toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/09/90)
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) writes: >Todd, what would you do if you were working 60+ hour weeks developing new >products for the Apple II just to read on newsgroups like this one that >you and your coworkers are "developing at a snail's pace"? I would wonder what prompted someone to say that. They wouldn't say something like that about their favorite machine if there wasn't a reason. My reason: while you guys are pulling all nighters to turn the II into the computer we know it can be, APPLE has to let the world know that the II has a future. You've heard that one before, now listen to it, PLEASE: The PERCEPTION of the PC industry is that Apple is trying to phase out the II. Everything we bitch about and more are commonly cited by other people as evidence that Apple has no serious plans for the II. Apple has managed to let a bear of a market perception problem form over the years and had better deal with it soon because too many people believe MacWeek when they print stuff about the II getting phased out in favor of a low cost mac. This is a problem because most of the people who read the 'trendy' computer mags also believe that Apple has given up on the II because, as they see it (and the evidence points in this direction too), it gets barely visible to inadequate levels of support and development, as compared with the rest of the low end computer industry. The problem is when friends ask them to recommend a computer system and they DO NOT RECOMMEND THE APPLE II because of it. Add to that the technical lag between the IIGS and its competitors (hardware is only half of it) and you begin to see why we are complaining... I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by implicating you directly. That was wrong. Apple has got to realize that it has not broadcast the II's situation to the public and has even hampered it with all sorts of non-disclosure garbage which we are sick of seeing when the Mac people never have to even think about it. The PC market itself is what percieves the II as a dead machine, and Apple had better fix it soon before the situation becomes irreversible and too many customers are lost to competitors' machines. If you doubt any of this, or if you are considering flaming me for being unrealistic about the II's market position, ask yourself if the current IIGS can kick the Amiga or a PC clone at the same price range. Ask yourself where all the big name software developers are when it comes to IIGS and //e support, and why there aren't powerful industry standard programs available for the IIGS when they are available for every machine it competes with. Ask yourself how it is that Apple's education reps push people onto Macs and discourage them from buying II's, and why schools have ended up buying PC clones instead. Or why few colleges (if any; Caltech doesn't) sell II's but all carry the full line of Macs. And ask yourself why it is that former II owners have given up and bought Amiga's or PCs because they want what they do not SEE Apple doing: actively developing the machine so that it remains competitive in its major markets. Apple's past policies have allowed a market which sees the II as 'dying' to develop, and Apple will have to deal with it. It doesn't take much, but we see no solid indication that Apple is aware of the perception problem and that is what worries us. I apologize for my past comments which implied that you and DTS were somehow at fault. You folks do a wonderful job without a lot of personnel or a huge budget, and I really do appreciate it. But the fact remains that Apple Corporate in general has gotten way out of touch with many of their representatives in the field; this affects many Mac owners as well except they seem to have enough clout with dealers and reps to make themselves heard. I can't expect you to do anything about it from DTS, but hearing an Apple employee, ANY Apple employee, acknowledge that Apple understands and is doing something about it would help immensely. When we try to tell you how bad the II's situation looks from out here in the real world and you tell us to quit whining, how do you think we feel? Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com (System Administrator) (03/10/90)
In-Reply-To: message from toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu
Todd,
As someone who has watched the net for at least three years now, I think
you might need to understand a couple of things about DTS. In the very
beginning of their active participation on this net (including setting up
the excellent FTP which I _no longer_ have access to! argh!) Apple DTS
has pretty much always had the position of help when they can, but do not
disclose protected information. No matter what you do or say to them or
the folks at Claris, this WILL NOT change because they are under CONTRACTUAL
obligation.
I empathize with your furvor. My suggestion, though, is to stop sending
lengthy replies to DTS as it does no good. Instead, you should inquire as
to the best way to make your concerns heard by upper management if you
really want to get something done. I have posted numerous letters to them
in the past, and eventually you will find that flaming your best friends
and/or associates who BASICALLY FEEL THE SAME WAY THAT YOU DO EVEN IF THEY
CAN'T LEGALLY ADMIT IT will do nothing more than make them feel
unappreciated. I am not ignoring your input, but I am saying that if
you are constantly giving crap to DTS it does nothing more than turn
them off to participation in this medium. Don't stab your best line of
support and/or information in the back, mate.
