dcw@SUN-BEAR.LCS.MIT.EDU (Dave Whitney) (09/20/89)
> I think that apple should kill the whole apple II line. Instead they >should implement II in a mac or some such standard on every machine. That way >they could still support the environment without wasting alot of development. >Some say they still have a place in the high school - but the truth is they >are loosing popularity. The way to continue them is to slowly integrate the >macs into the schools as apple II clones and a whole lot more. Just a thought >from the bored... I disagree. For starters, putting the // in the mac would require some pretty fancy acrobatics as the // has all sorts of quirks that the original design had. For example, there is a text-only display (no graphics). The screen is *not* linearly addressed. Trying to get the mac to do *everything* that a // can do may be more costly than you think Secondly, the // is not losing popularity. The //GS just underwent a motherboard revision, and the OS has been upgraded to version 3.0. These two items are making the //GS more useful than was originally thought. When first delivered, the OS was too sluggish. A friend of mine said, "oh, it's just like a Mac, only slower." What we have now is a computer that can do what most schools need for a very affordable price. If Apple is going to kill the // (and perhaps let it survive inside a Mac), it's going to need to drop the price of the Mac something fierce, lest they wish to lose a giant portion of their market. Murphy Sewall, wish to eloborate (I have know working knowledge of economics). Dave Whitney dcw@sun-bear.lcs.mit.edu ...!mit-eddie!sun-bear!dcw dcw@athena.mit.edu My employer pays me well. This, however, does not mean he agrees with me. I wrote Z-Link & BinSCII. Send me bug reports. I use a //GS. Send me Tech Info.
brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (09/22/89)
[Quote from unknown source] >> I think that apple should kill the whole apple II line. [...] >Dave Whitney says: >I disagree. For starters, putting the // in the mac would require [...] > >Secondly, the // is not losing popularity. The //GS just underwent [...] > >What we have now is a computer that can do what most schools need for >a very affordable price. If Apple is going to kill the // (and perhaps >let it survive inside a Mac), it's going to need to drop the price of >the Mac something fierce, lest they wish to lose a giant portion of >their market. Murphy Sewall, wish to eloborate (I have know working >knowledge of economics). > >Dave Whitney I disagree with killing the Apple II, too. In fact, I think it would be in Apple's best interest to IMPROVE the II. They already have the facilities needed to produce any custom chip needed to make the Apple II perform competitively with current technology, they simply aren't using it (at least to my knowledge as an outsider with no inside view - hope, hope!). Around Microsoft, I'm usually laughed at because I use a II Plus at home, but I'm always looking for evidence with which to retaliate. I recently checked in the Microsoft library for back-issues of the Computer Reseller News, and in the Feb 13, 1989 issue there was a summary of data collected by Infocorp during Nov. 1988. For that month, they listed Market Share in Units Sold for the various computers available. 48% of the units sold were less than 2% for each product and were therefore not reported individually, but the REAL contenders WERE listed individually. Apple II models appeared TWICE, while the Amiga and Atari were nowhere to be seen. Here are the top ten: MARKET SHARE: UNITS #1 Mac SE 7% #2 Mac II/IIx 7% #3 Epson Equity 1 Plus 6% #4 Apple IIgs 5% #5 Mac Plus 4% #6 AST 286 4% #7 Compaq Deskpro 286 4% (where's that 386, fellas?) #8 Apple IIc Plus 3% (still above the PS/2's) #9 Epson Equity 2 Plus 3% #10 IBM Model 50/50Z 3% (PS/2 == P.O.S.) I find it interesting that there is only one PC clone selling better than the IIgs (I would assume that only it's price has put it in that position). There may be some special reason I'm missing as to why the Amiga and Atari didn't make the list, but I would think that their respective companies should consider "discontinuing" thier computers before the Apple II is abandoned - except that Commodore and Atari don't have other products to fall back on. In fact, this may be Apple Co.'s REAL PROBLEM. They have a big shot Mac to think about, and they are not catering to the very large (and still growing) user base for the Apple II series. Perhaps if they had more faith in their own Apple II then it would be doing even better. Personally, I think Apple's big mistake is assuming that just because the education market is the biggest Apple II market, that it is the only possible one. By catering ONLY to thier current customer, Apple is putting a damper on potential NEW MARKETS for the Apple II. (I know, laughter is starting up again, but read on...) MARKET SHARE: DOLLARS #1 Mac II/IIx 9% (I wonder why it's #1 in dollar figures?) #2 Mac SE 7% #3 Compaq Deskpro 386 6% #4 Compaq Deskpro 286 5% #5 Apple IIgs 4% #6 Compaq Deskpro 386S 4% #7 Epson Equity 1 Plus 4% #10 IBM Model 50/50Z 3% #11 Mac Plus 3% All others <= 2% (the IIc Plus fell below 2% in this category) Ah, perhaps now I see where Apple Co.'s problem lies. One Mac product (the II) is almost double the cost of the IIgs, and there are still the other Macs raking in cash. I can't