sloan@inrs-telecom.uquebec.ca (David Sloan) (02/25/90)
Today's (Feb. 24'th) edition of the PBS show Computer Cronicles quoted a
survey which studied the market share of various personal computer
manufacturers. Apple's share has apparently declined to 18% of the PC market.
(IBM's share had increased to 33%, Compaq's was 17%.) They mentioned that the
Macintosh sales had held steady but that the Apple II line had plummeted to
3% of the (PC?) market.
I just thought I'd pass this info along to all those who are speculating
on the fate of the Apple II.
David <Sloan@INRS-Telecom.UQuebec.CA>oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Sharon L. O'Neil) (02/26/90)
In article <138*sloan@inrs-telecom.uquebec.ca>, sloan@inrs-telecom.uquebec.ca (David Sloan) writes: > I just thought I'd pass this info along to all those who are speculating > on the fate of the Apple II. As per speculation on the fate of the Apple II... Has anyone noticed that the Apple // magazines seem are getting thinner and thinner on cheaper paper? This sort of thing happens when a computer is about to belly-up and die. I have back issues of A+ and Nibble that were as thick as MacWorld and MacUser are now. I've seen this sort of thing happen before (TRS-80 -- Boy! That was a llllooooonnnnnngggg time ago!) I think that how a computer magazine looks is a fairly good indication of how well a computer is doing. If it's thin and cheap looking, that means that they are cutting corners and most likely losing money. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sharon L. O'Neil | Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu | Bitnet: oneil@unoma1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JWANKERL@UTCVM.BITNET ("Josef W. Wankerl") (02/26/90)
On Sun, 25 Feb 90 22:19:07 GMT <info-apple-request@APPLE.COM> said: > Has anyone noticed that the Apple // magazines seem are getting thinner >and thinner on cheaper paper? This sort of thing happens when a computer is >about to belly-up and die. I have back issues of A+ and Nibble that were as >thick as MacWorld and MacUser are now. I've seen this sort of thing happen >before (TRS-80 -- Boy! That was a llllooooonnnnnngggg time ago!) I think >that how a computer magazine looks is a fairly good indication of how well a >computer is doing. If it's thin and cheap looking, that means that they >are cutting corners and most likely losing money. > Hmmmmm... that's odd. GS+ Magazine just seems to get better with each issue. The first one was really just a Xerox... now they're being sent off to the a printing company... paper is thicker now, too (of course a printed copy is better than a Xerox, eh?). Maybe the reason why Apple // magazines aren't doing so well is because they aren't very good anymore. I used to like getting A+ and reading up on all different aspects of my Apple //... now I occationally pick it up to check out mail order prices. I mean, who really wants to read an article about football players that have Apple // computers? Big deal. I know many people who own //s. >-- >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Sharon L. O'Neil | Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu | Bitnet: oneil@unoma1 >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /**********************************************************************\ |* Joe "Gonzo" Wankerl |*| The views expressed here are *| |* BITNET => JWANKERL@UTCVM |*| not necessarily yours... *| |* |*| ...but they should be. *| \**********************************************************************/
cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) (02/27/90)
All this talk of magazines is a bit strange. Nibble seems to be doing as well
as ever. It still does mostly technical-type stuff (new programs in every
issue) instead of reviews like InCider does. I've gotten Nibble almost as long
as I've had my IIe (about 4 1/2 years). Yes, it has gotten a little thinner;
the reason they supply is that they get fewer advertisers, but they keep the
non-ad content the same. Also, they haven't had a price increase since 1983.
I think Nibble is probably one of the best things going for the Apple II.
Scott Alfter-------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu _/_ Apple II: the power to be your best!
alfter@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu/ v \
saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ( ( A keyboard--how quaint!
