rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. rupp) (07/27/88)
In article <8807241256.AA23222@crash.cts.com> pnet01!pro-simasd!pro-pac!tsouth@nosc.mil writes: > >Bill, that's the problem, you see. They (Apple) seems to think along the >same line of thought that you do. On the one hand, they actually have >a one billion dollar revenue producer which, despite all of the seeming >open and not-so-open attempts to kill, is still selling like hotcakes! It >has captured a large part of the dreams and pockets of a rather large >group of consumers. There are almost more Apple ][ computers out in the >world as there are people in certain states. The Apple ][ is not just a >box, it is an idealism that a whole bunch of people cling too. Look, I understand that you and others of your persuasion are super enthusiastic about the Apple II line. That is both admirable and inspiring. The problem is, such enthusiasm sometimes makes it difficult to see things from a larger perspective. > >Why? No really, I want a good reason why . . . I really get tired of >hearing this OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. Your theory (or opinion) is >not based in one single iota of fact. There is nothing in any market >study I have been able to discovery which even points to this. What? Are you serious? Look, one of my brothers has been a successful microcomputer salesman for a decade (It's been years since he has sold to end users, if that means anything to you). He has told me how hard it was, until fairly recently, to get potential corporate buyers even to consider IBM *compatibles*, much less non-IBM standard products. Much of this is due to the name IBM. But not all of it. Even the IBM-PC was superior in many ways to the Apple II. Consider the matter of disk storage, for instance. The venerable 360 K floppy drive was introduced when, about 1982? And how long after that did the Apple II limp along with a single-sided 140 K drive? And 640 K RAM certainly allowed the creation of much more powerful applications than the 64 K of the Apple II. And, as much as I joke about MS-DOG, I mean DOS, it is far superior to DOS 3.3 or ProDOS. Come on, ProDOS doesn't even have a 'type' or 'more' command the last time I looked. In short, whether we like the PC/XT/AT line, and I am not a great fan, it did have a big advantage in lots of areas. And now that same IBM line looks weak next to Mac IIs and PS/2s (model 80s, anyway). > >My opinion? The reason that the future is in the Mac is because some >execs at Apple want it that way. Don't come up with some stuff about >mips, power, resolution, or anything computer specific. If Apple had >actually wanted to make a sound business solution (again, IMHO) they >wouldn't have wasted their earliest resourses on Star Wars parties and >the Apple III. I don't know about the parties, but the Apple III, had it not been hit with big problems right from the start, might have established Apple in the business area before the PC arrived. We'll never know. Anyway, the Apple IIe can't touch the AT. I would certainly opt for the AT if those were my only alternatives, and if I were doing business applications. Business is where the big bucks are, not in the hobbyist field. I'm affraid I would have to choose the AT over the IIGS, as well, though the IIGS is to preferable to me for a home computer (which does not mean, by the way, that I think home uses are inferior to business uses). In short, the Apple execs have no choice but to put the major empahsis on the Macintosh, since corporate buyers will not give the slightest serious consideration to the IIGS. The Apple ][ family has proven time and time again that >even the minimum enhancements into a good system will promote sales. I Only Apple can say for sure, but I don't think that is true any longer. While the IIs still sell well, I don't believe they are nearly as popular as the Macs. As I have said, I think the point of diminishing returns has long since been reached with the IIe and IIc. The IIgs is another matter technically, but there you run into the question of how much like the Mac Apple wants the IIGS to become. >can only imagine what would happen if the Apple ][ family actually >received an *equal* share of R&D, based on the actual computer specific >profits of the company. Well, my last comment applies here. At some point a model is developed to the point where resources for further development simply cannot be justified when compared with allocating those resources to a newer design. > > >Read my lips, Bill. > >APPLE ][ SALES WERE IN THE BBBB III L L III OOO N N > B B I L L I O O N N >range last year! This is B B I L L I O O NN N >not chicken feed we're BBBB I L L I O O N N N >talking about! This is a B B I L L I O O N NN >serious source of revenue B B I L L I O O N N >for any company, no matter BBBB III LLLLL LLLLL III OOO N N > >what they seem to want to attest to. How can you seriously expect to run >a product line that is worth this much without ample support for the system? Well, I agree that solid support is a good idea. On the other hand, if Apple can sell computers with no support, they will. This all depends on what you mean by support, though. Commodore still sells something like 20,000 Commodore-64s per month, and if you think Commodore gives service, I have several nice bridges spanning California waterways that I will sell to you at a low price. > >You seem to imply that you own an Apple ][. Since Oct, 1981. I have had great fun with it, and co-authored a computer book using my II+ for word processing. I am afraid my Macintosh, with 2 Meg of memory and a 32 Meg hard disk, HyperCard, etc., just outclasses the II+. Also the IIGS which I am using, though I enjoy the Mac-like interface of the IIGS (which admittedly could run faster). But tell me, if you purchased something that was of >sentimental value, and it became antiquated, would you throw it away? I never throw anything away. Just ask my wife! >. I (We?) want the Apple ][ line to go on and flourish. So do I. But I will not kid myself into believing that the Apple IIGS is on the cutting edge of microcomputers. Now, if Apple would cut the price to $500.00, that *would* be a breakthrough! > >Todd South > > I think I will end my comments on this topic with this posting and let the group go on to more substantive matters. Bill -------- These comments are my own opinions; they should not be interpreted as official policy of my employer, nor of my wife, who continually berates me for using Apple products! --------
jason@lakesys.UUCP (Jason) (07/28/88)
In article <1172@cod.NOSC.MIL>, rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. rupp) writes: > > of much more powerful applications than the 64 K of the Apple II. And, > as much as I joke about MS-DOG, I mean DOS, it is far superior to DOS > 3.3 or ProDOS. Come on, ProDOS doesn't even have a 'type' or 'more' > command the last time I looked. Uh, ProDOS doesn't have ANY "commands." BASIC.SYSTEM's simple CLI has some commands, not including 'type' or 'more'. However, because of it's expandability, people have written type (haven't seen a more, tho') for it. Aside from that, there are other command shells which have 'type' built-in (I should probably write 'more' just to be spiteful :), amongst other things. I realize that this is being pretty nit-picky, but the mistake you made is fairly common (mistaking the BI's abilities for that of PD's). > Bill -- Jason - Not your average iconoclast | UUCP: uwvax!uwmcsd1!lakesys!jason