kent@sunfs3.camex.uucp (Kent Borg) (09/20/89)
In article <1989Sep16.030547.10105@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >Sigh. The Macintosh mentality seems to be that everyone is rich enough to buy >everything needed (68030, 4MB+ RAM, 32-bit color display, ...) to run the >Latest and Greatest, and "the rest of us" are pretty well screwed. That isn't >what the Mac mentality is *supposed* to be, if Apple's ads are to be believed; >it's what it *is*, though. Are Apple's prices too high? Yes. Are they higher than IBM branded equipment? I have heard arguments which say no. Are "`the rest of us' ... pretty well screwed"? No! I am typing this on what, until today, was the top of the line Macintosh--a IIx. At home I have the bottom of the line--a Plus (though I just got more memory). Do I scream in agony when I try to use the Plus? No. My Plus is still a wonderful machine. Sure, I have a little screen, but then so does the SEx (aka SE/30). Sure my Plus is not is speed demon, and it won't run color. But then it never did. Apple hasn't broken anything yet. Will my Plus break when 7.0 comes out? No. Will it get every new feature? Almost: as of this last May the word was that my Plus will do everything new in 7.0 except 32-bit addressing and virtual memory. The reason it won't do those is that I am missing the needed hardware. Ever since the II came out the Plus has wished it had Color QuickDraw, and it will still wish for it. Apple hasn't changed that. What has changed is that if you want to buy and run the latest and greatest new software, you will want to move to 7.0 at some point, and to do that you will need to buy some RAM. Will everybody be able to afford more RAM? No, but those people also can't afford to buy the latest and greatest software. Will those in between people (like me) who can't personally afford the top-of-the-line machines, but can afford some RAM, get screwed? No. I will be able to run anything which doesn't need Color QuickDraw or multi-gobs of memory--in other words I can't run image processing software. But I never could! Yes, Apple is making a nice profit, but no, they are not suddenly screwing you any worse than when you bought your first Macintosh, and it must have seemed a good enough deal to you then. -- Kent Borg "You know me, bright ideas kent@lloyd.uucp just pop into my head!" or -Mrs Lovett ...!husc6!lloyd!kent (from Stephen Sondheim's "Sweeny Todd")
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) (09/21/89)
In article <507@sunfs3.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes: >In article <1989Sep16.030547.10105@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >>Sigh. The Macintosh mentality seems to be that everyone is rich enough to buy >>everything needed (68030, 4MB+ RAM, 32-bit color display, ...) to run the >>Latest and Greatest, and "the rest of us" are pretty well screwed. That isn't >>what the Mac mentality is *supposed* to be, if Apple's ads are to be believed; >>it's what it *is*, though. [lot's of stuff deleted about capabilities of machines old and new] >Yes, Apple is making a nice profit, but no, they are not suddenly >screwing you any worse than when you bought your first Macintosh, and >it must have seemed a good enough deal to you then. The flaw in this argument is that Apple sold the Macintosh as a concept. The machine for the rest of us. With that concept was the promise of great software in the future. Apple was selling a promise and, rightly or wrongly, lots of us bought it. Think about how disappointed you will be if that new release of brand xyz word processor you like and use will require virtual memory? Will that happen? Probably not, in most cases. Hopefully software companies won't be stupid enough to ignore all the installed pluses and se's. The one certain thing is that you can't be sure anymore. The promise is no longer there for the older machines. ---- Stephen Kurtzman | "You might be the largest Elizabeth, but kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu | Elizabeth is still a good name to have if | you're a girl." -- the Roches
alms@cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit) (09/21/89)
In article <20020@usc.edu> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes:
Think about how disappointed you will be if that new release of brand
xyz word processor you like and use will require virtual memory? Will
that happen? Probably not, in most cases. Hopefully software companies
won't be stupid enough to ignore all the installed pluses and se's.
The one certain thing is that you can't be sure anymore. The promise
is no longer there for the older machines.
I don't understand your reasoning. Are you saying that Apple should
keep -everyone- crippled, just to make sure nothing ever gets
obsolete? They shouldn't have put color in the Mac II, because of all
those color paint programs that can't be used by people with Mac
Plusses? Apple shouldn't have released HyperCard because it can't run
on a 512K Mac?
