reid@Glacier.ARPA (02/27/85)
Anybody who thinks that the presence of this or that wonderful new computer is going to seriously impact the value of a Mac does not understand where that value comes from. I know of at least 10 companies that make and sell small personal computers that are better than the Mac. Not very many of them are as cheap as the Mac, but some are. I won't bore you with details, but even though they are somehow better than the Mac--a faster processor or a multitasking operating system or a bigger screen and/or color, or a custom IC for handling graphics, better communication capabilities, or what have you--the Mac still has more value. Furthermore, the Mac will continue to have that value long after most of those companies have gone the way of all flash. There was one company right here in Silicon Valley, whose name I can't remember right now, that brought out a computer quite like the Amiga about a year ago. It had custom VLSI chips for handling color graphics, it had such advanced graphics capabilities that you could almost do color animation on it, and it had a very promising operating system. As far as I know the company is now out of business, and I have never known anybody who bought one of those computers, because although it was wonderful it was not valuable. The Mac is valuable because it is a very good engineering compromise. There are a thousand variables in the design and marketing of a computer, and the computer company must make decisions about all of them. If the computer is too good it will be too expensive and nobody will buy it and therefore nobody will write software for it. If the computer is too crummy nobody will be able to write software for it. If the operating system is too advanced nobody will understand how to use it; if the operating system is too moronic nobody will want to use it. And so forth. Apple has done a magnificent job of engineering a computer to fit right smack squarely into the middle of current low-cost high-technology demand, of writing an operating system for that computer that gets most of the compromises right, of designing a network interface for it that does the right things (more or less) and getting it out on time, of coordinating efforts by 3rd-party software houses, OEM peripheral vendors, textbook writers, retail stores, graphic designers, college professors, and so forth. I am quite confident that on February 26, 1990, five years from today, I will still be getting useful work done on my Macintosh, and that there will still be reasons why I am reluctant to switch from it to the then-favorite computer. I am equally confident that on February 26, 1995, ten years from today, that there will be quite a number of people worldwide who are still getting useful work done with their Macintoshes. I probably will have moved up by then. This is why I am not worried about this or that new computer having much impact on the value of my Mac. While the Mac is not perfect, not state-of-the-art, not as good as it could have been, it probably would not have been as successful if it had been better. The Mac has succeeded in raising the consciousnesses of a whole generation of Americans about what computers can do; until the Mac came along, most people thought that the IBM PC was a good computer. Now they know better. If the Mac had been 40% "better", or 50% "better", it might not have had the impact that it has had, and therefore it might have been a failure even though it was "better". If you read the history of computer design and computer sales and computer company failures, you will see this happening over and over and over again. The best computers are not the ones that are most technologically advanced, they are the ones that are suffiently advanced to be worth switching to, but not so advanced as to be cut off from the (changing) mainstream of technology. -- Brian Reid decwrl!glacier!reid Stanford reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (03/01/85)
> > I am quite confident that on February 26, 1990, five years from today, I > will still be getting useful work done on my Macintosh, and that there will > still be reasons why I am reluctant to switch from it to the then-favorite > computer. I am equally confident that on February 26, 1995, ten years from > today, that there will be quite a number of people worldwide who are still > getting useful work done with their Macintoshes. I probably will have moved > up by then. > Well put. My SO has an Apple2 and still uses it for all her computer work. It is not obsolete. It still does, quite well, the job(s) it has always done. I would predict that Apple will be still selling them in 1990 to some folks who don't want to change the household standard. The Mac? Why, I'll probably be buying my second or third in 1990. After all, by then there will be a color version with 10 meg of RAM and a 20mb hard disk internal. And it will be able to use my $2000 (by then) software library and read my several gigabytes of micro-floppies (if my present buying rate continues :-) and run UNIX (with the then new mmu). The worst case is that I will use my Mac as a terminal for whatever else I have in the house. How many folks will need a small smart terminal in the comming few years? Obsolete? No way. Mac is the start of a new product family that will continue for at least a decade. Sure something else will come out with more features and less cost. Sure, in 1990 Apple will have another newest hot product. Just as surely they will still be selling truckloads of Macs the same way they still sell pre-Mac products today. E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems Computo ergo sum The opinions expressed by me are not representative of those of any other person - natural, unnatural, or fictional - and only marginally reflect my opinions as strained by the language.
