AMEIJ@vax.oxford.ac.UK (Jan Ameij) (12/02/89)
If Apple let people copy roms so that Mac emulators were cheap, what would happen to Apple, someone asks? Well, they might produce their hardware at a reasonable price, instead of the current ludicrous ones... Anyone notice the collossal damage done to IBM by the availability of MS-DOS? Love, Jan
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (12/07/89)
in article <8912020815.AB27991@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, AMEIJ@vax.oxford.ac.UK (Jan Ameij) says: > Anyone notice the collossal damage done to IBM by the availability of MS-DOS? It really works both ways. That MS-DOS was available to anyone, and IBM PCs were real easy to clone, the IBM PC underwent a magic transformation that changed "proprietary" to "industry standard". So, at least for awhile, IBM could pawn off any pile of dross as the latest technology, and get away with it. Then they started to lose market share to the cloners, and had to start getting real. This started happening shortly after they introduced the PC-AT. And it's still going on. Sure, IBM managed to assure that the PC would be necessary and not obselete for some time to come, despite how bad it was all done. However, they also managed to lose control. IBM is no longer necessary for the success of the PC, they continue to lose market share, and they're having to sell you something that goes faster for less money than they were. That's good for the consumer, as is most competition, but it's not so great for IBM. It's hard to say what would have happened if IBM were as closed as Apple (software wise of course -- the Mac is even easier to clone in hardware than the PC, as witnessed by things like Spectre or AMAX). Certainly there never would have been a Compaq, Tandy might have continued souping up TRaSh-80s, and there might have been even more proprietary systems. Or maybe all the "other guys" would have settled on something superior to MS-DOS long ago. In any case, the effect on IBM isn't as clear cut as it might seem. > Love, Jan -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) (12/12/89)
The basenote is discussing Apple ROMs and what happened when IBM was cloned. I had an interesting talk with an Apple market-intelligence person at Comdex. What it boiled down to is there's a third factor here: 3rd party software developers. If there were a cheap clone-Mac available, those developes would probably see an increase in their sales, and this would thus benefit them. Yes, it's not 1985, when Mac developers were starving. However, the Mac is still having to compete with reams of MSDOS Clones, and there's plenty of companies who look at installed base (Mac vs. MSDOS), ease of development (the learning "cliff"), and potential market, and don't do Mac products ... or do limp ports of PC products. Obviously I'm not unbiased in this. However, I would like to see Apple license out its 64K, possibly its 128K technology, to clone makers under tight control, to produce an inexpensive Mac. Given that Tramiel can sell a 520 ST for under $300 (if I have that right -- if not, it's close), this would help encourage third party software development for the Mac. A case history would have to be the Commodore 64. Get enough installed, and development will happen, as developers see the potential market. Probably such a machine would have to be configured not to compete with "classic" Mac products like the SE. (I have been told the Plus has gone out of manufacture, so it's irrelevant). Perhaps limits on the clock speed, RAM availability, or no System 7 compatibility would reassure Apple that clone sales would not damage Mac sales. And those clone royalty checks certainly are not going to hurt anything -- if I heard right, Apple made a mint off Adobe stock. Obviously this is tentative and speculative. What's interesting is that these were the opinions of the person I was talking to! Maybe, perhaps Apple is realizing there's more than one way to "have it all". -- thanks, Dave / Gadgets