Bitnet: free0066@uiucvmd.bitnet \_^_/ --M. Scott, STIVlbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) (02/27/90)
In-Reply-To: message from JWANKERL@UTCVM.BITNET >Has anyone noticed that the Apple II magazines seem are getting thinner >and thinner on cheaper paper? This sort of thing happens when a computer >is about to belly-up and die... [rest deleted] Well, we *ALL* have noticed that our Apple II magazines have been shrinking. And the advertisers aren't spending as much money on ads for older products. We have also *ALL* noticed that Apple hasn't spent any money advertising the Apple II either. Perhaps the Apple IIGS is destined to be just a hacker's machine; and it's back to the grass roots level for all of us. I sort of doubt it though. There *IS* a new magazine coming out for the Apple II called "8/16". It is published by: Ariel Publishing P.O. Box 398 Pateros, WA 98846 It costs $69.95 for a year, and comes with a disk. The first issue will be in March (fairly shortly). I hope enough of you subscribe; it should be good. The editor for the IIGS section is Eric Mueller. Eric is a sysop on Genie (A2Pro.Eric); plus he's written several articles in Nibble, and god-only knows where else; plus he's done a lot of good work for Roger Wagner and he's been a slave-laborer for Roger working on Hyperstudio. And he's a great guy, too! So get out your checkbooks and sink in a few more bucks on your Apple. You can buy the magazine only; I think it's $29.95 without the disk. "GS+" looks pretty interesting; I downloaded the Hyperstudio version of it and I thought it was very worthwhile. However, I got the impression it was more for beginners; "8/16" is for your more advanced user and programmer. Since "Call-A.P.P.L.E" bit the dust, there is really nothing available that is *ALL** Apple-II. I'm sorry, but while I think Nibble is great, it really can't replace the void that "Call-A.P.P.L.E" left behind. While A+ was okay, it really wasn't that different than Incider. Lynda
dredick@pro-tcc.cts.com (Darrin Redick) (02/28/90)
In-Reply-To: message from cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu I have to agree with you, Scott, that Nibble is indeed a great magazine. I haven't missed an issue (except for November 1988 and February 1990) since 1985. I have found it to be an excellent reference item. ____________________________________________________________________________ | | | | US Mail: | | | | | | Darrin Redick | ProLine: dredick@pro-tcc | | 2966 McGuffey Rd. | InterNet: dredick@pro-tcc.cts.com | | Columbus, Ohio 43224-4136 | UUCP: crash!pro-tcc!dredick | | | | |___________________________________|________________________________________| | | | "Best Speed Scotty..." -- Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search For Spock | |____________________________________________________________________________|
sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) (03/01/90)
Network Comment: to #20124 by JWANKERL@UTCVM.BITNET "Xerox" is a registered trademark and =NOT= a generic term.... Steve +===========================================================================+ | UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider COMPU$ERVE : 75166,2544 | | ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider@nosc.mil GENIE : sschneider | | INET: sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com APLINK.PE : <shrug> | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The RainForest @ 305-434-4927 / PO Box 841422, Pembroke Pines, Fl, 33084 | +===========================================================================+
jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) (03/01/90)
In-Reply-To: message from cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
> All of this talk of magazines is a bit strange.
Traditionally, nearly all periodicals are "thin" during the first quarter of
the year. The difference is especially noticeable when you go from the biggest
issue of the year in December to the thinnest issue in January. This happens
with computer magazines and the local newspaper alike -- people just don't
have the money to buy much in January, so there isn't much advertising.