stress enough the fact that the Amiga and Atari machines are missing from these market share reports. Come on, Apple! You've got a real winner with the IIgs! Take it to it's limits! (Applied Engineering sure is trying!) Comparing these two market share reports (units and dollars), my conclusion is that there are two ways to hit the top ten: A - High price, top performance - but lower unit share (e.g. Mac II and Compaq Deskpro) B - High performance/price RATIO - with lower dollar share (e.g. Apple IIgs and Epson Equity) Needless to say, I got very excited and looked for more recent good news, but the picture has been getting worse. The following also comes from Infocorp via Computer Reseller: (when specific machines are not listed, the total for that company is given) UNIT SHARE THROUGH DEALERS JAN FEB MAR APR Apple 27% 20% 19% 21% (Apple Co.'s total unit market share) Apple II 6 5 4 3 Mac 21 15 15 18 (all Macintosh units) II 4 2 1 4 IIcx - - 1 4 SE 9 7 7 6 Plus 5 4 4 3 IBM PS/2 11 13 15 13 (IBM's total unit market share) 25 & 30 5 7 7 ? 50 - 80 6 7 8 5 Compaq 8 10 8 9 (evenly divided between 286 and 386/386S machines) Unfortunately, the II line has been drooping (but so has Apple's overall share). If you want my opinion, that is because the machine has still not been brought up to current technology. Around November of 1988, the IIgs was a good bargain, but as the industry standards are rising, the gs has become less attractive. Apple's lazy approach is to basically maintain their education sales (which probably dominate the figures) with minimal advancements to the II line. If the ball were in my hands, I would be putting some of the higher technology available for the II series IN THE BASE UNIT, and expand that 3% to 6% share EVEN MORE by adding a larger percentage of non-educational buyers. Not everyone can afford the top-priced Mac II or Compaq Deskpro, but the price versus performance of computers like the Epson, and potentially the IIgs, hits the other half of the market that is apparently realizing high unit sales (but only marginal dollar shares). In my opinion, there are always going to be people buying the Epson-type computers (lower price, decent performance = high unit shares), and if Apple were to improve the Apple IIgs with modern features (speed mostly, graphics and etc. secondarily), then they would maintain a well-balanced position in the market as the only company with products satisfying both success formulas in the computer market. P.S. Now, I wish that a few top Apple Co. executives would read that previous paragraph and take it to heart! In fact, if that contest for "what would you do with the Apple II" were still making noise, I'd like to enter this whole post and have it sent to Sculley! (Of course, then I would want to go into SPECIFIC details as to how the Apple II circuitry could be made to really scream!) P.P.S. Does anyone think that I DIDN'T use enough exclaimation points? :-) Brian Willoughby UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw InterNet: microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or: microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM Bitnet brianw@microsoft.UUCP
philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) (09/22/89)
Network Comment: to #5363 by microsoft!brianw@uunet.uu.net I won't argue with your wish to have the // line continued and improved.Apple has a rea potential gem in the GS. But,as you note, Apple's emphasis is on the Mac.The GS is losing its edge as technology advances.It's only a matter of time until IBM produces a home/educational computer with good sound capabilities. At that point the GS would be in real trouble.Its graphics'/text capabilities are poor,8 bit bus,no support,... .Statistics are difficult to interpret. I highly doubt the marketshare numbers you have quoted. Most of the ones I have seen paint a very different picture and show IBM having the top spots in retail sales.So I would be very interested in the methods used in arriving at this data. Something doesn't make sense. Philip McDunnough philip@utstat.toronto.edu
samt@pro-europa.cts.com (Sam Theis) (09/25/89)
Comment to message from: philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) Philip McDunnough writes in a message: > I won't argue with your wish to have the // line continued and > improved.Apple has a rea potential gem in the GS. > But,as you note, Apple's emphasis is on the Mac.The GS is losing > its edge as technology advances.It's only a matter of time until > IBM produces a home/educational computer with good sound capabilities. > At that point the GS would be in real trouble.Its graphics'/text > capabilities are poor,8 bit bus,no support,... .Statistics are difficult > to interpret. I highly doubt the marketshare numbers you have quoted. > Most of the ones I have seen paint a very different picture and show > IBM having the top spots in retail sales.So I would be very interested > in the methods used in arriving at this data. Something doesn't make > sense. Often reported market statistics don't seperate IBM sales from IBM compatibles. These figures were breaking down by individual models from individual manufactuers. So the numbers were probably correct. Sam UUCP: crash!pro-europa!samt ARPA: crash!pro-europa!samt@nosc.mil INET: samt@pro-europa.cts.com
brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (09/26/89)