When you take advantage of the power of new machines, you inevitably
add features that can't be supported on older machines. This is part
of the price of progress. Of course, you should make every effort to
support backward compatibility, and Apple is doing that (much more so
than many other computer companies). But if you want inovation, you
have to admit some degree of obsolesence.kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) (09/22/89)
Previously I said:
]] Think about how disappointed you will be if that new release of brand
]] xyz word processor you like and use will require virtual memory? Will
]] that happen? Probably not, in most cases. Hopefully software companies
]] won't be stupid enough to ignore all the installed pluses and se's.
]] The one certain thing is that you can't be sure anymore. The promise
]] is no longer there for the older machines.
To which someone replied:
] I don't understand your reasoning. Are you saying that Apple should
] keep -everyone- crippled, just to make sure nothing ever gets
] obsolete? They shouldn't have put color in the Mac II, because of all
] those color paint programs that can't be used by people with Mac
] Plusses? Apple shouldn't have released HyperCard because it can't run
] on a 512K Mac?
] When you take advantage of the power of new machines, you inevitably
] add features that can't be supported on older machines. This is part
] of the price of progress. Of course, you should make every effort to
] support backward compatibility, and Apple is doing that (much more so
] than many other computer companies). But if you want inovation, you
] have to admit some degree of obsolesence.
Read what I said. I didn't say that Apple should or shouldn't do
anything. I was merely explaining why people are upset. They bought a
promise and the promise is no longer there.
It is true that Apple is maintaining backwards compatibility. It is
also true that both Apple and other manufacturers will likely be
concentrating their efforts on using the new capabilities rather than
expanding the power of the currently installed Pluses and SEs. There
is nothing illegal or even immoral about that. But people can no
longer count on new things coming out for the old machines. That is
what makes people unhappy.
----
Stephen Kurtzman | "You might be the largest Elizabeth, but
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu | Elizabeth is still a good name to have if
| you're a girl." -- the Rochesmacduff@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Roger R. Espinosa) (09/22/89)
In article <20020@usc.edu>, kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: > In article <507@sunfs3.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes: > >In article <1989Sep16.030547.10105@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: > >>Sigh. The Macintosh mentality seems to be that everyone is rich enough to buy > >>everything needed (68030, 4MB+ RAM, 32-bit color display, ...) to run the > >>Latest and Greatest, and "the rest of us" are pretty well screwed. That isn't > >>what the Mac mentality is *supposed* to be, if Apple's ads are to be believed; > >>it's what it *is*, though. > > [lot's of stuff deleted about capabilities of machines old and new] > > >Yes, Apple is making a nice profit, but no, they are not suddenly > >screwing you any worse than when you bought your first Macintosh, and > >it must have seemed a good enough deal to you then. > > The flaw in this argument is that Apple sold the Macintosh as a > concept. The machine for the rest of us. With that concept was the > promise of great software in the future. Apple was selling a promise > and, rightly or wrongly, lots of us bought it. > Please please please please please please please please please please STOP! If you want to read stories about "Apple is leaving us behind in the dust" or "Apple isn't supporting our machines anymore" then GO READ COMP.SYS.APPLE where everyone is constantly griping about this topic. Apple sold the Macintosh as a concept. True. But, why does the new hardware change anything? Why do you *have* to upgrade? When I was at grad school, there was a lab that got used mostly for MacDraw II and Word. It was populated with 5 Mb Mac IIx's with color monitors (256 colors, no less). 80Meg HDs. Were there any applications that could use the color? No. Was there anything on the HD that *needed* that hardware? No. Were they neato keano machines (and if you offered me one, would I take it)? Yes. Technology is moving, whether we like it or not. When you bought a computer, *any* computer, you took a risk in investing in hi-tech technology. It doesn't seem as bad on the PC world, because MSDOS was primitive. The Macintosh is reaching farther both in terms of software and hardware - there's no reason why 70% of the computer world out there (I guess) needs anything more powerful than WriteNow. There is a real lust for "what's the high-end system." 