pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (02/12/90)
I have an idea which might solve the low cost Mac problem and create a larger Mac market in the process. It's a fact that a main reason why the PC's are so popular is that everyone cloned them and undercut IBM in price. Apple has always refused to allow such competition by keeping the technology secret (or least closely guarded). Think about what would happen if Apple started licensing the technology needed to produce a Mac+ with the 128K ROMS. 1) A lot of companies would start producing Mac clones that would undoubtedly be cheaper than the standard Plus, so there would be cheap, low-end machines for the masses to whet their consumer teeth on. This would help the Mac gain a greater share of the market through basic economic competition. 2) Apple would be able to concentrate on the newer, faster, neater machines and the new System software without having to make as many compromises to keep both ends of the market happy. 3) Apple would make money on the licensing and on the sale of System software, which would remain Apple property. 4) As Macs became obsolete, as the SE is rapidly doing, Apple could license the technology for that machine, and so on. This would keep the clone makers in business, but they would always have to be one step behind Apple because Apple would retain control of the leading edge technologies. If a clone maker ever challenged Apple, Apple could either respond to the challenge and make a better, cheaper machine or cheat and change the specs to prevent System software from working on the challenger's machine. 5) Apple's reputation would also benefit because there would be less of a sense that Apple is merely trying to gouge the user for the most money possible since they have a monopoly on the Mac hardware. I'm sure that my logic isn't impeccable, but I still think a program something like what I've outlined above would do wonders for the Macintosh system as a whole without hurting Apple in any way. Comments?????? Adam Engst pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (02/13/90)
In article <3432.25d5c924@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>, pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes...
[suggests Apple license 128K roms for clones]
There are two problems with Apple licensing low-cost clones:
1) Apple could make a lot of money themselves from producing a low-cost
machine. Now this is assuming they actually will (it is supposed to be
released this year). Please: no flames about how they haven't; I think we all
know that. They should.
2) A more serious problem could arise like this: Apple licenses the ROMS to
Chuck's Computer Corp (CCC). CCC makes a really nice Plus-like machine, and
sells about half a million of them. But Chuck's machines aren't really very
reliable; they break a lot. Now, is Chuck the only one who'll look bad here?
No, the Mac's reputation will probably suffer too, since after all, the CCC
computer IS a Mac.
OK, but let's say CCC gets their QC together. But uh-oh: they either weren't
following Apple's rules, or else they just made a mistake: System 7.5 won't run
on the CCC machine. So now: Apple has to redesign their System software to be
compatible with CCC's machines (or else screw half a million CCC customers).
A) That's a pain, and B) it's money, money that Apple has to spend to fix CCC's
mistake.
Admittedly, these problems could be surmounted, but I think Apple should do
their own low-end machine rather than license clones.
Robert
============================================================================
= gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to =
= * all my opinions are * compute" =
= * mine * -Kraftwerk =
============================================================================spencer@hydroplane.cis.ohio-state.edu (Stephen N. Spencer) (02/13/90)
In article <7585@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > >There are two problems with Apple licensing low-cost clones: > >OK, but let's say CCC gets their QC together. But uh-oh: they either weren't >following Apple's rules, or else they just made a mistake: System 7.5 won't >run on the CCC machine. So now: Apple has to redesign their System software >to be compatible with CCC's machines (or else screw half a million CCC >customers). >A) That's a pain, and B) it's money, money that Apple has to spend to >fix CCC's mistake. > [Robert, I realigned your quote, leaving the content intact. sns] Whoa! CCC designs a Mac clone, doesn't get it right ("...weren't following Apple's rules, or else they just made a mistake...") and APPLE has to redesign the computer? The way I see this, CCC would be at fault, and would have to correct their machine TO "APPLE'S RULES" so that it would run System 7.5. Of course, I am assuming that in CCC's contract with Apple it was stated that CCC would "...follow Apple's rules..." so that future Apple system software would run on CCC Mac-clones. -=- Stephen N. Spencer |"For a successful technology, reality must take ACCAD, 1224 Kinnear Rd. | precedence over public relations, for Nature Columbus OH 43212 | cannot be fooled." - Richard P. Feynman spencer@heinlein.cgrg.ohio-state.edu OR spencer@cis.ohio-state.edu
bskendig@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) (02/13/90)
