apoy@caen.engin.umich.edu (Alfred Lim Poy) (03/15/90)
With all of the ideas about future Apple II products flying around
I thought maybe a different perspective should be looked at. The
rumors of the ROM4 GS are encouraging. I've also read about the
Apple IIf proposal and there are some good ideas in there. However,
I question the necessity of this IIf to be the 'Amiga killer' that
many would like to see. The history of the Apple II line goes
back and takes its roots in the EDUCATIONAL field. Sure, IIs are
great hacking machines, but the odds are that you first had exposure
to the II in elementary or middle school. I got my II+ way back in
'78 when our school district was purchasing their first classroom
computers. Since then, the II has become the 'standard' for primary
education. An article recently posted estimated the Apple II line
share in schools to be about 60%, dwarfing IBM's 15%. Apple has
always targeted the II line at the 'home' user market, meaning mostly
families with children. This is where the strength of the II field
is, in the EDUCATIONAL market. It has the name recognition and the
standardization which has given Apple a monopoly in the market. This
is why I question the need for this 'super GS' machine. Don't get
me wrong, yes the GS needs more speed (7 MHz is a nice number), yes
it could use better graphics, but just exactly how much more do you
need to make the GS the 'decent' computer that it needs to be to
sell in its market? I believe that Apple should produce a computer
that is inexpensive, which people (families?) can purchase without it
being a major financial setback. We've all complained about the price
of Apple products. Sure, the big profit margin is part of it, but
the amount of technology figures in there, too. This new GS should
contain a balance of technology which will allow it to perform its
functions in a respectable manner at reasonable cost. Things like
blitter chips, built-in stereo, ultra-fast 20MHz processors,
640X400X265 graphics, built in scsi ports, and the like are all
technically desireable things but the bottom line is cost. Every
extra feature that you all to the machine also adds to its price
tag. If a user isn't going to *NEED* this technology, its just
another that you have to pay for "because its there", and that makes
people think twice about just how well the machine really fits their
needs. I would rather see equipment that could be added on when
the user desires (this is the strong point of the II line, when you
want it, you can add it) rather than forcing everyone to buy things
they don't really need. For example, a built-in scsi port would be
nice, but not everyone is going to need it ( besides, with this
rumored new scsi card coming out anyway, why re-invent the wheel :-).
It all boils down to the fact that Apple **needs** a 'low end'
machine. Right, it may not match the performance of other competitively
priced machines, but given Apple's mystic consumer loyalty (if you had
a II+ or //e, did you even think twice before purchasing a GS?) they
can easily regain their monopoly in the educational market (are real
people really buying Amigas anyway? :-). If the survival of the
Apple II line means getting consumers to purchase II's, and getting
consumers to purchase II's requires low prices, and if low prices
dictates having a 'basic' model computer, then I'm all for it !!!!!
Thanks for your time.
Al Poy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Al Poy | Internet: apoy@caen.engin.umich.edu
College of Engineering | Bitnet : Al_Poy@umichub
University of Michigan | "Rejection is one thing, but rejection
| from a fool is cruel." - Morrissey
----------------------------------------------------------------apoy@caen.engin.umich.edu (Alfred Lim Poy) (03/15/90)
In article <49335dbf.f08b@frosh.engin.umich.edu>, apoy@caen.engin.umich.edu (Alfred Lim Poy) writes: > machine. Right, it may not match the performance of other competitively > priced machines, but given Apple's mystic consumer loyalty (if you had > a II+ or //e, did you even think twice before purchasing a GS?) they Oooops. I'm thinking faster than I'm typing and I thought that what I wrote may cause some confusion. The last line should say something like: did you need to think about another line of computers besides Apple when you decided to by a new one. Sorry for the inconvenience. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Al Poy | Internet: apoy@caen.engin.umich.edu College of Engineering | Bitnet : Al_Poy@umichub University of Michigan | "Rejection is one thing, but rejection | from a fool is cruel." - Morrissey ----------------------------------------------------------------
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Doug McClure) (03/15/90)
