patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) (10/14/87)
Reposted from the Boston/Apple Connection BBS (617) 275-9422
(300/1200 Baud, 24 Hrs)
I DOWNLOADED THE FOLLOWING FROM THE CITINET APPLE BOARD:
With Apple President Scully speaking at the BCS Meeting
October 13, let's confront him with the Apple's poor
treatment of Apple II users. I hope readers will raise the
following questions:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- Why has Apple consistently put most of its resources into
MacIntosh development, marketing and support, and so little
into the Apple II?
- Why has Apple been so slow to update Apple's products
(especially Appleworks) with the advanced features so
prevalent on IBM word processors, data bases and
spreadsheets?
- In transferring software development from Apple to Claris
will Claris continue the "pro-Mac, no-II" biases?
- Will Apple continue to artificially overprice products by:
- dropping dealers who sell at a discount,
- opposing mail orders,
- and fighting Apple-clones?
Why are new products for the Apple II usually introduced
well after similar Mac products are introduced?
When can we expect the following types of products for the
Apple II:
- good CD ROM drives with massive storage (e.g. 600+
megabytes)?
- high resolution digital monitors?
- Hypercard?
- 32-bit CPU?
- 25 hertz speed?
- Multiprocessing?
- Mac-like graphic interface faster than the ProDos 16
snail?
- local area networks?
- IBM compatibility/transportability?
- Mac compatibility/transportabilty?
- Is the rumor true that Apple is actively preventing
improvements to the IIGS that would make it more competitive
in the business world? Specifically, is it true that Apple
tried to kill Applied Engineering 6 hz. accelerator chip?
Is it true that Apple has discouraged developers from
developing business software that could compete with the
Mac?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am sure other readers have similar questions. When we've
tried to address these concerns in the past, Apple referred
inquiries to local dealers. The dealers, of course, knew
nothing!
Something is severely screwed up with Apple when one can buy
an IBM clone that is 8 times as fast and has a 40 megabyte
hard disk, floppy, and monitor for less than the cost of an
Apple 20 megabyte hard by itself! Only when users unite,
and register their complaints with APPLE CUPERTINO
directly, can we expect to get answers!
--
Patt Haring UUCP: ..cmcl2!phri!dasys1!patth
Big Electric Cat Compu$erve: 76566,2510
New York, NY, USA MCI Mail: 306-1255; GEnie: PHaring
(212) 879-9031 FidoNet Mail: 1:107/132 or 107/222gberg@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Greg Berg) (10/15/87)
;=) patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) wrote: ;=) "I DOWNLOADED THE FOLLOWING FROM THE CITINET APPLE BOARD:" ;=) <deleted stuff> ;=) ............... ;=) When can we expect the following types of products for the ;=) Apple II: ;=) - 25 hertz speed? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I thought that even the Apple I ran faster than 25 hertz (cycles per second)
rupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (10/15/87)
Here are some of my reactions the questions Patt Haring would like to ask John Sculley..... In article <1644@dasys1.UUCP> patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes: > - Why has Apple consistently put most of its resources into > MacIntosh development, marketing and support, and so little > into the Apple II? Because the Macintosh is Apple's hope for the future. The Apple II series, although it made great contributions to microcomputing, is sadly out of date. Even the IIGS is not generally up to the level of first rate micro's (i.e., Compaq DESKPRO 386, PS/2 Model 80, Macintosh II). It would make no sense to pour large resources into a machine that is not greatly improved over 1977 technology. Especially when said machine continues to sell well. The same can be said of the Commodore-64, the computer that refuses to die. > - Why has Apple been so slow to update Apple's products > (especially Appleworks) with the advanced features so > prevalent on IBM word processors, data bases and > spreadsheets? What? Say that again? I'd say that the advanced features are found on Apple Macintosh software. If there is imitation to be done, it's in the reverse direction to the one you imply. > - Will Apple continue to artificially overprice products by: > - dropping dealers who sell at a discount, > - opposing mail orders, > - and fighting Apple-clones? Apple made a smart business move when it vowed to fight clones. Look what happened to the IBM-PC when the clones got going? Big Blue's market share plummeted. This is not popular with buyers, but it makes investors happy. I still can't understand why IBM