rkh@mtune.ATT.COM (Robert Halloran) (02/22/90)
From the latest (20 Feb 90) MacWeek: "...Apple has been pursuing a carefully planned three-pronged strategy to shore up its Mac product line with new compact and modular models WHILE ALSO PHASING OUT ITS APPLE ][ BUSINESS, (emph. mine) according to sources close to the company." Is this supposed to be Gassee's parting shot, and WHO can we write in to in Cupertino to make our point? Bob Halloran ========================================================================= UUCP: att!mtune!rkh Internet: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed. Quote: "Remember, kids, if some weirdo in a blue suit offers you some DOS, JUST SAY NO!!!"
nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) (02/22/90)
In article <332@mtune.ATT.COM>, rkh@mtune.ATT.COM (Robert Halloran) writes: > From the latest (20 Feb 90) MacWeek: > > "...Apple has been pursuing a carefully planned three-pronged > strategy to shore up its Mac product line with new compact and > modular models WHILE ALSO PHASING OUT ITS APPLE ][ BUSINESS, (emph. mine) > according to sources close to the company." Not all of us read MacWeek... who said that? andy -- Yeah!
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/24/90)
>> From the latest (20 Feb 90) MacWeek: >> >> "...Apple has been pursuing a carefully planned three-pronged >> strategy to shore up its Mac product line with new compact and >> modular models WHILE ALSO PHASING OUT ITS APPLE ][ BUSINESS, (emph. mine) >> according to sources close to the company." I read that article, and some of the technical details didn't match up. They mentioned "NuBus" and "Processor Direct" and "one slot" in the same sentence with no much else, and you can't do both with one slot. NuBus costs way too much to put it in a 'low end' machine. The MacWeek editors are IMHO trying to get a rise out of Apple one way of the other. Apple has two choices: 1. Drop the Apple //. Build emulation boards for 'low cost' macs. This won't work. It will be too expensive compared to buying a real //, and will piss off the Apple // customer base, who will probably go Amiga or IBM just to spite Apple, and also because they still can't afford a decent Mac. 2. Save the Apple //. This is very possible, and Apple's best chance in the low end is a three product strategy: a. low cost mac, or at least keep trying. b. push the //c+, and refine it into market niches like an AppleWorks portable, and a diskless K-12 Appletalk workstation. c. give us a real //gs. They have the technology and the money to do all three of these (the low cost mac will probably take longer though). There is no excuse. Apple has to start providing REAL value in their products and not just a spiffy interface that is programming hell. Or they will lose the low end utterly to tandy and amiga. And the high end to DOS clones with new versions of windows. Microsoft is working their asses off to close the gap. And then Apple will have nothing left. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) (02/24/90)
In article <1990Feb24.053907.4257@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >And the high end to DOS clones with new versions of windows. Microsoft is >working their asses off to close the gap. Didn't Apple take Microsoft (and Hewlett-Packard as well) to court over copying the appearance of the Desktop? Microsoft Windows may be on the way out (ditto for whatever the HP product's called). Why do you think the NeXT looks quite a bit different from the Macintosh, with things such as a program dock instead of a menu bar on the top of the screen? IMHO, I don't think Apple stands a chance in the case. Copyright law would protect them if they could prove that Microsoft copied Apple code (as Franklin did years ago), but you can't put a copyright on an idea such as the Desktop. Finally, PLEASE don't flame me if this case was resolved a long time ago. I saw some initial press releases that I FTP'd from apple.com, but I haven't seen a thing since. 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, STIV
gtt@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (diana) (02/24/90)
>2. Save the Apple //. This is very possible, and Apple's best chance in the >low >end is a three product strategy: > > a. low cost mac, or at least keep trying. > > b. push the //c+, and refine it into market niches like an AppleWorks >portable, and a diskless K-12 Appletalk workstation. > > c. give us a real //gs. Whoops, I forgot to mention something in my post ( BTW, the MacWEEK article quoted in Todd's post -- I'm not sure who posted it originally -- is from the same article as my first quote in my MacWEEK post. ), according to one of Mac the Knife's columns this month, the //c+ will be quietly dropped by the end of March. SAME 'OL NOTE: I'm still having to use my wife's account for newsgroup access, and she doesn't appreciate recieving e-mail intended for me on her account. So, in the interests of domestic bliss, please send any e-mail to: ______________________________________________________________________________ | Jonathan Neuenschwander |"My views on evolution? | | USENET: tippy!buzz@newton.physics.purdue.edu | I think Darwin was | | AMERICA ONLINE: Buzz Lee | adopted." --Steven Wright | |________________________________________________|___________________________| |DISCLAIMER: The opinions and views depicted here are completely fictious. | |Any resemblence to any actual opinions or views, either living or dead, is | |purely coincidental. | |____________________________________________________________________________|
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (02/25/90)
On Sat, 24 Feb 90 07:27:04 GMT you said: >In article <1990Feb24.053907.4257@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> > toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >>And the high end to DOS clones with new versions of windows. Microsoft is >>working their asses off to close the gap. > >Didn't Apple take Microsoft (and Hewlett-Packard as well) to court over copying >the appearance of the Desktop? Microsoft Windows may be on the way out (ditto >for whatever the HP product's called). Why do you think the NeXT looks quite a Yes, and a judge has tossed much of Apple's complaint out on the basis of a cross-licensing agreement that exists between Microsoft and Apple. Meanwhile, Xerox got steamed at Apple (which got the idea from the Xerox Star and has some some sort of agreement/release from Xerox -- as I recall but could be wrong -- covering at least some aspects of the technology) and sued Apple over the same issue. The whole mess is tangled and interwoven into a mess that only the various attorneys with their meters running could love. By the time the whole thing is settled (appeals and all) we'll be well into the next century and windows of all sorts will have been made obsolete by computers that use ESP as an interface :-) >bit different from the Macintosh, with things such as a program dock instead of >a menu bar on the top of the screen? > >IMHO, I don't think Apple stands a chance in the case. Copyright law would >protect them if they could prove that Microsoft copied Apple code (as Franklin >did years ago), but you can't put a copyright on an idea such as the Desktop. See Broderbund's "look and feel" suit (which they won but, as I recall, is still being appealed). While you can't copyright an idea, you CAN (evidently copyright an appearance unless you can show that the "look and feel" is obviously the only way something could be done or something like that). There's at least one lawyer on the net who flames folks (with justification) for "practicing law without a license" I'm GLAD I'm not a lawyer! Any thing I've said is recall (based on fallible) memory of press reports and NOT legal opinion. /s Murph <Sewall%UConnVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu> [Internet] or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP] + Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)