eric@plus5.UUCP (Eric W. Kiebler) (03/01/85)
> Anybody who thinks that the presence of this or that wonderful new computer > is going to seriously impact the value of a Mac does not understand where > that value comes from. > . . . > I am quite confident that on February 26, 1990, five years from today, I > will still be getting useful work done on my Macintosh, and that there will > still be reasons why I am reluctant to switch from it to the then-favorite > computer. I am equally confident that on February 26, 1995, ten years from > today, that there will be quite a number of people worldwide who are still > getting useful work done with their Macintoshes. I probably will have moved > up by then. One can still get useful work done with an ASR33, but their utility has been seriously diminished by the advancing sophistication of text formats. First, who could ever want more than 5 bits of information? Then 6 bits (for you DEC-10 fans). Then 7 bits. Then ANSI rendition selections. Now, MacFonts. Now, PostScript language. Technology advances often provide opportunities for new approaches to old problems. As the new approaches become standard, the less capable machines *gradually* loose their utility. Different markets demonstrate different characteristics of people. Some want the newest and best because it is newest and best, others because they simply can't find anything that meets the cost/performance criteria. Others simply want to join the club, and are satisfied with what they have, and enjoy sqeezing a machine to the limits to get it to do what someone else can do with little difficulty whatsoever. Others simply can't afford an new machine. The list is endless. With all this in mind, I predict Mac's will become obsolete. IBM's are obsolete in a purely technological sense, but people still get plenty of work done with them (PC's, I mean). I bought my Mac because I know that icon-based programming is going to be prevalent for about 5 years at least, and the Mac was the cheapest way to get into the area fast. I expect to upgrade my Mac as fast as possible as new machines in the line are introduced (Mac XL excluded) just to make sure that I understand the issues involved with the machines at all levels of their operation. Should comeone come out with a MacVoltron, I expect the software to be based on previous concepts, as opposed to actual original concepts. > > This is why I am not worried about this or that new computer having much > impact on the value of my Mac. While the Mac is not perfect, not > state-of-the-art, not as good as it could have been, it probably would not > have been as successful if it had been better. The Mac has succeeded in > raising the consciousnesses of a whole generation of Americans about what > computers can do; until the Mac came along, most people thought that the IBM > PC was a good computer. Now they know better. They don't know better. They still buy them. Can't hardly get an AT delivered, and when they start selling VM on a really small box, there will be little competition. COBOL folks don't want to learn C -- they want to make COBOL win. > ... If the Mac had been 40% > "better", or 50% "better", it might not have had the impact that it has had, > and therefore it might have been a failure even though it was "better". Then again, I have seen people buy computers because one was 3-5% faster than another! "I don't write programs, so I don't care." "I don't use the programs, I just want the compiler to run fast. Screw the users." > > If you read the history of computer design and computer sales and computer > company failures, you will see this happening over and over and over again. > The best computers are not the ones that are most technologically advanced, > they are the ones that are suffiently advanced to be worth switching to, but > not so advanced as to be cut off from the (changing) mainstream of > technology. I agree almost entirely: "...state of the art in technological design expertise." Also, service is a big deal in both the home and business markets. Most people have the "washing-machine" mentality even though they are buying something completely different. "Can I get it fixed" is a good question. What they don't think about is "Can I get it fixed in 4 years, and if so, will it really matter?" People hang on to washing machines for years and years, and they expect them to remain useful forever. Computers are just not like that yet, and people want them to be. Apple has come a long way in making people understand the technical issues of using computers, but they have not (and probably should not be expected to) educated their customers concerning long-term computing strategy. If they did, they wouldn't be able to sell a machine with a serial interface to a disk drive. eric -- ..!ihnp4!wucs!plus5!eric ..!ihnp4!plus5!eric (314) 725-9492