tsouth@pro-pac.cts.COM (Todd South) (07/08/88)
Has anyone wondered at the market strategy of Apple lately? I think (flame
shields on) that even though Claris made an outrageously great aquisition
that things are not yet tamed in the long run!
I was flipping through some magazine last month and read that even though
total Apple sales are *no longer* decidedly supported by the Apple ][ family
that LAST YEAR alone there were over 1 BILLION dollars in gross Apple ][
products sales.
Hmm... Isn;t this interesting? A 2.5 Mhz computer that you can actually
watch draw lines on the screen sold 10 figures worth of products last year.
Now, Claris is rumored to be renaming GSWorks to Appleworks GS. IMHO, this
is really a stupid maneuver. Why don't they take the sales money *from*
the *second largest selling progam EVER* and invest in some research for
the computer software which is making them the most money? Please, let's not
see some piece of slime Apple calls a telecommunications program! I too was
one of the witless saps that was suckered into purchasing Apple Access II
from my friendly dealer (only to find out it didn;t transfer anything but
text files!). Let's see some of that hard spent money go towards the people
that are actually putting it into the company(ies).
I know, Claris people are saying, "Does't this guy know that we are an
independent company now?". But, actually, Claris, you are not. No matter
what you do or say you are still connected as a part of Apple and are a
direct reflection of their thinking. Until you show the market that you
will support the software which sales the most then you will always and
forever be a part of the "Jobs" way of thinking.
What do *I* want? I want Unix on my Apple //gs. I know, I'm not gonna get
that for under a few tens of thousands. I want a networking system that
runs OFF OF AN APPLE ][ FAMILY COMPUTER! I know, I'm not gonna get that
because Apple refuses to either make a card system that will allow such a
thing and/or give the //gs the necessary speed an MMU resources to handle such
a venture. I want the damn QuickDraw II to refresh a screen faster than my
eyes can. I know, I'm not going to get that because to do so might make
someone out there realize that this is a general purpose computer which not
only is good in the educational market, but has serious potential in the
business and design based markets (a good QuickDraw II system would compete
with you-know-what). I want some of the 250,000 users of the Apple //gs to
bitch at you guys so that eventually you open up your Mac invested souls and
see the potential loss of profits and future support that you are throwing
away because of (what I still like to call) the "Jobs" mentality.
Why don;t people write serious applications for the //gs in the business
market? My guess? Speed. Support of Apple. Support of Claris. Half ass
implementations on the current //gs motherboard. Numerous other reason. /:
I dunno folks. Maybe, just maybe, things will change. The problem, as I
see it, is that the changes are like third generation children on my AT&T
7300 -- They get around to it when all of the other work is finished . . .
Todd South
P.S. I sincerely would like to hear some comments on this from the
rest of you out in USENET and other nets. We know :-) that
I probably won;t get any feedback from you-know-who.
P.S.S. Flames are welcome! And this is not a citation for riot :-) :-)
--
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@PSUVAX1delaney%wnre.aecl.CDN@ean.ubc.ca (07/09/88)
While I can't necessarily agree with you on all your comments Todd. I agree whole hartedly with the disapproval of the Claris acquisition. What will come of this is little more than delaying a good product from reaching the market. A few months back we had a message from Claris stating that they would like to support the // world. I sent off a note and I must admit I did get a reply but what more have we head from them? The only advantage of the aquisition might be added financial support for the former STYLEWARE which could help futher development from a tuned in company. I like you hope that the APPLE idea that the // series is only a toy syndrome does not spread. Like you my apple is not an educational machine. I use it at home to write software for VMS systems then transfer it using KERMIT to the mainframe. While this is only a small part of what I do with my GS I can only say I use it much like many others use their MAC's or (dare I say) IBM-PCs. Grant
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (07/10/88)
>see some piece of slime Apple calls a telecommunications program! I too was >one of the witless saps that was suckered into purchasing Apple Access II >from my friendly dealer (only to find out it didn;t transfer anything but >text files!). At the time it was first published, Apple Access II was the cheapest, half decent vt100 emulation around - especially since dealers around here were inclined to "toss it in" with the sale of a color //c system + Apple modem. While Access II has LOTS of limitations, it WILL transfer binary files IF they are "bunny" files (BNY, BQY, etc). The fact that the files download with a file byte of .TXT doesn't make any difference at all, they'll still unpack. At the time Access II was released, the only way to transfer other than text files on an Apple was either an Xmodem "superset" on BOTH ends (AE Pro's method) or commware that could specify (external to the transfer) the file attributes (SOFTERM's method). AE Pro and SOFTERM both cost considerably more than Apple Access II. Both TIC and ZLink are considerably more capable programs (for less $$ too), but anyone who still has Access II can continue to make do if they have a copy of BLU to use along with it. As a sidebar: for the truly impecunious, Kermit 3.83 (or greater) and BLU provide both Kermit and XModem for any type of Apple 2 file plus VT100 emulation at a price that's hard to beat (both are public domain). Murph Sewall Sewall@UCONNVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax} !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] -+- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) "It might help if we ran the MBA's out of Washington." - Adm Grace Hopper