32-bit color quickdraw. What is it good for? A lot of workstation-type applications that need picture-quality resolution. For the *rest of us*? It means zip. Word processing doesn't go beyond b&w, 90% of the time. Beyond that, what's the practicality of having 16 million shades of green? VM. Sounds really cool, and yes, it is really neato, but *necessary*? For the *rest* of *us*. Nope. Memory is getting cheaper, and if the programmers out there can get back to tight coding, there shouldn't be a massive leap into 5 Meg applications. What would *I* like to see Apple (and other computer companies) doing? We have all this power at our hands, right, and the prices never truly go down, because right when the technology for making the Macintosh N is cheap, we get the Macintosh N-prime ... and I really wish there was someway to (feasibly) get even old 8-bit technology to people who'd never touch our technology otherwise. How much does it *really* cost to make an Apple IIe these days? Is it *really* that much more than a Commodore 64? This is enough. I got into computers because I thought they were neat, and exciting, and a lot of good could come out of them. The technology is advancing so blasted fast these days, that nobody is eeking the potential out of anything anymore. Word Processors that *need* 1024K? C'mon. It used to be possible in 64K. Basta. Roger Espinosa rre@ihlpn.ATT.COM, or ..!att!ihlpn!rre
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (09/22/89)
As quoted from <ALMS.89Sep21122621@brazil.cambridge.apple.com> by alms@cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit): +--------------- | When you take advantage of the power of new machines, you inevitably | add features that can't be supported on older machines. This is part | of the price of progress. Of course, you should make every effort to | support backward compatibility, and Apple is doing that (much more so | than many other computer companies). But if you want inovation, you | have to admit some degree of obsolesence. +--------------- Everyone is missing what *else* I said on the subject, to wit: I upgraded a XT-clone from the brink of obsolescence to something near the cutting edge. $700 (yes, SEVEN HUNDRED) total. Apple wants $1700 or more for the equivalent of what I paid $620 for in my XT-clone, and a few hundred more for the other $80 of the upgrade (higher resolution graphics). I also remember Apple reps at a local Mac U/G meeting last year saying that System 8.0 would *require* virtual memory. Pluses and SEs will suddenly go the way of the 128K and 512K Macs at that point. At this point, from the sheer economics of the situation it would be better if I unpacked the 386-nee-XT-clone again and packed away the Mac that I just made able to completely replace the PC. Boo, hiss. Of course, the economics of the situation derive from the fact that IBM has plenty of clones, whereas Apple is still pristine -- it still amounts to it being a LOT cheaper to keep one's PC up to date than it is to maintain one's Mac. And, frankly, with the price differential there's a limit to how many people are really going to be interested in buying Macs instead of PCs. If Apple wants to concede the market for "the rest of us" and become a high-end workstation company, fine -- but say so and get it over with, so people can bail out before they're *really* screwed. Of course, we were all screwed by believing Apple's original Mac sales pitches, but hey, that's business, right? Reconsider. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp, 161-7070 BALLBERY (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie) Is that enough addresses for you? no? then: allbery@uunet.UU.NET (c.s.misc)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (09/22/89)
As quoted from <20029@usc.edu> by kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman): +--------------- > (this was Alex @ ???.cambridge.apple.com) | ] When you take advantage of the power of new machines, you inevitably | ] add features that can't be supported on older machines. This is part | ] of the price of progress. Of course, you should make every effort to | ] support backward compatibility, and Apple is doing that (much more so | ] than many other computer companies). But if you want inovation, you | ] have to admit some degree of obsolesence. | | Read what I said. I didn't say that Apple should or shouldn't do | anything. I was merely explaining why people are upset. They bought a | promise and the promise is no longer there. +--------------- I have also pointed out that the price of progress is a lot lower in the PC market, because Apple isn't forced by competition to keep their prices in a reasonable range. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp, 161-7070 BALLBERY (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie) Is that enough addresses for you? no? then: allbery@uunet.UU.NET (c.s.misc)
halliday@cheddar.cc.ubc.ca (Laura Halliday) (09/22/89)
After all the grumbling about ATM and Apple leaving us little folk behind, something occurs to me: will ATM be compatible with background printing? My apologies if this has already been asked, but it sounds like a reason- able tradeoff - slower printing on a cheaper printer (SC, etc.) is handy if I can put it in the background and use my computer for something else in the meantime... ...laura
rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe) (09/23/89)
I usually try to stay out of these flame wars, for two reasons: one,
throwing gasoline on a fire rarely helps, and two, I work for Apple and so
my private opinions might get construed as Apple policy, in spite of my
disclaimer. But...
