wab@reed.UUCP (Bill Baker) (03/18/89)
In article <919@fornax.UUCP> mcdonald@fornax.UUCP (Ken Mcdonald) writes: >Sigh. I just don't understand why Apple does this. . . Why? Scully's profit sharing and stock option package, that's why. >but the logic board upgrade alone from a Mac II to a Mac IIx is more >than $2,000! Come on now, Apple, what's going on!? You made your profit >off of me when I bought the II, and I wouldn't mind paying you a reasonable >profit on the board either, but $2000+ isn't just profit, it is an >indication to customers that Apple doesn't care a sou for its customers >after the sale is made. I mean, what am I supposed to think about buying >Apple machines in the future when I say to myself, "If I buy this machine right >now, I can have full confidence that Apple will try to price any future >upgrades completely out of my price range." Not very confidence-inspiring. Oh no. Apple does care very much about its customers. When Scully looks out over the multitudes at MacExpo I'm sure it's with affection...the same affection a rancher feels as he looks out over his herd and thinks about the rising price of beef. Let's face it, campers: they've got us. As the Mac line is constantly upgraded, we time and again face the choice of paying outrageous prices for new machines and upgrades or junking our Macs (the value of which decrease precipitously with every upgrade) and buying into another graphic-interface system, most of which are also proprietary and therefore overpriced. Most Macs are obscenely overpriced. I recall the cover article (MacWorld, Macuser?) on the real price of a Mac, where they showed that the wholesale price of parts accounted for 1/4 of the list price of an SE. The ratio for the Plus must be even lower. Can you say excessive profits, John Scully? C'mon, you covered the development costs of those machines years ago and you've got plenty of capital to cover the costs of developing new machines. Admit it: the closed box Macs are cash cows you are milking for all the market will bear, both to protect the new machines and just for the dough. "What is excessive profit?" Scully says as he washes his hands. Apple's policy on upgrades is also obscene, especially with regard to the II line. An upgrade board shoudln't cost $2000, so why does it? Because Apple wants to sell lots of IIx's. If they charge a lot for a new machine then they have to charge a lot for the upgrade or else people will just buy the old machine and upgrade it. And all you folks who bought II's are screwed. I'm in the market for a IIcx, but I may just bag it now that I see that it's going to cost me 2 grand or more a pop just to keep up with the Jones's. I'm a professional in the industry and I'll pay top dollar for a state of the art machine, and thereby cover Apple's development costs and provide a hefty profit to Big Red. But if Apple is going to keep reaming me for each logic board swap, forget it. $2000 for essentially a 68030 and a PMMU? If Motorola is charging you that much for chips, then I'm putting the money I would have spent on a Mac into Motorola stock. But I know that Apple is getting the bucks and instead I suppose I should put the money into Apple stock...which thereby makes Apple stock more valuable and increases the value of Scully's stock options. You can't win. The most disturbing trend I've seen in the Mac line is planned obselesence. Why no PMMU in the MacII? Why code a 4meg memory limitation in the SE ROM's? Apple must have been working on the IIx at the same time as the II and seen the value of virtual memory. For that matter, why limit the II to 8 meg? The memory fiasco with the IBM PC line should have shown to everybody the stupidity of memory limitations. How much memory can a 68000 address? A 68020? A 68030? Why design in limitations...unless you want to later remove those limitations for a hefty price. What about the warranty? Apple, a 90 day warranty on a machine that costs more than a new car? Chrysler offers a seven year warranty and you won't guarantee your machines past 12 weeks? I know the answer: buy AppleCare for the machine. So I should pay for coverage you should be providing? These days, the Mac line is pretty healthy, but after the infamous video board scam no one trusts Apple and smart buyers just figure the cost of AppleCare into the price of the machine. Talk about a protection racket! Sure the machine is healthy, but on the off chance that something happens you'd better be covered because a repair board swap costs an arm and a leg. The Mac is now a business machine (which was Scully's stated goal) and the pricing of the line reflects that. Apple didn't cut its prices because home users stopped buying. No, it was when the big buyers balked that Apple backed down...cutting prices on machines that they knew were going to be obselete when they announced the SEx and IIcx. In short, Apple doesn't care what we think; they care what MegaMultinational thinks when it goes to buy machines. So, Apple jams us both on the cost of new machines and upgrades. In doing this, though, I think they are killing the goose that is laying the golden eggs. The bloom is hardly off the II and it is going to cost 2 grand to upgrade it. I think some major buyers are going to look askance at the turmoil in the Mac line, which means sales volume will go down and Apple will probably raise prices to keep up profits. Remember the Model T, John? Henry Ford only made a few bucks on each T, but he sold millions of them. VW turned out cheap Bugs like hotcakes and made a mint. The Mac was supposed to be the same kind of deal. The Beast Jobs wanted to put a Mac in every home...and he was right, John. Control the market and the profits will come, billions more. Look at Bill Gates and DOS. Put a Plus with a SuperDrive on the market for under $500 and they'll sell like Hula Hoops. Charge a reasonable price for upgrades so that a user can buy into the Mac line for a fair price and stay current with new development at a bearable cost. In short, stop trying to screw every possible dollar out of the Mac market and you'll eventually make a lot more money.