In article <8909250518.AA28930@trout.nosc.mil> philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) writes: >Network Comment: to #5363 by microsoft!brianw@uunet.uu.net > >[...] It's only a matter of time until >IBM produces a home/educational computer with good sound capabilities. You don't know just how right you are... >At that point the GS would be in real trouble.Its graphics'/text >capabilities are poor,8 bit bus,no support,... To tell you the honest truth, I don't believe that I'll be able to hang on to my investment in Apple II technology forever. But at the moment, between my programming experience, peripheral investment and personal chioce, the IIgs looks like my next machine (why do I always think I'm hearing laughter? :-) Then again, the PC's can't forever build on their old 8 bit 8088, either! I just wish that some company would come out with a machine that I could be CERTAIN that I want TODAY. >.Statistics are difficult >to interpret. I highly doubt the marketshare numbers you have quoted. >Most of the ones I have seen paint a very different picture and show >IBM having the top spots in retail sales.So I would be very interested >in the methods used in arriving at this data. Something doesn't make >sense. > >Philip McDunnough I had doubts, too, but I'm a sucker and I trust the printed word: Look in Computer Reseller News, Feb 13, 1989 in your local library. That issue had the Oct - Nov figures compiled from 1988. While you are there, check the more recent issues for the Jan - Apr numbers (I don't remember the exact issue for those 1989 figures). As for IBM having the top sales figures - that may be 'PC compatibles', but certainly not IBM brand. I was careful to quote whether UNIT or DOLLAR market shares were being listed. In the stats I saw, IBM didn't have more than Apple in either dollars or units (that's counting the Mac, of course). BTW, IBM also suffers from the lack of competitive performance features in their current models. A couple of the PS/2's do not support MCA, and several will not run OS/2 - either because their 8086 is incapable, or the machine has problems. The Model 25 and 30 are 8 MHz 8086 machines (the 1 MHz Apple II could beat a 4.77 MHz PC, so what is 8 MHz?), the Model 50 and 60 PS/2s are 10 MHz 80286's, and only the 70 and 80 sport a 386. Only a handful of IBM's PS/2s run at 20 MHz, with Compaq and Zenith zipping along at 33 MHz these days. No wonder IBM has less than 15% of the unit shares when you count all their current products. It's very likely that your sources are reporting PC compatibles, which is valid in a way because they will run the same software for the most part. If you count all the various MS-DOS compatible x86 manufacturers, you get a massive total, which happens to be the driving force behind the company which pays my bills :-) Brian Willoughby UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw InterNet: microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or: microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM Bitnet brianw@microsoft.UUCP
philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) (09/28/89)
Network Comment: to #5471 by samt@pro-europa.cts.com While some figures do not indicate IBM sales, most in fact do.Every survey I have seen shows IBM doing increasingly well with its PS/2 line.e top sellers(through retail stores) are mainly PS/2's(low end). Philip philip@utstat.toronto.edu
jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) (09/30/89)
Network Comment: to #499 by philip@pro-generic.cts.com
> I doubt the accuracy of those statistics.
You doubt in error. Every discussion along these lines that I read misses the
point completely. The point is not hardware, not at all. It's software.
The Apple II create the personal computer market, and by that very fact it
body-slams IBM and Macintosh. (Mac worse than IBM, in fact.) IBM drifted into
the home and schools years late, and even after its introduction, the IBM was
billed as a business machine. Fine. It's a business machine, and I'm sure it
can recalculate a mean spreadsheet, although I'll pit the speed of my IIGS
against any IBM, including 386's, and any Mac up to a IIx.
The point is that nothing has the software to touch an Apple II in the home
and in the school. The software and the presence. Introduce any technology you
want. Market it any way you want. Price it any way you want. The simple fact
is that schools have the Apple II, educators like the Apple II, and when
everybody goes to do their lesson plans and homework, they do it on an Apple
II. The people who run and attend our schools have neither the money nor the
interest in switching to anything else. And regardless of what you may think,
these people are very wise: They have chosen the best machine -- the best
machine for WHAT THEY DO -- and it is these people who determine what is the
best machine.
It's a popular pasttime to second-guess Apple's marketing, and that of the
other computer manufacturers. Will Apple do this or that, and is the II gonna
die. This reminds me of a common misconception in my business, journalism --
that is, that the news always takes precedence over advertising and marketing.
That mindset -- and the mindset that believes Apple actually cares what
anybody thinks of its product line -- is garbage. Journalism exists because
somebody is making money -- power of the press belongs to those who own one.