I thought that "the computer for the rest of us" meant it was easy for my
old Auntie Phoebe to use a Mac: you don't have to be a techno-geek (like
me :-) to understand it. I never thought it meant that a Macintosh was
cheap (um, "inexpensive"). Since when was the Mac ever cheap?
I'll voice no opinion here about Apple's pricing; I'm biased because my
profit share helps feed the baby. I just wonder if those of us in this
computer-literate forum have forgotten who "the rest of us" are: not the
poor, but the ignorant.
==========================================================================
Rick Holzgrafe | {sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual}!apple!rmh
Software Engineer | AppleLink HOLZGRAFE1 rmh@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc. | "All opinions expressed are mine, and do
20525 Mariani Ave. MS: 27-O | not necessarily represent those of my
Cupertino, CA 95014 | employer, Apple Computer Inc."pj@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Paul Jacoby) (09/23/89)
Roger Espinosa writes: >> Word Processors that *need* 1024K? C'mon. It used to be possible in 64K. << How true. My TRS-80 Model 1 had a word processor every bit as powerful as most high-end IBM programs back in 1984. And it ran circles for formatting flexibility around most of them as well. Total memory required: 32K. Optimal memory: 48K. You couldn't go any higher than that anyway...One would think that with most of the "hard stuff" there in the ROMs, behemoth's like PageMaker would be down-right difficult to write! To be so loosely coded...hmph. .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {rosevax, crash, orator}!orbit!pnet51!pj | Working with idiots keeps | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!pj@nosc.mil | my life interesting... | | INET: pj@pnet51.cts.com | | `-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (09/23/89)
As quoted from <1211@cbnewse.ATT.COM> by macduff@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Roger R. Espinosa): +--------------- | change anything? Why do you *have* to upgrade? When I was at grad school, +--------------- Because my 1MB machine doesn't have the memory to load a word processor, the print drivers (Grappler LQ style), and a document larger than about 10 pages at the same time. (I need WP features I can't get in the cheaper WPs -- I was absolutely horrified to discover last night that MacWrite II doesn't have widow/orphan control, so once again I'm back to MS Word. (aargh!)) And ATM is d*mn near a *requirement* -- ever see any 2 1/2-size fonts lying around? I can't build my own, the proper sizes don't exist; ATM will solve that, albeit rather expensively on a per-face basis. And 1MB won't be enough. Add that one reason for my wanting to use the Mac is so I can keep a notepad window around for quick notes (I *constantly* do this, usually on scratch paper that quickly gets lost) and to be able to pop up references quickly. Sure, I could do this with MiS-DOS Sidekick, but I mean keep the window *around*, not hot-keyed into and out of existence. And Notepad II v2.1 is much nicer than Sidekick. As for a better screen: the telecom window I'm using right now fills almost the entire Mac SE screen. Okay, so where do I keep the notepad window *around* at on here? Answer: I don't. I need a second, or a larger, screen. (I'm not interested in color -- monochrome is absolutely fine with me.) One more comment: what if I want to use the notepad while I'm doing a download? You got it -- MultiFinder. Which is absolutely impossible. For a month or so I did this on my 386 box courtesy of MS Windows. I'm not particularly enamoured of Windows -- but it *worked*. And it *worked* in one meg of RAM. And it *worked* on a Hercules clone video board which had sufficient resolution for me to keep a notepad window around. And it *didn't* cost anywhere near as much as Apple wants. Have I finally made it clear why I'm upset? Has it finally percolated through to people that THE MAC COSTS A LOT MORE THAN MS-DOS HARDWARE THAT DOES THE SAME THING? Oh, sure, I could go back to DOS to "solve" the problem -- but DOS has its own disadvantages and so does MS Windows. (Read: YECCH!) But that's the choice I'm faced with, and I don't like it. I'm not talking about being at the absolute cutting edge except insofar as things like VM are probably going to become necessary in the future courtesy of software developers, I'm talking about assembling a system that does what I need it to do on a day-by-day basis, with the option of being able to use the newer software that will come out *if* it should become necessary for me to use it. +--------------- | reaching farther both in terms of software and hardware - there's no reason | why 70% of the computer world out there (I guess) needs anything more | powerful than WriteNow. +--------------- I'm not 70% of the computer world out there. I want to use Mac WP on a regular basis to make my job easier, but I cannot. Not everyone in the computer business makes $50K a year. +--------------- | VM. Sounds really cool, and yes, it is really neato, but *necessary*? For the | *rest* of *us*. Nope. Memory is getting cheaper, and if the programmers out | there can get back to tight coding, there shouldn't be a massive leap into | 5 Meg applications. +--------------- I can foresee some of the more useful (as opposed to simple) applications of IAC wanting to use VM-related techniques, if not in System 7.0 then in System 8.0. Also, if you'll kindly explain how to cram 32MB of RAM or more into an SE/30? There are *physical* limits to what fits into the chassis. For that matter, the 4MB limit in the SE which is fine now is going to be strained with 7.0. +--------------- | out of anything anymore. Word Processors that *need* 1024K? C'mon. It | used to be possible in 64K. +--------------- This after claiming that VM wouldn't be necessary. Ashton-Tate was glad to provide prior disproof. I assure you, however, that FullWrite will *never* be found on my Mac. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp, 161-7070 BALLBERY (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie) Is that enough addresses for you? no? then: allbery@uunet.UU.NET (c.s.misc)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (09/23/89)
As quoted from <4312@internal.Apple.COM> by rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe): +--------------- | I thought that "the computer for the rest of us" meant it was easy for my | old Auntie Phoebe to use a Mac: you don't have to be a techno-geek (like | me :-) to understand it. I never thought it meant that a Macintosh was | cheap (um, "inexpensive"). Since when was the Mac ever cheap? +--------------- Tell me, was your old Auntie Phoebe rich, too? At the time, I accepted that the Mac was expensive: it was, quite simply, more advanced than anything available at a lower price. But in my posting that started this thread, my complaint was that I CAN NOW GET THE EQUIVALENT TECHNOLOGY FOR LESS from others. It's not as nice, but what makes it nice -- the software -- is not the expensive part. Nobody at Apple has yet addressed my original complaint; should I conclude that Apple has conceded the point? ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp, 161-7070 BALLBERY (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie) Is that enough addresses for you? no? then: allbery@uunet.UU.NET (c.s.misc)
kent@sunfs3.camex.uucp (Kent Borg) (09/26/89)
In article <20029@usc.edu> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: ... >expanding the power of the currently installed Pluses and SEs. There >is nothing illegal or even immoral about that. But people can no >longer count on new things coming out for the old machines. That is >what makes people unhappy. You are forgetting the technical facts. Pluses and SEs are still supported. Color QuickDraw and gigantic memory maps are the only things that lock them out of using some programs, the rest work great. As for things coming out for `old' machines, look at Apple's newest offerings. The Macintosh Portable is also lacking Color QuickDraw and a big memory map. Any well written software which will run on the Portable will still run on my Plus. Do you really think publishers are going to write-off the Portable and all those Pluses and SEs? Not quite yet. My bottom-of-the-line Plus will run the same programs as the sexiest Macintosh out there. -- Kent Borg "This and being born are the 2 damndest kent@lloyd.uucp things that ever happened to me." or -Resident of McClellenville, SC, ...!husc6!lloyd!kent referring to Hurricane Hugo (from NPR)
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) (09/26/89)
In article <1989Sep23.005117.7490@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >Have I finally made it clear why I'm upset? Has it finally percolated through >to people that THE MAC COSTS A LOT MORE THAN MS-DOS HARDWARE THAT DOES THE >SAME THING? Oh, sure, I could go back to DOS to "solve" the problem -- but >DOS has its own disadvantages and so does MS Windows. (Read: YECCH!) But Absolutely right. Apple charges all the market will bear. The market can bear this much because Mac software is head-and-shoulders above IBM software in ease-of-use and uniform interfaces. Likewise, the hardware is almost entirely plug-to-plug compatible--no CGA/EGA/VGA nonsense, for example. As for me, I'd like a second Mac+. My whole family makes heavy use of it, and a second one would eliminate