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (07/10/88)
>While I can't necessarily agree with you on all your comments Todd. I agree >whole hartedly with the disapproval of the Claris acquisition. What will >come of this is little more than delaying a good product from reaching the >market. Rumor has it that Claris plans to integrate GS Works into work already started on the next version of AppleWorks (more likely enhancing GS Works, as it sure seems that GS Works is far more complete than anything Claris has been doing by way of Appleworks). The result to be marketed as "AppleWorks GS." It remains to be seen what will reach the market and how long it will take. > ...Like you my apple is not an educational >machine. I use it at home to write software for VMS systems then transfer >it using KERMIT to the mainframe. While this is only a small part of what >I do with my GS I can only say I use it much like many others use their >MAC's or (dare I say) IBM-PCs. I sure prefer Apple's keyboard to IBM's but Apple isn't keeping up. SPSS has announced SPSS-X for the PS/2 (under OS/2) for release in October (already demo'd a beta version on a 50Z). Same source (Fortran) as the mainframe version. There isn't any reason why that program can't run on a IIgs (more likely a IIgs+), but I don't expect it'll ever happen. I wonder why SPSS and SAS haven't been ported to the Mac though. Methinks in this day of the 25MHz micro (a 33MHz version of the 80386 will be available soon) that Apple better get a little faster than 4MHz or even the educational market will disappear. It seems Apple/Claris doesn't know the fairy tale about the Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs. For instance, there's "The Spring Developers' Conference - Apple From the Top Down: Preaching to the Converted" in the July/August issue of Call-A.P.P.L.E. Sad, sad, sad - hard as we try to teach marketing, those who should no better insist on missing the point. Looks like I'll be getting a PS/2 Model 70 for Christmas *sigh* Murph Sewall Sewall@UCONNVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax} !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] -+- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) "It might help if we ran the MBA's out of Washington." - Adm Grace Hopper
jason@lakesys.UUCP (Jason) (07/10/88)
In article <1980*delaney@wnre.aecl.cdn>, delaney%wnre.aecl.CDN@ean.ubc.ca writes: > [...] > company. I like you hope that the APPLE idea that the // series is only > a toy syndrome does not spread. Like you my apple is not an educational > [...] > > Grant I'm not trying to start flame wars here... I have a //gs (I'm using it to type this), and I program using it. However, I think it's a toy. A nice looking, nice sounding toy, but @ 2.8Mhz (2.5Mhz, really), it's not a serious computer, given the context of most pc's today. Now, the reasons for it being a toy is another issue entirely... I'm sure that everyone's heard about the //gs+. If it solidifies in a major way (distribution-wise), I'll be happy, because it'll be able to outrun my 68000 based machine (Atari ST), and it'll be able to out-display the Macs ('cept for the Mac //, and everyone knows how much they cost). Besides, the more I look at QD, et. al., the more I like the //gs (especially when compared to GEM or Windows...). If the //gs+ is as it's been described, it won't be a toy. -- Jason - Not your average iconoclast
rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. rupp) (07/21/88)
I wonder whether the many Apple II users who have gripped about the Apple II not being able to run UNIX, not having enough this or that, etc., have ever run a business. The facts, as I see it, are these: a. Apple Computer, Inc. owes nothing to users except a reliable product that does what they claim it will. If some people would like the GS to have been a better machine, that's tough. Sure, it would be nice if the GS had a 10Mhz clock speed and a faster windowing interface, but being "nice" does not equate to an obligation on Apple's part. b. The Apple II line has been a huge success, but it has been surpassed technically by the latest models both from Apple as well as from other companies. Even Henry Ford had to replace the Model T eventually. There is only so much improvement that can be made in the Apple IIGS without spending unwarranted amounts of resources that would be better spent, in the long run, in Apple's most up-to-date product line. In other words, even if massive improvements in the IIGS could be made, it would be silly for Apple to allocate money to do so. Apple's future, immediate future, at any rate, lies with the Mac. When will Apple stop making Apple IIs? As soon as they can, is my guess. That means as soon as the II line experiences a significant decline in sales. I think that will not happen for a couple of years, but the end of the II line cannot be very many years away. For now, I imagine the top Apple people see theII as a continuing source of revenue which is better kept going. But if the time ever comes when Apple announces *no* new improvements or related products for the IIs over a period of six months to a year, I would expect the end to be not far off. I believe GM stopped development of the Corvair in 1966, but continued to make them till the end of the 1969 model year. That three year period between a halt in development and termination of production would probably be shorter for a microcomputer, say 18 months. It was nice while it lasted. Bill