And Apple exists because somebody is making money selling Apples.
The Macintosh has only been supporting itself now for a mere three years, and
I absolutely promise you that this hasn't escaped Apple's bankers. The Apple
II is established, mature, sophisticated in what it does, and it won't go away
until all of this changes. Technology be darned. The people in our homes and
schools want something that works, and not many things work as well as an
Apple II.
Joe Abernathy
UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy
ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil
INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.comgt0t+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Gregory Ross Thompson) (10/01/89)
Well, I agree that Apple's were the major computer in schools, but I have found that it's not the case any more. In the high school that I attended, they had Appl //e's about 3 or 4 years ago, but then they got rid of almost all of them, and switched to cheap Xerox pc clones. On campus here, the only Apple //s are the ones owned by students. All the clusters have Macs and terminals (Sun3s, DEC3100s, IBM rt's). I think Apple //s are awesome. I'll be using my GS for many, many years. I'd like to have a Mac IIci, but the chances of me getting one are very slim, so I'll keep my GS, and even if I did get a mac, I'd keep the GS. It's a great machine. All we need is more people writing good software for it. -Greg T. ======================================================================== * The previous message was brought #ARPANet : gt0t+@andrew.cmu.edu ^ * to you through a grant from CMU #Bitnet:Floyd@Drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu^ * who has graciously taken a hell #Bitnet : y614gt0t@vb.cmu.edu ^ * of a lot of money from this man. #Hmm. I still need one more account^ ========================================================================
sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) (10/03/89)
Comment to message from: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) Hi Joe! I disagree... the =ONLY= reason Apple maintains <and even got the foothold it utilized to the max> its presence in the School market is the discounts it offered from the beginning. Note that when Jobs started to market the neXt computer he went the same way... MAXIMUM discounts to the schools. I realize this is an Apple feed (and I =DO= run an Apple//e BBS) but REALITY and COST point to a different direction for normal <read not able to use discounts> users. Take a look at those of us that want to multinode systems or buy extensive memory or disk space. CHEAP <and not necessarily unreliable, etc> is not an Apple advantage. Disk space alone sells for 1/3 the cost of the same on an Apple system. Programs must run in 64K (or 128K) instead of having 640K or even more with EMS... Don't get me wrong... I have enjoyed my Apple computer for years but any future expansion on my part will be based on a realistic cost basis and Apple =TOTALLY= fails when it is based on cost/use... /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 * My son is a Georgia Tech freshman | | I work for Xerox Corporation for decent bucks but dream of Palto Alto RC | | The RainForest @ 305-434-4927 / PO Box 841422, Pembroke Pines, Fl, 33084 | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (10/04/89)
In an article, sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) wrote: >Comment to message from: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) > >I disagree... the =ONLY= reason Apple maintains <and even got the foothold it >utilized to the max> its presence in the School market is the discounts it >offered from the beginning. Note that when Jobs started to market the neXt >computer he went the same way... MAXIMUM discounts to the schools. I realize >this is an Apple feed (and I =DO= run an Apple//e BBS) but REALITY and COST >point to a different direction for normal <read not able to use discounts> >users. I disagree with what you said... The reason Apple went into schools was the INTELLIGENT (or maybe not..it's OBVIOUS) observation that if you have everyone using Apples at school, then when the family buys a computer for the home (AT FULL PRICE), they will get an Apple. {"But mommy, we use APPLE computers at school! Can't we have one of those??"} So Apple's discounts/giveaways have paid for themselves MANY MANY times over... We got an Apple at home (and now I have the "same" computer upgraded to a GS at school) because Apples were the first computers I ever seriously used in school... (I'm a junior in college now... In 6th grade, I had a little experience with a Commodore PET computer.. Basically all I remember about that was playing SABOTAGE and the weird "graphic chars" that all of the keys had). -- unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu (The Unknown User) also mailable at unknown@darkside.com The first address is preferable during the school year.
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (10/05/89)
On Wed, 4 Oct 89 01:55:30 GMT you said: > The reason Apple went into >schools was the INTELLIGENT (or maybe not..it's OBVIOUS) observation >that if you have everyone using Apples at school, then when the family >buys a computer for the home (AT FULL PRICE), they will get an Apple. >{"But mommy, we use APPLE computers at school! Can't we have one of those??"} Correct. IBM has (since the early 60's at least) practically donated mainframes to universities on the grounds that industry hires college graduates and those college graduates are likely to be inclined to buy the kind of computer system they are already familiar with (the early "electronic brains" were Univacs, but IBM ended up with 2/3 of the mainframe computer market). Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] The opposite of artificial intelligence is genuine stupidity! -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)