Dan Muse at inCider told me a couple of days ago that the magazine is very
healthy from a financial standpoint. In fact, he's planning to extend
coverage, with more hands-on articles.JWANKERL@UTCVM.BITNET ("Josef W. Wankerl") (03/01/90)
On Wed, 28 Feb 90 20:27:47 EST The RainForest BBS said: >Network Comment: to #20124 by JWANKERL@UTCVM.BITNET > >"Xerox" is a registered trademark and =NOT= a generic term.... > >Steve Well yeah, I know that... but it's a generic a term as Kleenex or Coke. Sorry if I upset anyone. I guess I should have said photo-copied instead, but Xerox had fewer letters anyway. >+===========================================================================+ >| UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider COMPU$ERVE : 75166,2544 | >| ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider@nosc.mil GENIE : sschneider | >| INET: sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com APLINK.PE : <shrug> | >+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >| The RainForest @ 305-434-4927 / PO Box 841422, Pembroke Pines, Fl, 33084 | >+===========================================================================+ /**********************************************************************\ |* Joe "Gonzo" Wankerl |*| The views expressed here are *| |* BITNET => JWANKERL@UTCVM |*| not necessarily yours... *| |* ProLine=> pro-gsplus!jwankerl |*| ...but they should be. *| \**********************************************************************/
gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) (03/02/90)
sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) writes: >"Xerox" is a registered trademark and =NOT= a generic term.... "Xerox" is a registered trademark, but no matter what you say, It has become a generic term, just as Velcro(tm), Pop Rivet(tm), Coke(tm), etc. --Glenn
sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) (03/03/90)
In-Reply-To: message from JWANKERL@UTCVM.BITNET We are doing our damndest to keep it from becoming as "generic as Kleenex and Coke".... which is why we (Xerox Corporation and its many hundreds of thousands of employees) seem to get upset when it is used in the "make a xerox of this" way. The only way to keep it from becoming a generic term is to explain and enforce it as it really is, a trademark.... Thanks is advance for understanding. Steve +===========================================================================+ | UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider COMPU$ERVE : 75166,2544 | | ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider@nosc.mil GENIE : sschneider | | INET: sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com APLINK.PE : <shrug> | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The RainForest @ 305-434-4927 / PO Box 841422, Pembroke Pines, Fl, 33084 | +===========================================================================+
sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) (03/03/90)
In-Reply-To: message from gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu Being used as a generic term does not make it one... As long as Xerox Corporation tries to teach that Xerox is NOT a generic term and legally enforces its trademark vigoriously, it will never =LEGALLY= be a generic term.. as Aspirin and Kleenex are... they -are- such because they did NOT adequately defend their trademark. Thank you in advance for your understanding. Steve +===========================================================================+ | UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider COMPU$ERVE : 75166,2544 | | ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider@nosc.mil GENIE : sschneider | | INET: sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com APLINK.PE : <shrug> | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The RainForest @ 305-434-4927 / PO Box 841422, Pembroke Pines, Fl, 33084 | +===========================================================================+
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (03/04/90)
In article <20258.apple.info-apple@pro-exchange> sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) writes: > >Being used as a generic term does not make it one... As long as Xerox >Corporation tries to teach that Xerox is NOT a generic term and legally >enforces its trademark vigoriously, it will never =LEGALLY= be a generic >term.. as Aspirin and Kleenex are... they -are- such because they did NOT >adequately defend their trademark. Thank you in advance for your >understanding. > >Steve > Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way. Parker Brothers has always vigorously protected their trademark on "Monopoly", but a few years ago the Supreme Court refused to rule against the makers of "Anti-Monopoly", ruling that the word "monopoly" is now standard terminology for a board game involving real estate dealings. Another court would not give Lucasfilm an injunction to stop reporters from referring to SDI as "Star Wars". The courts tend to rule that trademark protection ends when the word passes into general usage. This is probably why companies like Coca-Cola don't often file actual lawsuits against people generically using their trademarks like "Coke". (If it helps, I say "copy" or "photocopy". But the science is correctly referred to as "Xerography".) -- ============================================================================ Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions represented here are Developer Technical Support, Apple II | not necessarily those of Apple Group. Personal mail only, please. | Computer, Inc. Remember that." ============================================================================
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (03/04/90)
In article <20258.apple.info-apple@pro-exchange> sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) writes: >... generic term.. as Aspirin and Kleenex are... >they -are- such because they did NOT adequately defend their trademark. I don't know about Kleenex, which I never thought of as generic ("tissue" is the generic term), but the reason that "aspirin" is no longer Bayer's protected trademark is that Bayer was on the wrong side during the war.