Todd South
--
UUCP: {nosc, uunet!cacilj, sdcsvax, hplabs!hp-sdd, sun.COM, apple} /\
...!crash!pnet01!pro-sol!pro-pac!tsouth /\ /^^\
ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-sol!pro-pac!tsouth@nosc.MIL /^^\ Tigard
INET: tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com / \ Oregon
BITNET: pro-pac.UUCP!tsouth@PSUVAX1 / \ \toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/10/90)
In article <1785@crash.cts.com> tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com (System Administrator) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu >I empathize with your furvor. My suggestion, though, is to stop sending >lengthy replies to DTS as it does no good. Instead, you should inquire as >to the best way to make your concerns heard by upper management if you >really want to get something done. I have posted numerous letters to them >in the past, and eventually you will find that flaming your best friends >and/or associates who BASICALLY FEEL THE SAME WAY THAT YOU DO EVEN IF THEY >CAN'T LEGALLY ADMIT IT will do nothing more than make them feel >unappreciated. Well if they had TOLD ME THAT instead of taking it personally and flaming me back this wouldn't have gotten as far as it has! I have gotten the impression from their posts that they do not understand what we are telling them and since they are DTS they OF ALL PEOPLE should know!! Apple is supposed to encourage freedom of expression among its employees and if they can get canned for publicly expressing personal dissatisfaction with Apple's policies then it speaks very badly of Apple as a company. I don't think that is really the case but it often seems like it. Matt, Dave, how about it? Is Apple gagging you guys about company policy but otherwise letting you do wonderful work? I can understand about unannounced products but telling the outside world that the II has a real future I would think should be encouraged instead of a non-disclosure agreement! The rations of abuse we heap on you guys is due completely to the fact that in our attempts to alert Apple to the situation out here we have found you folks as an easy access point, which is really inappropriate for our particular concerns... But please don't take it personally, give us an address of someone who will be able to do something about it instead. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
fredb@pro-freedom.cts.com (Fred Brock) (03/11/90)
In-Reply-To: message from tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com Regarding the static the DTS reps get on this net, I have to agree with Todd South. The outrage and disappointment must be expressed to the decision makers, not to those Apple employees who are doing their best to help the users. I'll second his question, what ARE the best means to communicate with those decision-makers? Is there an address which will get our concerns to the place where they can be heard by the right people? -- Fred Brock FredB@ProFreedom.cts.com AppleLink:SOFTOUCH
farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (03/13/90)
In article <1990Mar10.051855.7012@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >In article <1785@crash.cts.com> tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com (System Administrator) writes: >>In-Reply-To: message from toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu > >>I empathize with your furvor. My suggestion, though, is to stop sending >>lengthy replies to DTS as it does no good. Instead, you should inquire as >>to the best way to make your concerns heard by upper management if you >>really want to get something done. I have posted numerous letters to them >>in the past, and eventually you will find that flaming your best friends >>and/or associates who BASICALLY FEEL THE SAME WAY THAT YOU DO EVEN IF THEY >>CAN'T LEGALLY ADMIT IT will do nothing more than make them feel >>unappreciated. > >Well if they had TOLD ME THAT instead of taking it personally and flaming me >back this wouldn't have gotten as far as it has! > >I have gotten the impression from their posts that they do not understand what >we are telling them and since they are DTS they OF ALL PEOPLE should know!! > >Apple is supposed to encourage freedom of expression among its employees and >if they can get canned for publicly expressing personal dissatisfaction with >Apple's policies then it speaks very badly of Apple as a company. I don't >think that is really the case but it often seems like it. > >Matt, Dave, how about it? Is Apple gagging you guys about company policy but >otherwise letting you do wonderful work? I can understand about unannounced >products but telling the outside world that the II has a real future I would >think should be encouraged instead of a non-disclosure agreement! > >The rations of abuse we heap on you guys is due completely to the fact that >in our attempts to alert Apple to the situation out here we have found you >folks as an easy access point, which is really inappropriate for our particular >concerns... But please don't take it personally, give us an address of someone >who will be able to do something about it instead. > >Todd Whitesel >toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu -- +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Cary Farrier | Internet : farrier@apple.com | | Apple II Systems Software Engineering | UUCP : apple!farrier | | Apple Computer, Inc. | Fax : (408) 974-1704 | | 20525 Mariani Ave. | AppleLink : FARRIER | | Cupertino, CA 95014 | or farrier@applelink.apple.com | +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | I don't speak for Apple Computer, our products do. | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (03/13/90)
In article <1990Mar10.051855.7012@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >Apple is supposed to encourage freedom of expression among its employees and >if they can get canned for publicly expressing personal dissatisfaction with >Apple's policies then it speaks very badly of Apple as a company. I don't >think that is really the case but it often seems like it. Apple does encourage freedom of expression among employees. The key words here are "among employees". We are not free to divulge confidential information to outsiders. People have been (and will be) reprimanded/fired for doing this. Criticizing company policy in public may not be the same as releasing confidential information, but in my opinion it is not the right thing to do either. It doesn't really help to complain in public; one is more likely to get things accomplished by complaining in private to the appropriate people. Also, any public statement by an Apple employee is inevitably taken as an official statement from Apple. You can put a disclaimer on every line and people will simply not notice. >products but telling the outside world that the II has a real future I would >think should be encouraged instead of a non-disclosure agreement! I've been reading this newsgroup for a while, and it seems to me that the only statement that would satisfy people is one that talks about unaanounced products. No one believes the statements the Apple executives make, so I don't see how having Apple II DTS making the same statements would be any more satisfying. >The rations of abuse we heap on you guys is due completely to the fact that >in our attempts to alert Apple to the situation out here we have found you >folks as an easy access point, > But please don't take it personally, give us an address of someone The key word here is "easy". People find it easy to post a message on Usenet or send an E-Mail to one of the DTS people. But sending them messages doesn't alert Apple to anything. At best, they would have to spend some of their valuable time collecting the messages and forwarding them. By now, people should know the names of Apple's top executives (John Sculley & Mike Spindler). Apple's address is no secret either (20525 Mariani, Cupertino, CA 95014). People have proposed letter-writing campaigns more than once here, but I haven't seen any evidence that these ideas have gotten off the ground. You have all the names and addresses you need, it's just a matter of spending the time to write the letter. Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. Object Specialist Internet: lsr@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr AppleLink: Rosenstein1
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (03/13/90)
In article <7137@goofy.Apple.COM> lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes: >No one believes the statements the Apple executives make, That's because they've lied like politicians. > so I don't see how having Apple II DTS making the same statements >would be any more satisfying. Maybe because they seem to tell the truth..