tsouth@pro-pac.cts.COM (Todd South) (07/24/88)
In Article <1164@cod.NOSC.MIL> rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. rupp) writes: > I wonder whether the many Apple II users who have gripped about the > Apple II not being able to run UNIX, not having enough this or that, > etc., have ever run a business. The facts, as I see it, are these: Yes, still do as a matter of fact. (At least this one does) > a. Apple Computer, Inc. owes nothing to users except a reliable > product that does what they claim it will. If some people > would like the GS to have been a better machine, that's tough. > Sure, it would be nice if the GS had a 10Mhz clock speed and > a faster windowing interface, but being "nice" does not equate > to an obligation on Apple's part. 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. In the beginning of the company the key role which attracted an enormous amount of people (IMHO) is their willingness to help, to make information a free-flowing commodity. Today? That just isn;t happening, and there are a growing number of people that are just sick and tired of the bullshit. If (today) I started up a business and gave the exact-same-level of support that Apple now provides in their various technical depts., documentation, and general attitudes, my product would surely fold (unless I was a govt. contractor of somekind :-). > b. The Apple II line has been a huge success, but it has been > surpassed technically by the latest models both from Apple > as well as from other companies. Even Henry Ford had to > replace the Model T eventually. There is only so much > improvement that can be made in the Apple IIGS without > spending unwarranted amounts of resources that would be > better spent, in the long run, in Apple's most up-to-date > product line. In other words, even if massive improvements > in the IIGS could be made, it would be silly for Apple to > allocate money to do so. Apple's future, immediate future, > at any rate, lies with the Mac. 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. 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. The Apple ][ family has proven time and time again that even the minimum enhancements into a good system will promote sales. I 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. Some day, I probably will own a Mac II (or a future offspring of such). For now, I like my //gs, and the things that are unique to it. I only wish that they were actually being expanded to a point that would near the end of the technology incorporated into the system. The 65C816 was advertised as an 8Mhz chip when it was first announced. How would you feel if you were running something like a Macintosh with a 2.5Mhz choke on it? > When will Apple stop making Apple IIs? As soon as they can, is my guess. > That means as soon as the II line experiences a significant decline in > sales. I think that will not happen for a couple of years, but the end of > the II line cannot be very many years away. 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? >From what I see it appears that someone at Apple is taking note of this and might just reverse the trend (as I see it), but there is still a long way to go. Ever notice anything about interviews with Apple people on the subject of the Apple ][? How come they always say things like, "Well, we have something in the works for [insert your favorite gripe here], but it is strictly confidential."? In the latest InCider interview with Steve Wozniack, he even goes as far to state that *quote* it was a shame that both the Apple III and Mac used up a lot of the resources at Apple. There was a COMPLETE (emphasis mine) lack of attention to a product that still had a lot of life and deserved a lot; instead the Apple ][ was forgotten. It's just wrong to forget it when there are people who are using the computer and love it. *unquote* > For now, I imagine the top > Apple people see the II as a continuing source of revenue which is better > kept going. But if the time ever comes when Apple announces *no* new > improvements or related products for the IIs over a period of six months > to a year, I would expect the end to be not far off. I believe GM stopped > development of the Corvair in 1966, but continued to make them till the > end of the 1969 model year. That three year period between a halt in > development and termination of production would probably be shorter for a > microcomputer, say 18 months. > It was nice while it lasted. You seem to imply that you own an Apple ][. Apparently, you might not be satified with it. But tell me, if you purchased something that was of sentimental value, and it became antiquated, would you throw it away? I wouldn't. I also would like to put it to use, though. Things in the closet are no good to me. Something that I can use, and also be inspired by is a lot better overall! Steve Wozniack and his little computer have done just that. The sad thing, as I see it, is that the dream is dying out in favor of force marketting. There has been a lot of (literally) begging going on for a long time from people that have supported Apple from its earliest beginnings. I (We?) want the Apple ][ line to go on and flourish. But for some reason there are the pesimist that keep hitting it down, and holding it back. I'll never understand it, to tell you the truth. > Bill Todd South Disclaimer: Since I own the computer and pay the bills, I speak for the management...:-) -- 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