maymudes@husc4.UUCP (David Maymudes,,,4982298) (03/19/89)
I think some people are being a little too hard on Apple. From article <12101@reed.UUCP>, by wab@reed.UUCP (Bill Baker): > > In article <919@fornax.UUCP> mcdonald@fornax.UUCP (Ken Mcdonald) writes: >>Sigh. I just don't understand why Apple does this. . . > > Why? Scully's profit sharing and stock option package, that's why. > > [stuff about $2000 Mac II --> Mac IIx upgrade deleted] > > Most Macs are obscenely overpriced. I recall the cover article > (MacWorld, Macuser?) on the real price of a Mac, where they showed > that the wholesale price of parts accounted for 1/4 of the list price > of an SE. The ratio for the Plus must be even lower. A ratio of 4:1 between the cost of parts for a piece of electronics and the list price appears to be standard in the whole computer industry. > of an SE. The ratio for the Plus must be even lower. Actually, the parts probably cost relatively _more_ for a Mac Plus, because it costs Apple slightly more to make, and sells for much less. Not to mention the trouble Apple goes to to make two kinds of mice and keyboards... > Apple's policy on upgrades is also obscene, especially with regard to > the II line. An upgrade board shoudln't cost $2000, so why does it? The upgrade board for the II --> IIx costs $2000 because the motherboard represents about half the cost of the Mac II that lists for $4000. Apple can't really do anything with the old Mac II motherboards, so you pay the same amount that a IIx would cost, minus a new keyboard, power supply, and case. > Because Apple wants to sell lots of IIx's. If they charge a lot for a > new machine then they have to charge a lot for the upgrade or else > people will just buy the old machine and upgrade it. And all you > folks who bought II's are screwed. [...] > > The most disturbing trend I've seen in the Mac line is planned > obselesence. Why no PMMU in the MacII? Why code a 4meg memory > limitation in the SE ROM's? Apple must have been working on the IIx > at the same time as the II and seen the value of virtual memory. For > that matter, why limit the II to 8 meg? The memory fiasco with the > IBM PC line should have shown to everybody the stupidity of memory > limitations. How much memory can a 68000 address? A 68020? A 68030? > Why design in limitations...unless you want to later remove those > limitations for a hefty price. A 68000 can address 16 megabytes of memory, the 68020 and 68030 4 gigabytes each. The SE is limited to 4 megabytes because only 1/4 of the address space is reserved for RAM. Similarly, the Mac II and IIx are limited to (I believe) 512 megabytes, because the remaining space is reserved for ROM, I/O, and such. Why no PMMU in the Mac II, you ask? Because it would have added at least $300 to the price of the machine, and only people who wanted to run A/UX would have needed it. If you have a Mac II and are depressed you don't have a IIx, buy a PMMU. Get a superdrive, too, if you really want one. The 16MHz 68030 isn't that much faster than the '020 in the II. Apple has done a good job of _not_ designing in limitations. In short, it does not cost $2000 to redeem a Mac II from obsolescence. I would probably buy a IIx or a IIcx if I were buying my computer today, but that doesn't mean my II is ready for the dustbin. When System 8 comes out, I will go out and get a PMMU if I need one, for probably around $200, by that time. Of course, this doesn't mean that I don't think Apple shouldn't scrap the Mac Plus, put the list price of an SE down to $1500, the SEx to $2200, and complete IIcx systems at around $3000, but I think they're making progress. --David Maymudes maymudes%husc4@harvard.ARPA maymudes@husc4.harvard.edu maymudes@husc4.UUCP maymudes@HARVUNXU.BITNET ...{seismo, harpo, ihnp4, linus, allegra, ut-sally}!harvard!husc4!maymudes davidm@harvarda.BITNET --David Maymudes maymudes%husc4@harvard.ARPA maymudes@husc4.harvard.edu maymudes@husc4.UUCP maymudes@HARVUNXU.BITNET ..{seismo, harpo, ihnp4, linus, allegra, ut-sally}!harvard!husc4!maymudes davidm@harvarda.BITNET
amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) (03/19/89)
In article <12101@reed.UUCP>, wab@reed.UUCP (Bill Baker) writes:
[...]
they've got us. As the Mac line is constantly upgraded, we time and
again face the choice of paying outrageous prices for new machines and
upgrades or junking our Macs (the value of which decrease
precipitously with every upgrade) and buying into another
graphic-interface system, most of which are also proprietary and
therefore overpriced.
AAIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! no no no NO!
Every time Apple announces a new machine, and upgrade programs for older
machines, somebody posts an article like this (not to mention editorials
in magazines and so on), and I for one am getting god damned tired of it.
You are NEVER faced with the choice of "upgrade or die." Your Mac never
suddenly becomes less valuable. It still runs the same software, doesn't
it? It still, in fact, does just as much or little as it always did.
Nobody comes around in black suits with white ties and violin cases saying,
"That's a Mac Plus, ain't it? We'll just have to shoot you, then..."
If your machine does what you want it to, what's the problem? If, on
the other hand, what's important is that your computer be the
biggest/fastest/whatever Macintosh that money can buy, then you have
to pay for it. As far as Apple is concerned, you bought a machine.
Your choice. If, later on, you want to buy another machine, you can,
but it will cost you. If I go to trade in my car, I don't get what I
paid for it. In a similar way, an older machine plus an upgrade will
cost more dollars than not buying one until now would have.
This is not because Apple is mean and money-hungry. Think about it.
I'm a professional in
the industry and I'll pay top dollar for a state of the art machine,
and thereby cover Apple's development costs and provide a hefty profit
to Big Red. But if Apple is going to keep reaming me for each logic
board swap, forget it.
Oh, come on. If you want to *stay* state of the art, you have to pay
as you go. TANSTAAFL. By definition, something is only new or state of
the art until something better comes along.
$2000 for essentially a 68030 and a PMMU? If
Motorola is charging you that much for chips, then I'm putting the
money I would have spent on a Mac into Motorola stock.
So buy a 68030 and a PMMU and roll your own. It's not just the <expletive
deleted> hardware cost that you're paying for. There's a significant
amount of design investment in even an incremental improvement like the IIx,
if nothing else.
You might want to try taking an economics course at your local community
college and learn what resources are actually necessary to bring a
product to market, especially a volatile, high-volume one like this
industry. The cost of materials is not much of a factor in the early
life of the product, which is all computers get, what with the way
technology is moving these days.
[...] you won't guarantee your machines past 12 weeks? I know the answer:
buy AppleCare for the machine. So I should pay for coverage you should be
providing?
Computers don't break very often after an initial burn-in period. I'd rather
pay for things that actually break rather than pay extra for my machine
(which is how you pay for your car warranty, to use your own analogy).
Why do people go crazy and demand things from vendors in this market that
they wouldn't even dream of asking any other kind of manufacturer? Sigh.
