orcus@pro-lep.cts.com (Brian Greenstone) (04/04/89)
Ok, I know we've all had our shares of GS+ rumors, but here is one which I heard yesterday, and to be quite honest, I dont belive it. -Supposedly the Woz himself told a friend who knew a friend of mine who told me this rumor. In other words, it is 3rd hand info. -There will be a new GS+ released in September. -There is going to be a board that you can get for it tenatively called The Golden Gate Bridge that will allow you to run the GS+ as a color low-line Mac. -This will be the last Apple II, and they are going to stop production of the low-end Macs and try to slowly get II users to move to Mac this way. Thus the Mac II will become standard. -The new GS+ will have new graphics modes and run faster (no duh?) There it is. Rumor or Reality? That is the question. I think rumor...
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (04/05/89)
In article <8904040536.AA27577@crash.cts.com> pnet01!pro-sol!rti-austin!pro-lep!orcus@nosc.mil writes: >-There is going to be a board that you can get for it tenatively called The >Golden Gate Bridge that will allow you to run the GS+ as a color low-line Mac. >-This will be the last Apple II, and they are going to stop production of the >low-end Macs and try to slowly get II users to move to Mac this way. The "Golden Gate" rumor is not exactly new. A product such as you describe would be good business sense if Apple actually (as they seem to) intends to steer the Apple II clientele into the Macintosh product line. I think a more probable guess about the second point quoted would be that no new low-end Macs would be introduced in competition with the new II/Mac hybrid, in order not to weaken the crossover.
V131Q5CG@UBVMSC.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (John Taylor) (04/05/89)
>In article <8904040536.AA27577@crash.cts.com> > pnet01!pro-sol!rti-austin!pro-lep!orcus@nosc.mil writes: >>-There is going to be a board that you can get for it tenatively called The >>Golden Gate Bridge that will allow you to run the GS+ as a color low-line Mac. >From: Doug Gwyn <adm!smoke!gwyn@NYU.EDU> [...stuff removed...] >I think a more probable guess about the second point quoted would be that >no new low-end Macs would be introduced in competition with the new II/Mac >hybrid, in order not to weaken the crossover. This more probable guess then reduces the GS+ to rumor, again (suprise!). Apple has _announced_ previously, that a new "low cost" < $1000 MAC would be built; we part-time optimists take this to mean that Apple is trying harder to remove IBM (the "Most Valuable Corporation" in the US) machinery and replace it with MACs. -------------- John Taylor -- SUNY at Buffalo Internet: v131q5cg@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu Bitnet : v131q5cg@ubvmsc
FFDDO@ALASKA.BITNET (David Oberhart) (04/07/89)
If you want some interesting news about the GS, ask Applied Engeering about it. They have an interesting perspective about whether or not Apple will EVER come o ut with a GS+. Better order your TransWarp GS boards... David Oberhart <FFDDO@ALASKA> CIS 72047,1004
NETOPRHM@NCSUVM.BITNET (Hal Meeks) (04/07/89)
While all of this sounds really nice for apple II users, look at the state of things now, and try to make the two jibe: Apple really has committed a great deal of it's resources to the Mac, and much less to the GS. Now the rumors are flying that there finally will be a competitive GS configuration available from apple. Add to this the announced genlock board. It's almost as if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Why would apple start thinking of improving the GS when it's obvious where their road is carrying them. The last two years of show a slow withdrawal from innovation on the apple II front as far as Apple is concerned. It's been the 3rd party folks that have brought it along. Why would you put more money into a system that you know you will be abandoning in the next 5 years? And I don't mean a little money; I mean the considerable resources of Apple plugging away to shape the GS into the machine it ought to have been? I've heard about the Golden Gate project; when I first heard of it over a year ago, it made a lot of sense. Now, looking at the state of affairs, I'm not so sure. Sorry to ramble, but these current rumors have made me do a little thinking. Apple isn't the benevolent "hacker's" company it was 2-3 years ago. It's a corporation. And the bottom line is money, not if you are going to hurt someone's feelings. Why in the world would Apple sell you a color system that would emulate a mac, and run at about the same speed, when they can sell you a color mac system and make more money (a _lot_ more money). Price isn't necessarily a factor here: The value of something is what someone is prepared to pay for that item. Apple learned this lesson the hard way a few months ago with the panic-fueled price jump of the entire line. I'm not trying to make anyone angry here. I've posed a few questions, and haven't answered them because I don't know the answer. It just seems so strange. --hal
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (04/08/89)
In article <640NETOPRHM@NCSUVM> NETOPRHM@NCSUVM.BITNET (Hal Meeks) writes:
-Apple isn't the benevolent "hacker's" company it was 2-3 years ago. It's
-a corporation. And the bottom line is money, not if you are going to hurt
-someone's feelings. Why in the world would Apple sell you a color system
-that would emulate a mac, and run at about the same speed, when they can
-sell you a color mac system and make more money (a _lot_ more money).
-...
-I'm not trying to make anyone angry here. I've posed a few questions, and
-haven't answered them because I don't know the answer.