allowed their micro to be so easily cloned. > Why are new products for the Apple II usually introduced > well after similar Mac products are introduced? Well, you hit the hottest markets first, the warm markets next, and the cold markets last of all. The Mac is hot. The Apple II is cooling. Cheer up! At least the Apple II line will receive updates and advanced features sooner than the Timex-Sinclair will. > When can we expect the following types of products for the > Apple II: > - good CD ROM drives with massive storage (e.g. 600+ > megabytes)? > - high resolution digital monitors? > - Hypercard? Hypercard? Takes a lot of memory and a hard disk. This is really only practical with the GS, I'd say, and eventually it will probably appear for the GS. > - 32-bit CPU? Are you serious? The Macintosh is Apple's high end series, not the Apple II. There is no reason in favor of, and lots of reasons opposed to such a development. Why was the IBM PC-JR such a dog? IBM did not want it to compete with the PC. Same with the Apple II/Macintosh. John Sculley would be insane to sanction any move towards making the IIGS an alternative Mac. The GS is close enough to a Mac in user interface as it is. 32-bit computing is in the Mac's ballpark. Look at the success General Motors had for years; each product line had a place which did not interfere with the others. Chevy -> Pontiac -> Oldsmobile -> Buick -> Cadillac. Ever here of the DeSoto? A car which made money for Chrysler Corp. for decades. But when, around 1960, DeSoto got squeezed between Dodge from below and Chrysler from above, the DeSoto was dropped in a hurry. > - 25 hertz speed? > - Multiprocessing? > - Mac-like graphic interface faster than the ProDos 16 > snail? > - local area networks? > - IBM compatibility/transportability? > - Mac compatibility/transportabilty? Don't hold your breath. Some of these things may come for the Apple II GS, but I doubt many. Again, no one is going to invest big bucks in a product if there is not a reasonable expectation of a payoff in the marketplace. If you want these things, you would do better to buy a different brand of computer which has already attracted that kind of support. You might just as easily ask "When is someone going to develop state-of-the-art goodies for my 1956 DeSoto?" Ain't gonna happen!! > - Is the rumor true that Apple is actively preventing > improvements to the IIGS that would make it more competitive > in the business world? Specifically, is it true that Apple > tried to kill Applied Engineering 6 hz. accelerator chip? > Is it true that Apple has discouraged developers from > developing business software that could compete with the > Mac? I haven't heard this myself. Depends on what you mean by "actively preventing." Do you think Apple has a goon squad that goes around blowing up developers labs at 2 in the morning? Apple may or may not be happy about what developers do, but I don't think they can prevent it. Anyway, I can't image that they would care. If somebody wants to develop a version of EXCEL for the GS, I'm sure Apple would be delighted because that might sell a few more GS's. The GS is simply not going to make inroads into the Mac's territory. They are pretty much aimed at different markets. > I am sure other readers have similar questions. When we've > tried to address these concerns in the past, Apple referred > inquiries to local dealers. The dealers, of course, knew > nothing! > Something is severely screwed up with Apple when one can buy > an IBM clone that is 8 times as fast and has a 40 megabyte > hard disk, floppy, and monitor for less than the cost of an > Apple 20 megabyte hard by itself! Only when users unite, > and register their complaints with APPLE CUPERTINO > directly, can we expect to get answers! > >-- >Patt Haring UUCP: ..cmcl2!phri!dasys1!patth >Big Electric Cat Compu$erve: 76566,2510 >New York, NY, USA MCI Mail: 306-1255; GEnie: PHaring Come on, give me a break. The reason you can get such a good deal on a clone these days is competition. Apple has exlcuded competition. In summary, here is how I see it. The Apple II line has had its day. It will live on, just as the venerable DC-3 has lived on. But the action has moved to newer architectures. You cannot continually update a 10 year old microcomputer and expect it to be taken seriously. The GS is not bad, it's just three or four years too late to really catch on. That is a compliment to the original desgin of the Apple II. As for Apple's policies, if you do not like a company that has been able to exclude competiton via proprietary technology, then you are free to buy from another company that has a different policy. The point is, this argument is a bit irrelevant in late 1987. The Apple II has served long and well, but it is unreasonable to expect Apple to pour the kind of money necessary to make the improvements you desire. I have owned an Apple ][+ since Oct. of '81, so I am not an IBM fan. I just see reality as it is. My ][+ is used virtually never, while my Mac is used all the time. That's just the way it is. ====================================================================== I speak for myself, and not on behalf of any other person or organization .........................How's that, Gary? ======================================================================
patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) (10/16/87)
If you (or anyone else) read the header on pertinent questions the Apple User Group wanted to ask Mr. Scully, you would see that I included ***reposted*** from the Apple/Boston Connection - one of our users *reposted* those questions from Boston's Citinet BBS; I included those reposted indicators hoping that an intelligent person would determine that those were not my personal questions but rather some general information I thought we could all share. -- Patt Haring UUCP: ..cmcl2!phri!dasys1!patth Big Electric Cat Compu$erve: 76566,2510 New York, NY, USA MCI Mail: 306-1255; GEnie: PHaring (212) 879-9031 FidoNet Mail: 1:107/132 or 107/222
prw@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Paul R. Wenker) (10/16/87)
In article <1644@dasys1.UUCP> patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes: > - Why has Apple consistently put most of its resources into > MacIntosh development, marketing and support, and so little > into the Apple II? Several years ago (back when Apple expected the Apple II line disappear), their resources were put mainly towards their new machine, the Macintosh. Recently, Apple has admitted that the Apple II line will be around for a while and their marketing, etc. has been much more balanced. Considering the higher profits they receive from Mac products, you can hardly blame them. > - Why has Apple been so slow to update Apple's products > (especially Appleworks) with the advanced features so > prevalent on IBM word processors, data bases and > spreadsheets? Apple is not in the application software business. They make hardware and the system software to support it. The only reason they dabble in the application software business is to promote their hardware. > - Will Apple continue to artificially overprice products by: > - dropping dealers who sell at a discount, > - opposing mail orders, One of Apple's largest concerns is dealer support. Discount computer dealers generally don't provide any support. Ditto for the mail order houses. > - and fighting Apple-clones? If somebody was selling an exact copy of something you made, wouldn't you be a little angry too? Apple is just protecting it's legal rights. > Why are new products for the Apple II usually introduced > well after similar Mac products are introduced? The Apple II line is aimed at the education and home markets so they need to keep prices down. State of the art technology is too expensive for the market the are catering to. Once the technology is proven and costs have come down, it has a better profit potential for the lower end of the market. > When can we expect the following types of products for the > Apple II: > - good CD ROM drives with massive storage (e.g. 600+ > megabytes)? > - high resolution digital monitors? > - Hypercard? > - 32-bit CPU? > - 25 hertz speed? > - Multiprocessing? > - Mac-like graphic interface faster than the ProDos 16 > snail? > - local area networks? > - IBM compatibility/transportability? > - Mac compatibility/transportabilty? Who ever wrote this just wants a 25 Mhz Mac II for one tenth the price. > - Is the rumor true that Apple is actively preventing > improvements to the IIGS that would make it more competitive > in the business world? Specifically, is it true that Apple > tried to kill Applied Engineering 6 hz. accelerator chip? > Is it true that Apple has discouraged developers from > developing business software that could compete with the > Mac? Just like it says, rumors. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > I am sure other readers have similar questions. When we've > tried to address these concerns in the past, Apple referred > inquiries to local dealers. The dealers, of course, knew > nothing! > Something is severely screwed up with Apple when one can buy > an IBM clone that is 8 times as fast and has a 40 megabyte > hard disk, floppy, and monitor for less than the cost of an > Apple 20 megabyte hard by itself! Only when users unite, > and register their complaints with APPLE CUPERTINO > directly, can we expect to get answers! If you don't like it, then why don't you buy an IBM? Can you imagine what IBM would say if you went to them with similar concerns? -Paul R. Wenker ihnp4!meccts!prw -MECC