In article <3432.25d5c924@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >I have an idea which might solve the low cost Mac problem and create a larger >Mac market in the process. It's a fact that a main reason why the PC's are so >popular is that everyone cloned them and undercut IBM in price. Apple has >always refused to allow such competition by keeping the technology secret (or >least closely guarded). Think about what would happen if Apple started >licensing the technology needed to produce a Mac+ with the 128K ROMS. Then they would stand to lose a large share of their market. Apple has a monopoly on Macs right now. If they were primarily interested in providing a low-cost machine to the public, they would by all means encourage the existance of Mac clones. Because they are primarily interested in making money, however, they want to make sure that no one encroaches on their territory. I can't blame them. >1) A lot of companies would start producing Mac clones that would undoubtedly >be cheaper than the standard Plus, so there would be cheap, low-end machines >for the masses to whet their consumer teeth on. This would help the Mac gain >a greater share of the market through basic economic competition. Of course! Macs would become much more popular. Lots of little companies would spring up and offer low-cost Mac clones, and grab a healthy share of the market. Apple's Plus and SE would become drastically less popular against the cheaper, equally-powerful clones. >2) Apple would be able to concentrate on the newer, faster, neater machines >and the new System software without having to make as many compromises to keep >both ends of the market happy. Meanwhile, other companies would make cheap machines, make money, and make bugs. We might see a computer that would be a cross between a Mac and an IBM, to which you could add all sorts of third-party boards. The entire definition of what a Mac is would be out of Apple's hands. Eventually, more advanced Mac clones would be created to rival the Macintosh II. Apple would suffer by having to bring its prices for its high-end machines down. >3) Apple would make money on the licensing and on the sale of System software, >which would remain Apple property. And people all over the world would complain about having to pay for the System software that was once provided to them for free. Meanwhile, the manufacturers of clones would opt to create their own hacked System Software rather than have to pay royalties to Apple. >4) As Macs became obsolete, as the SE is rapidly doing, Apple could license >technology for that machine, and so on. This would keep the clone makers in >business, but they would always have to be one step behind Apple because Apple >would retain control of the leading edge technologies. If a clone maker ever >challenged Apple, Apple could either respond to the challenge and make a >better, cheaper machine or cheat and change the specs to prevent System >software from working on the challenger's machine. What if the competitor makes the better, cheaper machine? And what if the competitor makes a perfectly good set of system software that is designed not to run on Apple's machines? >5) Apple's reputation would also benefit because there would be less of a >sense that Apple is merely trying to gouge the user for the most money >possible since they have a monopoly on the Mac hardware. And they would be thought of as very nice guys until they ran out of money and were forced to fold, at which time they would be forgotten. >I'm sure that my logic isn't impeccable, but I still think a program something >like what I've outlined above would do wonders for the Macintosh system as a >whole without hurting Apple in any way. Comments?????? I don't know what the solution is, but I trust Apple to keep to the true spirit of the Macintosh. Compare programs by Claris with hacks written by third-party companies. I'd hate to see the same relationship applied to the Mac. At any rate, Apple will not easily give up their market. << Brian >> -- | Brian S. Kendig \ Macintosh | Engineering, | bskendig | | Computer Engineering |\ Thought | USS Enterprise | @phoenix.Princeton.EDU | Princeton University |_\ Police | -= NCC-1701-D =- | @PUCC.BITNET | | Systems Engineering, NASA Space Station Freedom / General Electric WP3 |
minich@a.cs.okstate.edu (MINICH ROBERT JOHN) (02/14/90)
From article <3432.25d5c924@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>, by pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu: > I have an idea which might solve the low cost Mac problem and create a larger > Mac market in the process. It's a fact that a main reason why the PC's are so > popular is that everyone cloned them and undercut IBM in price. Apple has > always refused to allow such competition by keeping the technology secret (or > least closely guarded). Think about what would happen if Apple started > licensing the technology needed to produce a Mac+ with the 128K ROMS. [details of possible licensing schemes deleted basically, Apple licenses technology to make clones of "obsolete" Macs, while Apple concentrates on great new highend hardware and System software. ] Nice idea, but not likly anytime soon. Why? Because what apple would basically sell to the clobe makers is ROM. They wouldn't have to sell anything else. Now, if I had a reliable source of lots Mac ROMs, I'd be rich. Why? I'd be making clones, but not just "I'm the same as a Plus" machine. I'd make a fast 68000 based sucker with all the standard ports, SIMM slotts, etc. I'd include a real fast harddrive with better SCSI circuitry, maybe even some DMA (Direct Memory Acces) circuitry on the side. I'd make it cheap. I'd be liekyl to include a 12" monitor as standard (external, of course) with optional big monitors. Let's see, all this should come out to about, um, $2000. Anyone want one? I do... BUT Apple won't give me the ROMs unless I buy the Plus to go with it. (The