ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (11/08/89)
In-Reply-To: message from shumv1!rnf@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu I thought Woz ditched his stock when he left. Question: what company has the expertise, capital and vision to push the // into the 90's?
edward@pro-harvest.cts.com (System Administrator) (11/09/89)
In-Reply-To: message from STEIN@UCONNVM.BITNET > What would they change the name of Apple to if they did that? Macintosh Computer Company, what else? At least their marketing department would be happy with the change. :) :Edward _______________________ ______________________ | ProLine: edward@pro-harvest | | UUCP: crash!pro-harvest!edward America Online: EdwardF4 | | Internet: edward@pro-harvest.cts.com CompuServe: 73220,1624 | | ARPAnet: crash!pro-harvest!edward@nosc.mil GEnie: E.FLODEN | | Bitnet: edward%pro-harvest.cts.com@nosc.mil BIX: edward2 | |__________________________________________________________________________|
rnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher) (11/09/89)
In article <7078.infoapple.net@pro-generic> ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from shumv1!rnf@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu > >I thought Woz ditched his stock when he left. He did because he was so ticked off at Jobs et al supressing the Apple II. After Jobs left he bought a lot of it back and agreed to consult for Apple. Rick rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu
danr@pro-tcc.cts.com (Dan Roberts) (11/11/89)
In-Reply-To: message from ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.com
According to Scully's book woz bought back his "ditched" stock when the Apple
IIGS was under development. I think that is accurate.
Dan
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Roberts Proline: danr@pro-tcc
50 East Mound Street CI$: 71271,1437
Columbus OH 43215 INET: danr@pro-tcc.cts.com
UUCP: crash!pnet01!pro-tcc!danrbchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (11/11/89)
In article <7078.infoapple.net@pro-generic>, ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: > Question: what company has the expertise, capital and vision to push the // > into the 90's? I don't believe that it's a matter of what one company will do but the efforts of several support companies. Timeworks PUBLISH-IT! and Bits and Pieces ROCKETCHIP come to mind. If Apple really wanted to deep-six the // they wouldn't have hired Lyons and the Beagle Bros. people. If Apple has indeed decided to continue the // line it's probably because of the overwhelming support they've seen from third party developers. What better way to prove the // than to split off the line and let it live off it's profits. Think where the // would be if they'd done that a few years ago. Disclaimer: Not owning a GS I can't speak for that machine. I'm only referring to my experiences as an 8 bit apple // user. They are made by the same company you know. att!oucsace!bchurch
yk4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Yong Su Kim) (11/12/89)
I agree with Bob that the future of the Apple II lies with third party developers. Third party developers has kept the Apple II alive for many years compared to something like the Mac 128K or the Mac 512K which just died. I really wander what happened to those Mac users... Splitting Apple will have the benefit that both divisions will no longer compete for funds in certain areas such as marketing, development etc. If the money going into the Apple II was based on actual sales, there would be some impressive breakthroughs. We all know that Apple technicians are very capable of people if given the right environment. System 5 is an amazing feat since I thought that it could not be done without hardware. _____________________________________________________________________________ |Internet: yk4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu |||||||The Korean from Hong Kong.|||||| |Bitnet : yk4@cunixc ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |UUCP : rutgers!columbia!cunixc!yk4 ||||||||||...Apple IIGS user...|||||||| |_______________________________________|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (11/13/89)
bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) writes: > [stuff about developers deleted] >If Apple really wanted to deep-six the >// they wouldn't have hired Lyons and the Beagle Bros. people. > >att!oucsace!bchurch I'm sure Dave will appreciate the compliment (he probably won't see it for a day or two; he's out of state on personal business), but Apple has not hired "the Beagle Bros. people." Claris contracted with them for AppleWorks 3.0. I know it's hard for some of you to believe, but Claris was created for a reason. Apple does *not* give them technical or marketing direction, nor is Apple involved in their day-to-day decisions or product planning. We help them through Developer Services as we would any other developer, but they are two separate entities. Claris was spun off just for this reason; it is not an "acquired" company like Network Innovations (CL/1) where Apple wants the people and products in the company. Just the opposite. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions expressed in this tome Send PERSONAL mail ONLY (please) to: | should not be construed to imply that Amer. Online: Matt DTS | Apple Computer, Inc., or any of its ThisNet: mattd@apple.com | subsidiaries, in whole or in part, ThatNet: (stuff)!ames!apple!mattd | have any opinion on any subject." Other mail by request only, please. | "So there." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown) (11/13/89)