Well, consider this: I would never, ever buy a color Mac to replace my
IIGS after Apple has relegated the Apple II line to oblivion, UNLESS the
color Mac provided support for the majority of my existing Apple II
applications. That is what happens when corporate money-grubbing
mentality "hurts my feelings" by treating existing customers like dirt.
That's why I think that the RATIONAL course for Apple, assuming they
do want to discontinue a separate Apple II product line, is to come up
with a "bridge" system. If they want to continue two separate product
lines that is okay too, so long as they both receive adequate support.tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com (System Administrator) (04/08/89)
Re: > Date: 7 Apr 89 02:04:58 GMT > From: Hal Meeks <pnet01!crash!jade.berkeley.edu!netoprhm%ncsuvm.BITNET> > Organization: North Carolina State University - Computing Center > Subject: Re: Another GS+ rumor.. > Apple really has committed a great deal of it's resources to the Mac, > and much less to the GS. Now the rumors are flying that there finally > will be a competitive GS configuration available from apple. Add to this I see no problem with this! Whether or not the resources have been mostly directed at the Mac line, or not, there is a large installed base of Apple ][ owners out there that 1.) will not buy Mac, and 2.) want the Apple ][ family made into a competitive machine -- especially in the speed of the machine as compared to other comparative products. When we sit down and look at the actual numbers of educational institutions which do have Apple //e's and //gs's, and the installed _loyal_ user base I think that the numbers should be obvious to most competent people. > Why would apple start thinking of improving the GS when it's > obvious where their road is carrying them. The last two years of show a > slow withdrawal from innovation on the apple II front as far as Apple is > concerned. It's been the 3rd party folks that have brought it along. > Why would you put more money into a system that you know you will be > abandoning in the next 5 years? And I don't mean a little money; I mean > I've heard about the Golden Gate project; when I first heard of it over > a year ago, it made a lot of sense. Now, looking at the state of affairs, > I'm not so sure. There are many things to consider here. As I see the third-party and software industry, they are looking at getting a system with the speed to make something work for them (classic example is the failed SDI project for the //gs) and finding better support and resources to work their magic on the machine. Don't ask me why :) but Apple is starting to take the appearance that they do care more about the installed base of users. They, and the support staff they have hired, are working with a vengance to change past mistakes, IMHO. Also, to expect the installed educational community to trash their Apple ][ family computers and buy Mac's should not even be considered in the analysis of changing over to a K-12 Mac environment. If that actually did happen I think that Apple would make IBM appear to be a small business. :) The supposed Golden Gate project would allow this conversion while keeping the conversion to a low cost. Heck, you wouldn't even have to give up all the old software or hardware at all! Plus, the market would be able to have the best of both worlds. From what I understand, personally, about the system it is still a good idea and I know that it will swamp the market if any of the rumors are to be believed. Face it, even if you just changed the educational market, though, there are still _millions_ of users out here who do not want Mac's, either for personal or financial considerations. It is silly to think that everyone will buy a used Mac+ or low-end SE when they know that the machines are already becoming obsolete in the scheme of things. > Apple isn't the benevolent "hacker's" company it was 2-3 years ago. It's > a corporation. And the bottom line is money, not if you are going to hurt > someone's feelings. Why in the world would Apple sell you a color system > that would emulate a mac, and run at about the same speed, when they can > sell you a color mac system and make more money (a _lot_ more money). Listen, I don't want to seem to be always beating a dead horse about this mate, but in 1987 Apple ][ sales were 1 billion dollars. Sales dropped in 1988, but I personally do not see that as the fault of the hardware (and I don't want to go real deep into why I think that happened). No matter how large a company you are, I cannot imagine that you would disregard sales of that caliber. > I'm not trying to make anyone angry here. I've posed a few questions, and > --hal Hope I helped... Todd South -- UUCP: {nosc, uunet!cacilj, sdcsvax, hplabs!hp-sdd, sun.COM} ...!crash!pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-pac!tsouth ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-pac!tsouth@nosc.MIL INET: tsouth@pro-pac.CTS.COM - BITNET: pro-pac.UUCP!tsouth@PSUVAX1
Kreme@cup.portal.com (Lewis Kreme Butler) (04/10/89)
|Well, consider this: I would never, ever buy a color Mac to replace my |IIGS after Apple has relegated the Apple II line to oblivion, UNLESS the |color Mac provided support for the majority of my existing Apple II |applications. That is what happens when corporate money-grubbing |mentality "hurts my feelings" by treating existing customers like dirt. | |That's why I think that the RATIONAL course for Apple, assuming they |do want to discontinue a separate Apple II product line, is to come up |with a "bridge" system. If they want to continue two separate product |lines that is okay too, so long as they both receive adequate support. I must say, I agree with you completely. If apple wants to merge their product lines it would be best to create a low end Mac that is fully comatible with the // line. This way they would be able to phase out the // line while still suporting the vast amounts of software that is available for these machines. On the one hand it sounds too good to be true, but on the other, it looks like a smart business decision. I won't be holding my breath, but I'll keep my fingers crossed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | You're all coffee drinkers, no tea for | | kreme@cup.portal.com | you! -- Isstvan | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | DISCLAIMER: All comments are the responsibility of a small purple man from | | the area of Rilos. Keep that in mind when considering flames. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------