Enough flaming for now :-).
--
Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation
amanda@lts.UUCP / ...!uunet!lts!amanda / 703.435.8170
--
C combines the flexibility of assembler with the power of assembler.mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) (03/19/89)
In article <1082@lts.UUCP> amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) writes: >In article <12101@reed.UUCP>, wab@reed.UUCP (Bill Baker) writes: > > [...] > they've got us. As the Mac line is constantly upgraded, we time and > again face the choice of paying outrageous prices for new machines and > >AAIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! no no no NO! > >Every time Apple announces a new machine, and upgrade programs for older >machines, somebody posts an article like this (not to mention editorials >in magazines and so on), and I for one am getting god damned tired of it. > >You are NEVER faced with the choice of "upgrade or die." Your Mac never You obviously haven't been using the Mac for very long. The Macintosh was originally sold as a CONCEPT--with neither the software or hardware being adequate to support that concept. The hardware platform was lame-brained to begin with; original buyers had to pay for the privilege of obtaining a *usable* hardware platform (i.e., 512K)--$1000. The Mac didn't hit its stride until the Mac Plus ($1000). In my opinion, both of these upgrades WERE "upgrade or die" situations--one was instantly forced into software obsolescence. Original 128K owners have payed up to $4495 to keep their computer "current." I do, however, think that the Plus-era is perfectly usable for 99% of us-- I like mine, and have no interest in upgrading in the foreseeable future-- in this case, I'm voting with my pocketbook, noting that Apple's releasing very expensive, haphazardly designed equipment. When they stabilize with an architecture, or maybe design an expandable architecture, I'll jump on the bandwagon. Right now, I'm somewhat concerned about the new high-density floppy drives. That, in itself, could turn into a "do or die" situation. From someone who recently bought a Mac SE/30, they're INCREDIBLY slow... I would not be happy being forced to upgrade to that format--even if they DO make it easier for publishers to distribute media. >to pay for it. As far as Apple is concerned, you bought a machine. >Your choice. If, later on, you want to buy another machine, you can, >but it will cost you. If I go to trade in my car, I don't get what I >paid for it. Since when does Apple have a mechanism to trade in computers? THAT I could go for... >So buy a 68030 and a PMMU and roll your own. It's not just the <expletive >deleted> hardware cost that you're paying for. There's a significant >amount of design investment in even an incremental improvement like the IIx, >if nothing else. All of which I'm sure Apple more than takes care of in its 1000% price mark- ups. > [...] you won't guarantee your machines past 12 weeks? I know the answer: > buy AppleCare for the machine. So I should pay for coverage you should be > providing? > >Computers don't break very often after an initial burn-in period. I'd rather >pay for things that actually break rather than pay extra for my machine >(which is how you pay for your car warranty, to use your own analogy). As a matter of fact, a whole lot of the original Mac's broke a couple of years after the initial burn-in period. Ever hear of the problems with the power supplies? :-) I find it intolerable that computer companies don't provide long-term warranties. >Why do people go crazy and demand things from vendors in this market that >they wouldn't even dream of asking any other kind of manufacturer? Sigh. Why do people insist on being apologists for Apple? The way I see it, (a) if enough people gripe loudly enough, perhaps the bean counters will pay at- tention the next time it comes down to pricing a new machine; and (b) if Apple ever provides a five-year, 50,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty on its equipment, perhaps people would settle down. >Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation >amanda@lts.UUCP / ...!uunet!lts!amanda / 703.435.8170 Cheers, Robert Dorsett Internet: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mentat
ben@tasis.utas.oz (Ben Lian) (03/19/89)
In article <12101@reed.UUCP> wab@reed.UUCP (Bill Baker) writes: > >In article <919@fornax.UUCP> mcdonald@fornax.UUCP (Ken Mcdonald) writes: >>Sigh. I just don't understand why Apple does this. . . > >Why? Scully's profit sharing and stock option package, that's why. > >>but the logic board upgrade alone from a Mac II to a Mac IIx is more >>than $2,000! Come on now, Apple, what's going on!? You made your profit >>off of me when I bought the II, and I wouldn't mind paying you a reasonable >>profit on the board either, but $2000+ isn't just profit, it is an >>indication to customers that Apple doesn't care a sou for its customers >>after the sale is made. I mean, what am I supposed to think about buying >>Apple machines in the future when I say to myself, "If I buy this machine right >>now, I can have full confidence that Apple will try to price any future >>upgrades completely out of my price range." Not very confidence-inspiring. [Rest of diatribe deleted.] Too right! Whether or not Apple and Scully really think this way about marketing the Mac line, this is the impression I get too. Now here's my strategy: I'm going to get rid of the Mac Plus while I still can get some money for it, take a loan out to acquire a IIcx (and humouring Apple one last time), then toss out the IIcx for a NeXT when the software for it matures in about 1 to 1-1/2 years' time. I'll bet you that NeXT has really got Apple worried, eh? Just as commercial companies aim to maximise the profit of the shareholders, you should aim to maximise what you get out of the good money you pay for a PC. To heck with allegiances if another company produces a better machine, and there is good software for it as well. BTW, I don't know if NeXT is going to be able to hold their pricing on their machine. The $6,500 announced for their base configuration is almost too good to be true. -- bl ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Y H Lian ACSnet: ben@tasis.utas.oz Dept. of EE & CS ARPA : ben%tasis.utas.oz.au@uunet.uu.net University of Tasmania BITnet: munnari!tasis.utas.oz!ben@ GPO Box 252C uunet.uu.net (I think) Hobart, Tasmania 7001 UUCP : {enea,hplabs,mcvax,uunet,ukc}! A U S T R A L I A munnari!tasis.utas.oz!ben -----------------------------------------------------------------------
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (03/20/89)