a lot of competition. But $1200 is just too much to pay for a $600 piece of hardware. And an IBM as a second machine is out of the question, because we all want to use the computer, not hassle with it and read manuals. If and when IBM gets its act together and produces a machine with a decent, uniform user interface, at IBM prices, I will demonstrate to Apple exactly as much vendor loyalty as they have shown me customer loyalty. Meanwhile, I will continue to purchase Apple hardware with reluctance, and only as absolutely needed. Ah, well. I believe in capitalism. It's unadulterated capitalism that keeps Mac prices high, but it's capitalism that gave us the Mac in the first place. It's only Apple's lawyers that have kept this software technology in Apple's hands, and they can't fight the tide forever. -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) -- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA 19301 -- Any resemblance between my opinions and those of my employer is improbable. * 20th anniversary? Yeah, but it's 17 years since the LAST man on the moon! *
alms@cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit) (09/26/89)
In article <1989Sep23.021909.8835@NCoast.ORG> allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
But in my posting that started this thread, my complaint was that I CAN NOW
GET THE EQUIVALENT TECHNOLOGY FOR LESS from others. It's not as nice, but
what makes it nice -- the software -- is not the expensive part.
Software is the expensive part. Otherwise everyone would have software
as good as the Mac's. But, companies like Atari and Commadore charge
so little for their computers that they can't afford system software
development. (Don't ask me why Microsoft/IBM can't do it. It's certainly
not for lack of resources.)
Apple doesn't sell the Finder and all the other system software. They
have to make their money off the hardware sales.
-andrew
<my opinions are my own, not Apple's>dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (09/26/89)
In article <11545@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: >If and when IBM gets its act together and produces a machine with a >decent, uniform user interface, at IBM prices, I will demonstrate to >Apple exactly as much vendor loyalty as they have shown me customer >loyalty. Last time I checked (a while ago), an MS-DOS machine with the IBM logo on it was a HECK of a lot more money than the "same" MS-DOS machine that said "Compaq" or "Made in Taiwan". IBM's pricing policies are no better than Apple's. Apple gets away with it because of their unique software; IBM gets away with it because of their prestige and marketing skills. Neither IBM nor Apple even play the price/performance game, unfortunately; they play the "large profit margin" game instead. I can't say that I blame them, though I think that Apple would do well to sacrifice some margin for further market penetration. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner IfUMust: (217) 244-1765
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/26/89)
>Last time I checked (a while ago), an MS-DOS machine with the IBM logo >on it was a HECK of a lot more money than the "same" MS-DOS machine that >said "Compaq" or "Made in Taiwan". IBM's pricing policies are no better >than Apple's. Apple gets away with it because of their unique software; >IBM gets away with it because of their prestige and marketing skills. Apple computers are no more expensive than IBM or Compaq. They're more expensive than the clones, but the clones have minimal R&D costs -- they simply borrow what IBM and Compaq have done after it's been out a few months. You can be a lot cheaper if you don't want to be cutting edge.... >though I think that Apple would do well to sacrifice some margin for >further market penetration. Well, the last Datapro reports show that Apple has a 16.4% market share, IBM a 14% market share and Compaq somewhat less. Almost one out of every five computers sold today is a Macintosh. If you look at total numbers by architecture, MS-DOS still wins, but MacOS is well ahead of OS/2. If you look at installed base, MS-DOS is well ahead, but the gap is closing. The market numbers show that Macintosh is more than holding it's own over Big Blue. It's winning -- and the overall market share penetration is trending up. The reality is this: if you look at equivalent systems, there's very little cost difference between Mac, IBM or Compaq. You can save money going to the clones, but you'll pay it back in reduced productivity and performance. (there are any *number* of management studies to back that up, from Price/Waterhouse and the other accounting/management firms.) -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.