In-Reply-To: message from mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!asd@purdue.edu > I just saw a television spot for Mac. They didn't even put the word > "Apple" on the end of the commercial, they just showed the rainbow >apple. I totally agree that most anybody wouldn't notice. Most people So we'll simply call the Apple IIGS, the Macintosh Apple IIGS... or maybe the Apple Macintosh Apple IIgs, or the Macintosh Apple Macintosh Apple IIgs. Just a suggestion.... [ok, someone flame on me for making a flippant remark and using up precious netspace... it will be consistent with almost all the other netmail I've got this month.... doesn't anyone have a sense of humour???] Stephen Brown UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sb ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sb@nosc.mil INET: sb@pro-generic.cts.com
brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (11/14/89)
In article <7078.infoapple.net@pro-generic> ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: >Question: what company has the expertise, capital and vision to push the // >into the 90's? My first response was "Only Apple", i.e. the current Apple II employees plus additional employees to round out a divided company (hey, I'd volunteer). Basically a Claris-style branch. BTW, where did the bulk of the Claris employees come from? I'm assuming that they came from Apple positions in software development. How long has it been since Claris was born, anyway? Do you think that it is too soon for Apple to be considering another major split? Obviously, since I don't have a GS - or a big checkbook, I haven't kept up with Claris' evolution. Actually, Applied Engineering *might* have the capitol - they certainly have the expertise and almost enough vision (they could still improve on many of their products). But a few calls to thier engineering dept. have revealed that AE is a very small company. There was only one engineer available who worked on the TransWarp (not the GS version), and while he was away for two months, nobody at AE had a clue about technical details on that product. There are some advantages to Apple's size. Finally, no matter what you say, Laser doesn't have what it takes to replace Apple Co. in the Apple II realm. Every circuit they *copy* from Apple doesn't retain the quality when Laser manufactures it, and every circuit they actually *design* themselves is total garbage. That's the opinion of one EE after experience with the Laser drives and the UDC. Sure, Apple is a clumsy giant, but I wouldn't want Laser's goods to be the only Apple II systems available. I feel that Apple's products are (almost) worth the price, but there are definately tradeoffs involved in saving money with a Laser product. Brian Willoughby UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw InterNet: microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or: microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM Bitnet brianw@microsoft.UUCP
wombat@claris.com (Scott Lindsey) (11/15/89)
In article <9017@microsoft.UUCP> brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) writes: > My first response was "Only Apple", i.e. the current Apple II employees > plus additional employees to round out a divided company (hey, I'd > volunteer). Basically a Claris-style branch. BTW, where did the bulk of > the Claris employees come from? I'm assuming that they came from Apple > positions in software development. How long has it been since Claris was > born, anyway? Do you think that it is too soon for Apple to be > considering another major split? Obviously, since I don't have a GS - or > a big checkbook, I haven't kept up with Claris' evolution. Let's clear things up a bit. Claris started off small. Real small. There was initially less than a dozen employees. There was no *bulk* movement of employees... it's been a slow yet steady accumulation. Pretty much only engineers would come from Apple software development. Other people came from just about any other department in Apple you'd care to mention. I would, however, estimate that at most 50% of Claris' present employees came from Apple. It's difficult to gauge, especially when some people worked at Apple at some time, but worked elsewhere before coming to Claris. Almost the entirety of the IIgs development team came from StyleWare, and had no relationship to Apple. Claris is officially aproximately 2-1/2 years old. If you really want to know, I can dig up the exact dates. Scott Lindsey |"Cold and misty morning. I heard a warning borne in the air Claris Corp. | About an age of power when no one had an hour to spare" ames!claris!wombat| DISCLAIMER: These are not the opinions of Claris, Apple, wombat@claris.com | StyleWare, the author, or anyone else living or Dead.