In article <11317@ut-emx.UUCP>, mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes... [......] >Why do people insist on being apologists for Apple? The way I see it, (a) if >enough people gripe loudly enough, perhaps the bean counters will pay at- >tention the next time it comes down to pricing a new machine; and (b) if Apple >ever provides a five-year, 50,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty on its >equipment, perhaps people would settle down. > Perhaps some people support Apple because they get really sick and tired of all the complaining that goes on on the net. Apple makes dumb, unfriendly decisions. So do a lot of firms, and people too. They also do some good things, like making a really nice computer (the Mac), a computer which I don't think is "haphazardly" designed. Your point a) is well taken, but only up to a point. I think it would be more accurate to say: if enough people who buy Apple computers complain about problem X to the people at Apple who make decisions about problem X, then something will happen. Thus: complaints on the net about price increases, no matter how justified those complaints may be, are basically a lot of hot air: how many "bean counters" do you think read the net? I know that Apple has some people who officially check out what's going on here, but most of the people from Apple who read this stuff are computer people who make the machines, but don't sell them. If you really want to accomplish something -- and I question sometimes how constructive some of the criticism here is -- why don't you write to Sculley, or Gasee, or the head of marketing, or the new head of educational markets? Sure, it might be a bit more trouble to get their names/addresses and actually print out a letter, but it would accomplish far more than diatribes on the net. Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine
billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) (03/20/89)
In article <864@tasis.utas.oz> ben@tasis.utas.oz (Ben Lian) writes: >In article <12101@reed.UUCP> wab@reed.UUCP (Bill Baker) writes: >> >>In article <919@fornax.UUCP> mcdonald@fornax.UUCP (Ken Mcdonald) writes: [Complaints about Apple's pricing and their upgrade program (Which is still better than IBM's deleted] >>>now, I can have full confidence that Apple will try to price any future >>>upgrades completely out of my price range." Not very confidence-inspiring. > >[Rest of diatribe deleted.] > >Too right! Whether or not Apple and Scully really think this way about >marketing the Mac line, this is the impression I get too. Now here's >my strategy: I'm going to get rid of the Mac Plus while I still can get >some money for it, take a loan out to acquire a IIcx (and humouring Apple >one last time), then toss out the IIcx for a NeXT when the software for >it matures in about 1 to 1-1/2 years' time. I'll bet you that NeXT has >really got Apple worried, eh? Just as commercial companies aim to >maximise the profit of the shareholders, you should aim to maximise what >you get out of the good money you pay for a PC. To heck with allegiances >if another company produces a better machine, and there is good software >for it as well. > >BTW, I don't know if NeXT is going to be able to hold their pricing on >their machine. The $6,500 announced for their base configuration is >almost too good to be true. > What would you be content with? There is always something better. As for a company making a better machine, the NeXT isn't it. Besides, there is no software for it. Here at the University of Michigan, we have 5 or 6 NeXT's just in the department I work in. We have a quasi-full time staff member just keeping them working (they crash all the time), and we have put them out in labs for students to putter around with because there is no productive work we can do with them. The software isn't there, and there are no manuals to look at so you can write some. No one here has found the machine so amazing that they just couldn't resist trying to write software for it. As for NeXT holding their price, I'm not sure they will hold together. RIGHT NOW, you can get a DECStation 3100 (brand new), which is based on the MIPS R2000 RISC chip. It runs Ultrix (bsd 4.3 UNIX), and X Windows. I.E., it is available right now, and there is a load of software available for it right now. X Windows is a STANDARD, so there is much software for it, unlike NeXTStep which is buggy and has no software written for it. It runs 10-14 VAX MIPS, the NeXT runs 5 MIPS (and it seems like 2, after display PostScript is done soaking up processor). Best of all, we get them for $6500 with monochrome monitors (15") and 380 meg drives. The speed is incredible, the graphics are great (especially on the COLOR machine we have), software is available, and the price is right. I don't see how NeXT can compete with the DECStation 3100. The only advantage the NeXT has is its sound chip, and the DECStation is an overwhelming winner in all other ways. I just don't see how so many people can be duped with the newest media darling, when what they have does everything they want. As for Apple being scared, I don't think the NeXT keeps them awake at night. +----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Bollinger | Internet: billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu | | 4297 Sulgrave Dr. +------+---------------------------------------------+ | Swartz Creek, Mi. 48473 | "My employer doesn't take my opinion any | +-----------------------------+ more seriously than you do." | | "You remember the IIe, it +---------------------------------------------+ | was the machine Apple made before they decided people didn't need | | machines with big screens, color, or slots." | | - Harry Anderson (from NBC's Night Court) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
merchant@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) (03/20/89)
In article <12101@reed.UUCP> wab@reed.UUCP (Bill Baker) writes: >Apple's policy on upgrades is also obscene, especially with regard to >the II line. An upgrade board shoudln't cost $2000, so why does it? >Because Apple wants to sell lots of IIx's. If they charge a lot for a >new machine then they have to charge a lot for the upgrade or else >people will just buy the old machine and upgrade it. And all you >folks who bought II's are screwed. I'm in the market for a IIcx, but >I may just bag it now that I see that it's going to cost me 2 grand or >more a pop just to keep up with the Jones's. I'm a professional in >the industry and I'll pay top dollar for a state of the art machine, >and thereby cover Apple's development costs and provide a hefty profit >to Big Red. But if Apple is going to keep reaming me for each logic >board swap, forget it. $2000 for essentially a 68030 and a PMMU? Keep in mind that they don't just whap a 68030 into Mac II motherboard and say "Voila!" There's quite a bit of re-engineering that needs to go on. Let's try not to blast Apple for making money. They're a business. They want to do that. Also, keep in mind that the money that gets put in goes into a number of things that keep Apple going. One big one is Research and Development. You, as a professional in the industry, should have an idea of the cost of programmers, of hardware engineers, of development, of prototypes, and of all these things. >The most disturbing trend I've seen in the Mac line is planned >obselesence. Why no PMMU in the MacII? Why code a 4meg memory >limitation in the SE ROM's? Apple must have been working on the IIx >at the same time as the II and seen the value of virtual memory. For >that matter, why limit the II to 8 meg? The memory fiasco with the >IBM PC line should have shown to