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/13/90)
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes: >Apple does encourage freedom of expression among employees. The key words >here are "among employees". We are not free to divulge confidential >information to outsiders. People have been (and will be) >reprimanded/fired for doing this. You're right, I forgot about what that has to do with it. >Criticizing company policy in public may not be the same as releasing >confidential information, but in my opinion it is not the right thing to >do either. It doesn't really help to complain in public; one is more >likely to get things accomplished by complaining in private to the >appropriate people. True; but it does make the customers feel better when they think that at least DTS is 'on their side' about the policies. This is only a problem because confidence in Apple about the future of the II is at an all-time low. If we had no doubts about Apple's intent to make the II a competitive and popular machine again then we wouldn't have resorted to DTS for words of committment to it. >Also, any public statement by an Apple employee is inevitably taken as an >official statement from Apple. You can put a disclaimer on every line and >people will simply not notice. True. Sad, but true. [ some of my stuff snipped ] >I've been reading this newsgroup for a while, and it seems to me that the >only statement that would satisfy people is one that talks about >unaanounced products. No one believes the statements the Apple executives >make, so I don't see how having Apple II DTS making the same statements >would be any more satisfying. First of all, Apple's executives have made such washed-out sounding statements that I find it hard to accept that _they_ believe what they are saying... The credibility just isn't there any more. DTS at least gives us tech help and in our misguided efforts we've expected them to speak for the management. It's just that we've been trying to get somebody -- ANYBODY -- at Apple to tell us something genuine. The rumors are there but we're their only audience. The PC market in general regards the II as a joke and Apple doesn't seem to think they need to give us any solid promises... all of which are unannounced products. I see your point, but all I can say is they'd better become announced products soon... [ how easy it is to flame folks on the net, very true ] >By now, people should know the names of Apple's top executives (John >Sculley & Mike Spindler). Apple's address is no secret either (20525 >Mariani, Cupertino, CA 95014). People have proposed letter-writing >campaigns more than once here, but I haven't seen any evidence that these >ideas have gotten off the ground. The II Infinitum campaign started on America Online and spread to here and GEnie and (i think) CIS. The user groups are also getting in on it, as my Tri-City Apple Users Group newsletter just showed up with a II Infinitum section in it. >You have all the names and addresses you need, it's just a matter of >spending the time to write the letter. I spent plenty of time writing mine... I wrote the Apple //f product proposal (plus two revisions), the second version of which was mailed to Mr. Sculley with a cover letter outlining optimal marketing positions for 8, 16, and 32 bit machines that Apple makes. I got a personal response from Ed Birss today saying that it's been forwarded to his engineering staff. I also wrote "Reality vs. Apple Computer" which outlines our concerns from the perspective of the customer base. It has only been distributed electronically so far, both as a post here and as a download in Forumlink Forum News on America Online. I'd write more but it's finals week here at Caltech and I'm waiting for the summit report from Barney Stone. Rumors so far sound like Apple is concerned but hasn't yet figured out what to do about it. These sorts of things take time, guys: we get used to day-to-day response on the net and we forget that Apple is much bigger now, and like our own country, size means necessary delays in order to make sure that things get done right before they get done at all. You also have to consider the paper shuffling time: Mr. Birss wrote me a week after Mr. Sculley received my proposal; it took Apple internal mail two days to get it to the post office and five days later I received it via our own campus mail which probably wasted a day of that. I think we should give Apple Management a chance to figure out what to do. hey've spent so much of their time trying to horn in on IBM's business empire that the low end and the representatives have been left to run amuck. I think they understand. But you aren't going to see Sculley making a snap decision and a press release within a few days. I think Apple is still recovering from the shakeup and it is not unlike a hangover. They need to stabilize before they can trust themselves to make broad policy changes and I say we give them some ideas so that when they feel up to it they will already know what we want them to do. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu