jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Jeremy G. Mereness") (07/09/88)
Goug Gwyn writes.... >I wonder if the Apple VP recently interviewed in Open-Apple who thinks >that the only market for the Apple II family worth pursuing is the >"education" market (and that the only significant market for the >Macintosh is the "business" market) has noticed these retail figures. I read the same article in Open-Apple and was able to see Gassee's point about getting specific, high volume markets nailed down. I can live with concentration of sales pitching around such markets, the Apple // to education and the Mac toward business. I mean, Apple has to compete. However, I see no reason whatsoever why the both hardware and the promotion of software R&D should also take this philosophy. With the Mac with the business label, it seems that most parties are abandoning the Apple // for "bigger and better worlds." Further, to use Tom Weisharr's words, Apple has no reason to "go out of its way to lower the Apple //." Not only do people seem to be disregarding the // presently, but it seems that they feel it has no room for growth. Why? Marketing the targeting its high volume sales to the K-12 market... Well, there are more to computers than high volume sales. Perhaps Apple's lifeblood comes from those who buy Macs by the truckload, but hobbiests, students, small businessmen, and entrepreneurs are what built the industry and still play a significant role in sales. It is these people who are hurt by Apple's neglect of the Apple //. Perhaps one source of friction is the high-school to University market, where Apple seems to be obsessed with keeping the // out of the latter. This should not be at all for many reasons, not least of which is people who cannot afford a Mac, are disappointed with the //'s performance capabilities (at this point) in comparison, want more flexibility than the Mac can offer, or simply don't like them are going to buy IBM equipment instead. In the end, Apple loses. And in my mind, so do those students. Capt. Albatross jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu ============ disclaimer: These opinions are mine and will remain so until more intelligent or insightful or informed people are kind enough to show me the error of my ways. Remember: A mind is a terrible thing to baste.
brett@dasys1.UUCP (Brett Genger) (07/11/88)
In article <QWpILWy00V4MzeI0Pi@andrew.cmu.edu>, jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Jeremy G. Mereness") writes: > I read the same article in Open-Apple and was able to see Gassee's point about > getting specific, high volume markets nailed down. I can live with > concentration of sales pitching around such markets, the Apple // to education > and the Mac toward business. I mean, Apple has to compete. > > However, I see no reason whatsoever why the both hardware and the promotion of > software R&D should also take this philosophy. With the Mac with the business > label, it seems that most parties are abandoning the Apple // for "bigger and > better worlds." As far as I know, the Only reason Apple didn't make the GS with a higher speed, was because they didn't want it to Compete with the Mac sales. It might just be me, but I feel Apple is seriously neglecting their personal computer users, in the race for the "Ultimate" affordable Business machine. -brett
prw@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Paul R. Wenker) (07/14/88)
In article <5435@dasys1.UUCP> brett@dasys1.UUCP (Brett Genger) writes: >As far as I know, the Only reason Apple didn't make the GS with a higher >speed, was because they didn't want it to Compete with the Mac sales. The reason that Apple didn't make the GS faster was that at the time they couldn't get reliable 65816's at any speed higher than 2.8 mhz. Why is it that everybody is so quick to accuse Apple of a conspiracy? -Paul R. Wenker prw@meccsd -MECC, Technical Services
tsouth@pro-pac.cts.COM (Todd South) (07/22/88)
In Article: <910@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> prw@meccsd (Paul R. Wenker) writes: > The reason that Apple didn't make the GS faster was that at the time > they couldn't get reliable 65816's at any speed higher than 2.8 mhz. > Why is it that everybody is so quick to accuse Apple of a conspiracy? > -Paul R. Wenker prw@meccsd > -MECC, Technical Services Sorry, Paul. You may believe this, but I have too many friends, which I consider in-the-know, that tell me just the opposite. As a matter of fact, there was a person that purchased one of the original //gs machines and souped it up with his own hardware to run at 15 Mhz (I can't really tell you what effective throughput on that would be). Last I heard, he was in a deal with Apple on the machine, but that's his business. My point is that, IMHO, there is no reason that the //gs should have come out on the market with less than an 8 Mhz processor. Apple waited a *long* time just to get the first one out, and even if they did have this as a valid reason, I think that current //gs sales prove that sales would not have suffered with a later release date. To me, that's just the difference in the Apple ][ and Mac purchasers (not including the ones that used to own Apple ]['s!). The Apple ][ people are a seemingly fanatical lot, and our purchasing power should have shown this to the company (Apple). I think the major gripe in a lot of people's minds is that the Apple ][ has paid the bills for an extremely long time in the company, and there has really been little to no upgrade in the system, considering current available technology which can be mass-produced. The only good thing that Apple has done for the //gs (again IMHO) is create the Toolsets. Todd South -- UUCP: {nosc, cacilj, sdcsvax, hplabs!hp-sdd} ...!crash!pnet01!pro-simasd!pro-pac!tsouth ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-simasd!pro-pac!tsouth@nosc.MIL INET: tsouth@pro-pac.CTS.COM - BITNET: pro-pac.UUCP!tsouth@PSUVAX1
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/29/88)
In article <5435@dasys1.UUCP> brett@dasys1.UUCP (Brett Genger) writes: >It might just be me, but I feel Apple is seriously neglecting their >personal computer users, in the race for the "Ultimate" affordable >Business machine. No doubt about it -- Apple executives have on more than one recent occasion said that they see the Apple II market as "education" and the Macintosh market as "business". Note that they don't seem to consider the personal computer market worthwhile. I read yesterday that Sculley said Apple is considering selling Apple IIGSes to the Soviet Union, because they could meet the Soviet Union's educational needs without delivering critical interesting technology to them (the implication was that the Mac has good stuff in it but the IIGS doesn't). What turkeys.
sds@fizban.Fizban.MN.ORG (Steven D. Splinter) (08/01/88)
From article <8807221316.AA05915@crash.cts.com>, by tsouth@pro-pac.cts.COM (Todd South): >In Article: <910@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> prw@meccsd (Paul R. Wenker) writes: > >> The reason that Apple didn't make the GS faster was that at the time >> they couldn't get reliable 65816's at any speed higher than 2.8 mhz. >> Why is it that everybody is so quick to accuse Apple of a conspiracy? > >> -Paul R. Wenker prw@meccsd >> -MECC, Technical Services > > Sorry, Paul. You may believe this, but I have too many friends, which I > consider in-the-know, that tell me just the opposite. As a matter of fact, > there was a person that purchased one of the original //gs machines and > souped it up with his own hardware to run at 15 Mhz (I can't really tell > you what effective throughput on that would be). Last I heard, he was > in a deal with Apple on the machine, but that's his business. My point > is that, IMHO, there is no reason that the //gs should have come out on > the market with less than an 8 Mhz processor. [rest of article deleted] Sorry Todd, The reason was (as Paul has already pointed out) that Western Digital couldn't deliver reliable 65816's in QUANTITY at anything faster than 2.8MHz. You can find a few, very rare, chips of ANY processor that run MUCH faster than they're rated to go, but in order to make a machine like the IIgs, you need a consistant, reliable and predictable supply of processors. Any 8MHz IIgs would be nice, and I'd LOVE to work on it, instead of the rather clunky 2.8MHz version we all know and love, but there's no big conspiracy in Apple. If they could have brought it out at 7+ MHz, I'm sure they would have. -- -Steven D. Splinter UUCP sds@fizban, meccts!fizban!sds -MECC Technical Services or sds@meccts, meccts!sds -How about a vacation in Minnesota this year? See the (10,000) loveli lakes. The wonderful telephone system, and many interesting furry animals.
rms@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Roger M. Shimada) (08/02/88)
In article <53@fizban.Fizban.MN.ORG> sds@fizban.Fizban.MN.ORG (Steven D. Splinter) writes: >From article <8807221316.AA05915@crash.cts.com>, >by tsouth@pro-pac.cts.COM (Todd South): >>In Article: <910@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> prw@meccsd (Paul R. Wenker) writes: >>> The reason that Apple didn't make the GS faster was that at the time >>> they couldn't get reliable 65816's at any speed higher than 2.8 mhz. >>> Why is it that everybody is so quick to accuse Apple of a conspiracy? Because Apple has botched the most of the Apple // line since after the II Plus? (Mentioning the Plus here probably opens some wounds from Plus owners because Apple ignored them when the //e was introduced.) >> Sorry, Paul. You may believe this, but I have too many friends, which I >> consider in-the-know, that tell me just the opposite. [ mention of >> person who made a 15 MHz GS ] > Sorry Todd, The reason was (as Paul has already pointed out) that > Western Digital couldn't deliver reliable 65816's in QUANTITY at /* That's Western Design Center, not Western Digital. */ > anything faster than 2.8MHz. [...] > , but there's > no big conspiracy in Apple. If they could have brought it out at > 7+ MHz, I'm sure they would have. I'm pretty convinced that Apple was looking much more at the timeline on the GS project than anything else. They didn't take the time to do it right. They released a machine that should have had a faster processor, a fixed video chip, and it should have been released with Finder. Having development software for the GS not running on the GS would have helped too. Apple hasn't had pride in the // family for some time. They do realize that the family has inertia, and as long as it does have one strong market (education) you'll continue to see new members of the // family. Oh yeah...Paul's and Steve's source about the 65816 was probably Apple. -- If my company knew what I'm writing, they'd just as well kill me. Roger M. Shimada {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!meccts!rms rms@mecc.mn.org
prw@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Paul R. Wenker) (08/02/88)
In article <937@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> rms@meccsd.UUCP (Roger M. Shimada) writes: >>>> Why is it that everybody is so quick to accuse Apple of a conspiracy? > >Because Apple has botched the most of the Apple // line since after >the II Plus? (Mentioning the Plus here probably opens some wounds >from Plus owners because Apple ignored them when the //e was >introduced.) They couldn't have botched it too bad, otherwise most of you Apple // owners probably would have purchased another machine. Also, when the IIGS is Apple's best selling machine, I would hardly call that a botch job. >I'm pretty convinced that Apple was looking much more at the timeline >on the GS project than anything else. They didn't take the time to >do it right. They released a machine that should have had a faster >processor, a fixed video chip, and it should have been released >with Finder. Having development software for the GS not running >on the GS would have helped too. The only computer company that I know of that doesn't look at timelines is NeXT. We all know how well their perpetually "soon to be released" machine is doing. Anyway, the GS is not perfect. Far from it. But what would you like Apple to do? They could have waited two years and released a bigger/better/faster machine, but would that be any better that releasing the original GS and then releasing the bigger/better/faster machine two years later. Either way you end up in the same spot. Personally, I prefer having the current GS around while I'm waiting for the new and improved version. >Apple hasn't had pride in the // family for some time. They do >realize that the family has inertia, and as long as it does have >one strong market (education) you'll continue to see new members >of the // family. You forgot the home market. >Oh yeah...Paul's and Steve's source about the 65816 was >probably Apple. Can you find a better source? >-- >If my company knew what I'm writing, they'd just as well kill me. > >Roger M. Shimada {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!meccts!rms rms@mecc.mn.org -- Paul R. Wenker prw@meccsd