everybody the stupidity of memory >limitations. How much memory can a 68000 address? A 68020? A 68030? >Why design in limitations...unless you want to later remove those >limitations for a hefty price. I'd bet that the PMMU wasn't put in initially because there was no need for it. The operating system didn't do anything with it. Hell, the operating system doesn't use it NOW, unless you use A/UX. I'm sure if they did, you'd be complaining about having to pay an extra $100 for something that you couldn't use. As for memory limitations, keep in mind that the operating system does have to live somewhere. Those nifty screen buffers and all have to be mapped to some physical address in memory. Besides, the more memory that Apple claims for it's own, the more space they will have to put in nifty things that will (a) make our Macintoshes better and (b) preserve compatibility. Now in some cases, I wonder about the amount they gobble, too (only an 8 meg ceiling in a II?) but watch for the next operating system upgrade to conceivably take care of this. At least, according to the rumour mill... >The Mac is now a business machine (which was Scully's stated goal) and >the pricing of the line reflects that. Apple didn't cut its prices >because home users stopped buying. No, it was when the big buyers >balked that Apple backed down...cutting prices on machines that they >knew were going to be obselete when they announced the SEx and IIcx. >In short, Apple doesn't care what we think; they care what >MegaMultinational thinks when it goes to buy machines. Definitely. MegaMultinational will buy more machines in one year than you will buy in your entire lifetime. So, because of this, their opinion matters more than yours. They're interested in purchasing technology that will make their workers more productive and will improve their bottom line. Thus, if the happy workers make more money than it costs for these machines, the businesses are happy. You, as a home user, are primarily interested in one thing: Price. You don't really have a bottom line, except for maybe personal fulfillment or keeping your checkbook balanced. I do the latter with a $20 calculator. Most people do. >Remember the Model T? Henry Ford only made a few bucks on each >T, but he sold millions of them. VW turned out cheap Bugs like >hotcakes and made a mint. The Mac was supposed to be the same kind of >deal. The Beast Jobs wanted to put a Mac in every home...and he was >right, John. Control the market and the profits will come, billions >more. Look at Bill Gates and DOS. Put a Plus with a SuperDrive on >the market for under $500 and they'll sell like Hula Hoops. Charge a >reasonable price for upgrades so that a user can buy into the Mac line >for a fair price and stay current with new development at a bearable >cost. In short, stop trying to screw every possible dollar out of the >Mac market and you'll eventually make a lot more money. Apple cannot possibly hope to compete in price wars. MS-DOS systems can give their stuff away because, essentially, there is NO Research and Development involved in a DOS based system. Zippy the CloneCo can put together a '386 clone that'll run DOS and Windows cheaper than Apple could put together a Macintosh. You'll notice that any company that actually does any development on DOS systems, such as AST and Compaq, charge almost as much as a Macintosh. All that a $500 Macintosh would do is (a) steal money from the other higher priced systems and (b) tax development efforts because they have to support it with nifty new operating system upgrades. ("Hey, I payed $500 for this machine! What do you mean I can't use Virtual Memory?!??!") One of the things that I like about Apple is that, while top dollar is payed for their machines, Apple turns that money around into developments that I can see and use. New versions of the operating system that give me real benefits, like Multitasking (or at least task switching). New machines, new conventions, new power. Now, that power doesn't always come cheap, granted. Sometimes I have to pay for it. On the other hand, compare it with DOS and you'll see what I mean. The latest feature of DOS is a "command shell" that replaces some of the more commonly used DOS commands with a graphics-looking interface ("It's got pull-down menus, just like a Macintosh!"). This is not what I call "Research and Development". This is what I call a two-week project. Quite honestly, if you're a programmer-type and you like a good machine for the home to hack around on, check out the Commodore Amiga. It does alot of the same stuff the Mac does and is generally cheaper. While, no, you don't have Excels, PageMakers, and the like, you do have some quite reasonable software. --- "I carry it with me..." Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP) (Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.EDU)
billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) (03/20/89)
In article <12708@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) writes: >In article <12101@reed.UUCP> wab@reed.UUCP (Bill Baker) writes: [valid complaints about Apple's pricing deleted] >>The most disturbing trend I've seen in the Mac line is planned >>obselesence. Why no PMMU in the MacII? Why code a 4meg memory >>limitation in the SE ROM's? Apple must have been working on the IIx >>at the same time as the II and seen the value of virtual memory. For >>that matter, why limit the II to 8 meg? The memory fiasco with the >>IBM PC line should have shown to everybody the stupidity of memory >>limitations. How much memory can a 68000 address? A 68020? A 68030? >>Why design in limitations...unless you want to later remove those >>limitations for a hefty price. How dare you make accusations when you don't know anything about the situation. If you really had any knowledge about what you are complaining about, then you would make this accusation. There is no PMMU in the Mac II because the 68851 was not available when the Mac II came out, it was only available in sample test batches. The 68551 (68451?) was available, but it sucks. The 68000 can only access 16 Megabytes of space because there was not a DIP package big enough to bring out more than 24 pins of address lines. And, as it says in Inside Mac III... "In the Macintosh, this is divided into four equal sections. The first four Mb are for RAM, the second four Mb are for ROM, the third are for the SCC, and the last four are for the IWM and VIA." Apple did this because back in 1984 when the Mac was designed, it was absurd to think that someday this design would need to access more than 4Mb of RAM. By comparison, IBM assumed you would never need more than 640K. So Apple could SAVE them and you money by not decoding the upper lines in ROM, SCC, and IWM/VIA. When the SE was made, it had to be designed the same to keep compatibility. In the Mac II, they stretched it a bit, and split it 50/50 between RAM and I/O and ROM. Apple did come up with an arcitecture which can support more than 8Mb, the Mac II. When switched into 32-bit mode, it can access far more than the 128 Mb you can put on the motherboard (with 16Mb SIMMS). The current OS doesn't run in 32-bit mode because that breaks things like CDEFs. Rumour has it that the next system runs in 32-bit mode (and breaks a LOT of software). >>Remember the Model T? Henry Ford only made a few bucks on each >>T, but he sold millions of them. VW turned out cheap Bugs like >>hotcakes and made a mint. The Mac was supposed to be the same kind of >>deal. The Beast Jobs wanted to put a Mac in every home...and he was >>right, John. Control the market and the profits will come, billions >>more. Look at Bill Gates and DOS. Put a Plus with a SuperDrive on >>the market for under $500 and they'll sell like Hula Hoops. Charge a >>reasonable price for upgrades so that a user can buy into the Mac line >>for a fair price and stay current with new development at a bearable >>cost. In short, stop trying to screw every possible dollar out of the >>Mac market and you'll eventually make a lot more money. Try telling IBM you would like and upgrade from your PS/2 model 30 to a Model 70-A21 (25 Mhz 80386). They will laugh in your face. First of all, they don't do upgrades, you just chuck your old machine. Second of all, the 70-A21 is currently out of production because of design flaws. +----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Bollinger | Internet: billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu | | 4297 Sulgrave Dr. +------+---------------------------------------------+ | Swartz Creek, Mi. 48473 | "My employer doesn't take my opinion any | +-----------------------------+ more seriously than you do." | | "You remember the IIe, it +---------------------------------------------+ | was the machine Apple made before they decided people didn't need | | machines with big screens, color, or slots." | | - Harry Anderson (from NBC's Night Court) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) (03/21/89)
WARNING: This article contains blunt language and may be offensive to family audiences. It is also my final word on the subject, at least on this go-around. Sigh. Some of us have work to do. In article <11317@ut-emx.UUCP>, mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: You obviously haven't been using the Mac for very long. I guess not. I've been using them since the original 128K Mac was introduced. I've got a well-used copy of the original Inside Mac (you know, the looseleaf edition that was printed off on a daisywheel printer with "Insert illustration here" where the pictures were supposed to go?). In past jobs I've administered academic Mac sites consisting of hundreds of machines. These days I use and program my Macintosh every working day, working principally on user interface and networking software. Yup, I'm a mere novice, all right :-(. The Macintosh was originally sold as a CONCEPT--with neither the software or hardware being adequate to support that concept. Bullshit. Nothing is sold as a concept (aside, perhaps, from real estate scams :-)). The Mac was and is sold as a product. There was and is a concept behind the product, and that concept *still* isn't fully realized, but that's a separate issue. one was instantly forced into software obsolescence. Original 128K owners have payed up to $4495 to keep their computer "current." At this point, the 64K ROM->128K ROM upgrade has become and upgrade or die situation, but IF AND ONLY IF you need new software. Even this has more to do with software companies than Apple. I do, however, think that the Plus-era is perfectly usable for 99% of us-- I like mine, and have no interest in upgrading in the foreseeable future-- Right. So who cares if it's obsolete? I'm serious here. A lot of people (at least on Usenet) seem to think they have a right to have the best now, because when they bought their machine, it was the best then. They don't think this way about their cars, or their stereos, or whatever; I don't see why the computer ought to be any different. in this case, I'm voting with my pocketbook, noting that Apple's releasing very expensive, haphazardly designed equipment. It sure doesn't seem that way to me. The IIx, IIcx, and SE/30 seem quite well designed to me. And I've been on a hardware design team. And yes, it was a commercial one, not a class project :-). When they stabilize with an architecture, or maybe design an expandable architecture, I'll jump on the bandwagon. Like maybe the PC/XT/AT/PS2/clone "architecture"? :-). Apple's done a good job balancing changing technology and product stability. It's hard. The same boards work in a IIcx that work in a II or IIx (or even an SE/30 if you buy an expansion chassis...). The same software runs on an SE/30 as on a Mac Plus. It runs it better, granted, but that's part of the point of a growing product line. From someone who recently bought a Mac SE/30, they're INCREDIBLY slow... Well, they're slower than a hard disk, but they are quite noticeably faster than the 800K disks, especially for reads. Besides, there are too many Plusses out there for software companies to switch formats now, not to mention the difference in media cost. Look at the AT high-density drive for a real-world example of this. Since when does Apple have a mechanism to trade in computers? THAT I could go for... Point taken. I've never met anyone who had a problem selling a used Mac, though. All of which I'm sure Apple more than takes care of in its 1000% price mark-ups. More bullshit. Apple makes a lot of money. Apple also (so far) has been willing to spend a lot of money on the future. Apple is driving its own technology, something that costs a lot of money and involves a lot of risk. A PC clone manufacturer has to recoup the cost of hardware, and that's about it. Apple has to do a lot more. And they do it well. Why do people insist on being apologists for Apple? Some of us like what they've done so far, and realize how risky it is, and how well they've met the challenge they've set for themselves. if Apple ever provides a five-year, 50,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty on its equipment, perhaps people would settle down. Funny, I had to pay for my 50,000 mile extended warranty. What's AppleCare? Apple's not perfect. No computer company is. I happen to think, for a lot of reasons, that Apple's the best we've got, and I don't think that the economics of this industry are as simple to understand as a lot of other people seem to think. Maybe it comes from being on "the other side of the fence" myself. Have fun, folks. I'm outta this one, -- Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation amanda@lts.UUCP / ...!uunet!lts!amanda / 703.435.8170 -- "I can only assume this is not the first-class compartment." --HGTtG
kent@lloyd.camex.uucp (Kent Borg) (03/21/89)