In article <49335dbf.f08b@frosh.engin.umich.edu> apoy@caen.engin.umich.edu (Alfred Lim Poy) writes: >many would like to see. The history of the Apple II line goes >back and takes its roots in the EDUCATIONAL field. Sure, IIs are >great hacking machines, but the odds are that you first had exposure >to the II in elementary or middle school. I got my II+ way back in For a lot of people yes, but as I understand it (any real old Apple II'ers out there may correct me) the Apple II was of course an expansion of the Apple I which had it's roots in the home / hobbyist field. Use in this area exploded (easily seen by all the incredibly diverse products that could be found in one of those Apple Blue Books. remember those? Had listings for hardware products to do about anything!) and got a HUGE boost by VisiCalc coming along, which REALLY got the Apple II going (note: VisiCalc is business/productivity. My dad even still uses it!). And then, or during/along the way, Apple II's really started getting into schools. I don't ever remember the Apple II having roots in education, but that it grew into that area and took it over/created that area. >families with children. This is where the strength of the II field >is, in the EDUCATIONAL market. It has the name recognition and the It also lies in the home/hobbyist/small business market. Or at least it always "had" (has?). Course, don't think you'll ever hear Apple say the II exists for those latter two areas. >me wrong, yes the GS needs more speed (7 MHz is a nice number), yes 8 is nicer (2^3). 16 even better (2^4 or 2^(2^2)) 32 is even lovelier :) and on and on. Gosh, can ya tell I'm a CS major. Power 2 to you! >functions in a respectable manner at reasonable cost. Things like >blitter chips, built-in stereo, ultra-fast 20MHz processors, Well, unless something goes wrong, from what I read and remember, the 20MHz processor would NOT be that expensive as it can use existing technology/chip manufacturing techniques to make it and that the manufacturer has GUARANTEED that it will work. Sounds pretty mass production, IE: cheap, to me. >640X400X265 graphics, built in scsi ports, and the like are all Built in SCSI does seem pushing it a bit much. >tag. If a user isn't going to *NEED* this technology, its just >another that you have to pay for "because its there", and that makes >people think twice about just how well the machine really fits their There's a saying about data storage: "Data always expands to fill a given storage medium." If you give people a powerful machine, powerful things will appear for it. If you give them a Slug 4k computer, don't expect anything. Take a look at all the powerful stuff on the Mac II. That stuff exists because the Mac II exists as it is. If the Mac was still a Fat Mac, those programs wouldn't exist, or not nearly as comprehensive/powerful as they do. >can easily regain their monopoly in the educational market (are real >people really buying Amigas anyway? :-). If the survival of the Are they real? The folks I know who have Amigas are mainly CS majors, very smart, extremely talented, and writing software for their machines. With the exception of one person, I do not personally know ONE person at all who could compare in their knowledge about the Apple II's. And the one person I DO know isn't developing the kinds of powerful products for the Apple as the people I know about for the Amiga are doing. Might be argued are real people buying Apple II's. >Apple II line means getting consumers to purchase II's, and getting >consumers to purchase II's requires low prices, and if low prices >dictates having a 'basic' model computer, then I'm all for it !!!!! We beseech the, lord of computing, bring upon our heads a cheap Apple IIgs+ that will run at speeds beyond comprehension, have memory to stagger the mind, and F&*%ing blow Amigas into obsolecence! Deliver us from the evils of slow cpu, mono tunes, and half decent graphics. Bring forth for your loyal subjects a machine that will be scoffed at no more, but will do a little ass kicking itself! -k -- Disclaimer: Any negative views about the Apple II line are only the frustrations of a long time Apple II supporter. Any passages resembling religious passages are purely for convience. All mistakes and misinformation are there on purpose, all facts and truth's, purely coincidental. p.s. Ever read the disclaimer on Apple software? Does Apple know how to write a disclaimer or what!
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Doug McClure) (03/15/90)
In article <4933681e.f08b@frosh.engin.umich.edu> apoy@caen.engin.umich.edu (Alfred Lim Poy) writes: >In article <49335dbf.f08b@frosh.engin.umich.edu>, apoy@caen.engin.umich.edu (Alfred Lim Poy) writes: >> machine. Right, it may not match the performance of other competitively >> priced machines, but given Apple's mystic consumer loyalty (if you had >> a II+ or //e, did you even think twice before purchasing a GS?) they >Oooops. I'm thinking faster than I'm typing and I thought that what I >wrote may cause some confusion. >The last line should say something like: >did you need to think about another line of computers besides >Apple when you decided to by a new one. Well, since I forgot to reply to this part previously, I'll do it here. Yeah I did, but I did come to the conclusion that I thought the IIgs was worth it. However, I don't even hesitate when I think about purchasing my next computer. I am NOT going to be getting another Apple II or "graduating/upgrading/whatever" to a Mac. Not unless Apple does something REAL about the current state of Apple II affairs and delivers a machine that can compare to other PC's. -k