ph@cci632.UUCP (Pete Hoch) (09/26/89)
In article <1989Sep21.233740.8727@NCoast.ORG>, (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: > If Apple wants to concede the market for "the rest of us" and become a > high-end workstation company, fine -- but say so and get it over with, > so people can bail out before they're *really* screwed. > Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG > uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Does the phrase "The power to be your best" ring a bell???? Apple computer has not claimed to be for "the rest of us" since 1986. Pete Hoch
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (09/26/89)
In article <1989Sep23.005117.7490@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >As for a better screen: the telecom window I'm using right now fills almost >the entire Mac SE screen. Okay, so where do I keep the notepad window >*around* at on here? Answer: I don't. I need a second, or a larger, screen. >(I'm not interested in color -- monochrome is absolutely fine with me.) > >One more comment: what if I want to use the notepad while I'm doing a >download? You got it -- MultiFinder. Which is absolutely impossible. Just a small side-comment: Versaterm and Versaterm PRO allow you to desk accessories during downloads even if you're not running Multifinder. I've tried this on a MacPlus and it works quite well. Versaterm has many other things to recommend it as well, one of which is its speed. Another is its price: about $79. >For a month or so I did this on my 386 box courtesy of MS Windows. I'm not >particularly enamoured of Windows -- but it *worked*. And it *worked* in one >meg of RAM. And it *worked* on a Hercules clone video board which had >sufficient resolution for me to keep a notepad window around. And it *didn't* >cost anywhere near as much as Apple wants. This is why I posted this followup. If I can save even one person from having to use Windows... -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." sbb@esquire.dpw.com | cmcl2!esquire!sbb | - David Letterman
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/27/89)
>Apple computers are no more expensive than IBM or Compaq.
I just thought people might appreciate a few facts to bac this up. From
the 19-September issue of macweek there were some price comparisons
between various vendors with equivalent hardware. The systems (all Unix
based) and prices are:
NeXT: 8 meg, 17Inch Mono, 330 Meg hard drive and floptical. Cost: $13,690
Mac IIcx: 8 Meg, 80 meg internal, 250 meg Priam external, Ethernet card,
A/UX, Sigma 19 inch mono screen, Lc Cie 600 Meg Floptical.
Cost: $20,393.
IBM PS/2 80: 8 Meg, AIX, Ethernet, 16 inch monochrom, Storage Dimensions 590
Meg floptical, 314 Meg hard disk: $24,853.
Sun Sparcstation 1: 327 Meg hard drop, delta 800 Meg floptical. Cost: $22,495.
Now, all of these machines are loaded to try to match the NeXT
configuration, but it gives a good idea of how the pricing for things stack
up. (People consider A/UX expensive. Look at AIX on a PS/2...)
If you want to strip down those configurations a bit more towards reality,
cut out the ethernet and flopticals from the IBM and Macintosh and you gets
costs of $15,000 for the IBM and $14,500 for the Mac. IBMs really *aren't*
cheaper than the Mac.
Take a look at some of the parts costs:
The Mac bundle (4Meg of RAM, 80 meg of disk with MacOS, Hypercard and A/UX
bundled) is $7552.
The IBM bundle (2 Meg of RAM, 300 Meg of disk and no software) is $9227.
Memory upgrades: 4 Meg of RAM, $858 for the Mac. 6 Meg of Ram for the IBM
$3,166. Cost per meg for the Mac is $214, for the IBM it's $527.
Finally, I note again: these numbers are from MacWeek, not from Apple, so
any attempt to claim that Apple's manipulating numbers will be cheerfully
ignored -- especially since one of MacWeek's favorite tricks is complaining
about how overpriced Macintoshes are.
chuq (which doesn't mean we don't need a cheaper low-end Macintosh, but
that's just my opinion....)
--
Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA
chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl
Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.