In article <12101@reed.UUCP> wab@reed.UUCP (Bill Baker) writes: > [A whole bunch of angry stuff about Apple's prices. His conclusion is that they are too high. He is right about that.] >upgrades or junking our Macs (the value of which decrease >precipitously with every upgrade) and buying into another What does he mean `decrease precipitously'? The Macintosh Plus is quite old by computer standards, yet the used price is so high that there is little reason not to buy new--if slicing open the box and having a little bit of a warrantee is worth anything to you. The biggest erosion in the value of a used Plus is Apple lowering the retail price on new Pluses. >that the wholesale price of parts accounted for 1/4 of the list price >of an SE. The ratio for the Plus must be even lower. Can you say Right, but he has the Plus backwards. A lot of people have estimated that the SE costs *less* to build than a Plus. The higher retail price is for the Slightly Enhanced perception. >cover the costs of developing new machines. Admit it: the closed box >Macs are cash cows you are milking for all the market will bear, both Here he is right the cash-cow in general, but why concentrate on the closed boxes? The open boxes probably have even higher margins. >The most disturbing trend I've seen in the Mac line is planned >obselesence. Why no PMMU in the MacII? Why code a 4meg memory >limitation in the SE ROM's? Apple must have been working on the IIx >at the same time as the II and seen the value of virtual memory. For >that matter, why limit the II to 8 meg? The memory fiasco with the Motorola hadn't started selling the MMU when the II came out, the 68030 was also not yet available. The 4 meg limit in the SE and Plus is a consession to compatibility with the first Macintoshes. The result is that the SE was *very* compatible, but the II had more problems. Also, they only have a 16-meg memory map, the 68000 has only 24 address lines. The 8 meg limit in the II is also there for compatibility reasons (with QuickDraw), and it might go away in a few months, but then Bill will gripe about some favorite piece of (probably Microsoft) software breaking. There is no utopia, Bill's gripes are all real, but they are not all self-consistent. >What about the warranty? Apple, a 90 day warranty on a machine that >costs more than a new car? Chrysler offers a seven year warranty and He's right on this one. >the golden eggs. The bloom is hardly off the II and it is going to >cost 2 grand to upgrade it. I think some major buyers are going to I forgot, how does Chrysler handle upgrades? Last I heard if I wanted the newest, fanciest car, I had to *pay* for it, full price even. Sure, I can sell my old car, but at a terrible loss, much worse than the depreciation for Macs. Last year everybody was complaining that the II was so old and obsolete, this year the gripe will be over *too many* new machines. >more. Look at Bill Gates and DOS. Put a Plus with a SuperDrive on >the market for under $500 and they'll sell like Hula Hoops. Charge a OK, I'll look at Bill Gates and DOS. Which is the bigger company Apple or Microsoft? Certainly, Macs have large profit margins, but remember how people laughed at Apple for betting on mice, and windows, and bunches of other things that `real' computers don't need. Apple stuck its neck out, and now it has the BMW. It might not be a fast as some Porshes, nor as cheap as a Beetle, but they own it. Certainly, they might be able to make more money by selling more units at lower prices, but *they* don't think so, and its their call.. (I do think they are wrong.) If Bill is really completely bent-out-of-shape over their obsolete line of over-priced computers, he should buy an IBM. They cost even more. Kent Borg kent@lloyd.uucp or ...!hscfvax!lloyd!kent
jtn@potomac.ads.com (John T. Nelson) (03/21/89)
> What would you be content with? There is always something better. As for > a company making a better machine, the NeXT isn't it. Besides, there is no > software for it. There wasn't any software for the Mac when it was first introduced either. > with them. The software isn't there, and there are no manuals to look at so > you can write some. No one here has found the machine so amazing that they The machine is still in Beta release... what do you expect? > I just don't see how so many people can be duped with the newest media > darling when what they have does everything they want. As for Apple being > scared, I don't think the NeXT keeps them awake at night. They're in different markets ... NeXT is trying to capture the educational market-place and Apple is hitting on the corporate world big time. As a Unix box, the Mac can't compare to the NeXT.
mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) (03/21/89)
>Keywords: The Usenet Twit Factor is rising :-( > In article <1084@lts.UUCP> amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) writes: >WARNING: This article contains blunt language and may be offensive to >family audiences. It is also my final word on the subject, at least >on this go-around. Sigh. Some of us have work to do. I hesitate to lock horns with such a gargantuan intellect, but since Amanda seems to singularly lack perspective, I must... > Amanda lists her credentials Golly! Hmm, since we're comparing the dates of our programming references, what's yours? My loose-leaf version is March 1984. Does this mean that if I'm a few weeks senior to you, my viewpoint is more valid? WONDERFUL! > The Macintosh was originally sold as a CONCEPT--with neither the > software or hardware being adequate to support that concept. > >Bullshit. Nothing is sold as a concept (aside, perhaps, from real >estate scams :-)). The Mac was and is sold as a product. There was >and is a concept behind the product, and that concept *still* isn't >fully realized, but that's a separate issue. No, NOT bullshit, Amanda. The TRUTH. The Macintosh was marketed on its concept. I have dozens of magazine articles, ranging from the Wall Street Journal to St. Mac, which make a great deal of the CONCEPT of the Macintosh. I must emphasize this point, since the architecture itself was not usable-- certainly not by PC standards. If Apple's own marketing figures are to be believed, at least 100,000 users were stuck with using MacWrite, MultiPlan, Habadex, and MS-BASIC for at least nine months--and it actually took as long as a year and a half to get some good software. > one was instantly forced into software > obsolescence. Original 128K owners have payed up to $4495 to keep their > computer "current." > >At this point, the 64K ROM->128K ROM upgrade has become and upgrade or >die situation, but IF AND ONLY IF you need new software. Even this has >more to do with software companies than Apple. No, not really--software companies will take advantage of the hardware plat- form. It's unrealistic not to expect them to do so. In reality, the Macintosh 128 (we're talking memory, not ROM's) was a short-sighted concept: when Apple should have been making computers, it was building toasters. If the engineer- ing articles in Byte in '84 and '85 are to be believed, the original Macintosh was not what it could have been. To this day, I have difficulty understanding why the Mac 128 was not released with at least a high-speed hard disk interface. Of course, if we give the gripers on usenet credit, this might be an example of planned obsolescence-- release a limited computer, with lots of marketing (ala NeXT), fund R&D for the next year or so on initial sales, then nuke it later on, replacing it with a USEFUL computer. If this is the case, wouldn't you agree that the tradition of mistrusting Apple upgrades is somewhat justified? > I do, however, think