price just jumped to $3250. Anyone still want one?) The TRUTH is that Apple could put together a pretty darn good 68000 based machine, but they have chosen to focus on the 030 architecture and the Plus and SE, in Apple's eyes (that sounds strange), ARE VERY low end. If you think about it, the Portable is the only "midend" Mac, as far as performance is concerned. To introduce another Plus/SE level machine without any significant price/performance break would be stupid. I think the SE would have to sell at around $1000 to get this p/p level. The Plus has two feet, the its left shoulder, and its right eye in the grave. It just can't cut it, with System 7 "quickly" approaching. Even the SE is doomed. Give it a year or two before everyone finds that they can't run any of their programs without 4MB of RAM and a lot of coffee breaks. Summary: a clone maker who had ANY pride would NOT make a machine that Apple would approve of, unless of course Apple decides they want to lower their own prices (2/3 cut would be about right) at the same time. Then the clone maker would say "Hey, I don't have enough margin here!" Oh well, maybe Apple will be boght out by IBM, and the Mac will become the basis for IBM's OS/3. (Ugh, I've blasphemed the great god of the garden.) robert Minich Oklahoma State University (I just go here, I don't think) minich@a.cs.okstate.edu
hcj@lzsc.ATT.COM (HC Johnson) (02/15/90)
For many purposes, the AMAX (mac on Amiga) and SpectreGCR (mac on ST) are currently clones. Just as any other 'clone' maker, these products leave out the roms to prevent law suits. It may be that selling 128K ROMs for these pseudo clones is whats helping keep Apples bottom line healthy. As long as Apple sells 128K ROMS (or 256K) any clone will play. What would a "real clone" have to do to get Apple to stop selling ROMS? And until that happens, clones have a real niche. Howard C. Johnson ATT Bell Labs =====NEW address==== att!lzsc!hcj hcj@lzsc.att.com
ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) (02/15/90)
In article <5376@okstate.UUCP> minich@a.cs.okstate.edu (MINICH ROBERT JOHN) writes: > Apple concentrates on great new highend hardware and System software. ] > >Nice idea, but not likly anytime soon. Why? Because what apple would basically >sell to the clobe makers is ROM. They wouldn't have to sell anything else. >Now, if I had a reliable source of lots Mac ROMs, I'd be rich. Why? I'd be >making clones, but not just "I'm the same as a Plus" machine. I'd make a >fast 68000 based sucker with all the standard ports, SIMM slotts, etc. I'd >include a real fast harddrive with better SCSI circuitry, maybe even some >DMA (Direct Memory Acces) circuitry on the side. I'd make it cheap. I'd be >liekyl to include a 12" monitor as standard (external, of course) with >optional big monitors. Let's see, all this should come out to about, um, >$2000. Anyone want one? I do... BUT Apple won't give me the ROMs unless I >buy the Plus to go with it. (The price just jumped to $3250. Anyone still >want one?) The TRUTH is that Apple could put together a pretty darn good You just described an an ATARI ST: DMA port/ 1:1 interleave drives/ can take a simm board (new ones have simms)/640x400 resolution external and can run 1024x768 on MONITERM. Why make one for $2000 then buy the MacPlus for another $1200 when you can buy an Atari like the above with 1 meg for $600 new.. add another $350-400 for the GCR emulator and the ROMS and you have that "fast Plus" for under $1000.. rather than $3200.. and you get color built-in.. not to mention midi ports.... Apple should be able to do it if Atari can.... -kevin ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu
hase@hase_1.UUCP (Hartmut Semken) (02/15/90)
pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >I have an idea which might solve the low cost Mac problem and create a larger >Mac market in the process. It's a fact that a main reason why the PC's are so >popular is that everyone cloned them and undercut IBM in price. Apple has >always refused to allow such competition by keeping the technology secret (or >least closely guarded). Think about what would happen if Apple started >licensing the technology needed to produce a Mac+ with the 128K ROMS. :-) Ther were a lot of rumors, Apple already licensed the SE custom chips to some Taiwanese manufacturer on the CeBIT last year. I even spoke to some kind soul from Honkong, who promised to send me information about their Mac-clone motherboards. They sent me information about their PClones... Maybe, it is true: the clones made the original Apple ][ sell, cause the larger user base attracted software developers. Well, in the days of piracy... Apple Germany is fighting any sort-of clone of the Mac; and they tend to be unfair, doing it: when Proficomp GmbH sold the "Aladin" Mac emulator for the Atari ST, Apple (Germany) stopped it by making it too exspesive for Proficomp to go to court. Apple Germany tries to stop delivery of the Spectre 128/GCR Mac emulator in Germany as well: everybody selling it is accused of software piracy... Since the emulators are not perfect Mac clones (there is a large number of limitations in these systems) but good enough to make people Mac addicts, Apple germanys policy does not make a lot of sense to me. But I'm only human, and not responsible for a large, profitable company :-) hase -- Hartmut Semken, Lupsteiner Weg 67, 1000 Berlin 37 hase@hase_1.UUCP Dennis had stepped up into the top seat whet its founder had died of a lethal overdose of brick wall, taken while under the influence of a Ferrari and a bottle of tequila. (Douglas Adams; the long dark teatime...)