ratios on the market. I needed it before it got
below $500, but I could afford to wait a little bit. Now the price has
dropped even more. I think I've seen them for $420. But it was worth
the extra $60 to have the printer between when I bought it and now. I
don't bitch about how evil Okidata is. All of these complaints about
how much more expensive the extra memory is are silly. Eventually,
it's going to be dirt cheap. Before you people who are so new to the
computer world that you haven't ever seen a 4116, let alone a 4096,
start whining about the price of memory, just go page through an old
Byte from a few years back. There is a reason that a 24K program like
Wordstar was thought of as huge. 24K or RAM cost a whole lot. In
1979, I bought two rows of 16K RAM chips for only $218. It was a
steal, because I was buying "generic" chips, not the official Apple
16K upgrade kits, which cost a quite bit more. At that price, 384K
would cost $2616! I hate to think how much 384K worth of official
upgrade kits would have cost. But at the time I bought it, that was a
very good price, and I needed the extra memory. I have not
entertained the notion of pounding on Computerland's door [One of the
only computer stored around my area at the time] and demanding that
they give me a rebate. [I bitch about how evil Computerland is for
more realistic, substantial reasons.] So stop feeling sorry for
yourselves. You've got a good computer. Do something with it that will
put you ahead of all of the people who are waiting for the price to
drop.
-Donhaapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (10/03/84)
<.> > How much *GOOD* software will be written for a Mac if the developers have > to buy a Lisa, (see some of the other articles for a few flames about those) > and cannot get software or hardware for a reasonable price; and then after > all that, their market is ~10% of the size of the IBM PC market. If you > were a developer, which would you buy: > a $5000 Mac with nothing, plus an $8000 Lisa with very little; > or > an $8000 IBM PC/XT system, with available software for *ANY* > development task ? > (* Prices approx. *) $5000 Mac? I recall the Mac proces are down to $2195 US or so. This is for a 128K Mac, which is what you want for development, because you can't expect all your potential customers to have 512K Macs, and anything that runs on 128K will run on 512K. $8000 Lisa? Aren't Lisas available for $4000-5000? This would add up to about $7000 (plus serial cable) for a Lisa/Mac system... Not that bad. The new BYTE has an ad (in the back pages) for 256K chips. They're advertised as LOW PRICED, and are selling for $49.95. Sixteen of those critters would cost you $800. So Apple is charging the Mac owners a whole $200 more than the bare chips would cost, uninstalled. What a rip-off! :-) And no, I don't own any Apple stock and/or products. Tom Haapanen University of Waterloo (519) 744-2468 allegra \ clyde \ \ decvax ---- watmath --- watdcsu --- haapanen ihnp4 / / linus /