that the Plus-era is perfectly usable for 99% of us-- > I like mine, and have no interest in upgrading in the foreseeable future-- > >Right. So who cares if it's obsolete? I'm serious here. A lot of >people (at least on Usenet) seem to think they have a right to have >the best now, because when they bought their machine, it was the best >then. They don't think this way about their cars, or their stereos, >or whatever; I don't see why the computer ought to be any different. Just how many people are griping about the Plus being obsolete? Not me. And not anyone I know. Seems to me that the people griping loudest are those who spend thousands of dollars right before a machine introduction--such as people who bought SE's in January, right before the SE/30 introduction. The typical "industry" reply is to say that someone would be an idiot to buy a Macintosh in January, but a lot of computer users ARE idiots. Do you think that these users should then be forced to take a loss on their SE investment, then pour an extra couple grand into buying a superior machine? I don't. I DO think that a means should be made to meet these people halfway. It might not be economical, but it keeps the customer happy. >It sure doesn't seem that way to me. The IIx, IIcx, and SE/30 seem quite >well designed to me. And I've been on a hardware design team. And yes, >it was a commercial one, not a class project :-). I'm glad you're proud of your vitae, Amanda. > When they stabilize with > an architecture, or maybe design an expandable architecture, I'll jump > on the bandwagon. > >Like maybe the PC/XT/AT/PS2/clone "architecture"? :-). Apple's done a >good job balancing changing technology and product stability. It's hard. No, like the Apple II architecture--the basic 1978-era machine could be expanded and modified to keep place with technology until the current day. That's a far cry from the nine-month obsolescence period of current Mac's. If you want a more sophisticated example, what about S-100 systems? >The same boards work in a IIcx that work in a II or IIx (or even an SE/30 >if you buy an expansion chassis...). How about an SE? Uh-huh... > The same software runs on an >SE/30 as on a Mac Plus. It runs it better, granted, but that's part of >the point of a growing product line. Just how does it run it "better"? What is your criteria? Seems to me that it runs it FASTER, but that's only due to brute-force clock speed. Surely, having been a member of a hardware design team, you can clarify your thoughts better than THAT. > All of which I'm sure Apple more than takes care of in its 1000% > price mark-ups. > >More bullshit. You MUST be a college graduate... >Apple makes a lot of money. Apple also (so far) has been >willing to spend a lot of money on the future. Apple is driving its own >technology, something that costs a lot of money and involves a lot of >risk. My premiss is that Apple makes a lot more money than it spends on R&D. When one considers the tales of, for example, how the Mac 128 was priced, it's very easy to cultivate a distrust of the company's pricing structures. And yes, Amanda, any child knows that there are substantial development costs-- but the issue here is whether, on a $2500 machine, the $200 hardware costs exceed the development and marketing costs. Which I believe to be the case. By the way, Amanda, how does your "development" theory fit into the incredible overpricing on Apple peripherals? I mean, merely THAT is sufficient cause to question the pricing of the CPU boxes. >A PC clone manufacturer has to recoup the cost of hardware, and that's >about it. Apple has to do a lot more. And they do it well. That's a matter of opinion. Unless, of course, you are adding relevant insight into Apple's problems, and not merely drawing uncorrelated parallels from your own experiences. >What's AppleCare? A protection racket. >Apple's not perfect. No computer company is. I happen to think, for a >lot of reasons, that Apple's the best we've got Yes, they produce most usable equipment. However, I think that Apple also has a very large number of disgruntled customers. As soon as a realistic market competitor appears (if they dare run the gauntlet of Apple's lawyers), I think that's going to be the end of Apple Computer. In today's market, though, I'm not going to hold my breath. And now, to quote the USENET Power Poster's Guide: No Flames! :-) > people just don't understand the economics of the industry Yep, it's hard to understand 35% annual growth rates, all right. >Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation Cheers, Robert Dorsett Internet: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mentat
richard@uva.UUCP (Richard Carels) (03/21/89)
In article <12101@reed.UUCP> wab@reed.UUCP (Bill Baker) writes: >Remember the Model T? Henry Ford only made a few bucks on each >T, but he sold millions of them. VW turned out cheap Bugs like >hotcakes and made a mint. The Mac was supposed to be the same kind of >deal. Yes, remember the Ford Model T?, it was produced for a long time, without any changes, so when everyone had one, nobody wanted one anymore (MORAL: you have to trigger the market with new, improved models to keep making $$). And, remember the VW Beatle (or Bugs)? They were developed in the 1930's or 1940's, and in the 1970's Volkswagen was still producing cars based on this, for the 1970's obsolete, model. This was almost the end of Volkswagen (MORAL: you have to keep up with the modern developments to stay alive). Thank God (and APPLE) the MAC is not like any of these two, and APPLE is spending a lot of money on Research and Development, otherwise we would have been stuck with 512k MACs forever. Flames > /dev/null Disclaimer: These opninions are my own. You can use them free for one day. If you like them, send your shareware fee to me.
billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) (03/22/89)
In article <11346@ut-emx.UUCP> mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: >In article <1084@lts.UUCP> amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) writes: >>WARNING: This article contains blunt language and may be offensive to >>family audiences. It is also my final word on the subject, at least >>on this go-around. Sigh. Some of us have work to do. > >I hesitate to lock horns with such a gargantuan intellect, but since Amanda >seems to singularly lack perspective, I must... You are truly an idiot. >No, NOT bullshit, Amanda. The TRUTH. The Macintosh was marketed on its >concept. I have dozens of magazine articles, ranging from the Wall Street >Journal to St. Mac, which make a great deal of the CONCEPT of the Macintosh. >I must emphasize this point, since the architecture itself was not usable-- >certainly not by PC standards. If Apple's own marketing figures are to be >believed, at least 100,000 users were stuck with using MacWrite, MultiPlan, >Habadex, and MS-BASIC for at least nine months--and it actually took as long >as a year and a half to get some good software. STUCK with MacWrite and MultiPlan? MultiPlan was and is better than 1-2-3 version 2.0 and 1-2-3 is much newer. As for MacWrite, is had WYSIWYG and pictures containted in text in 1984. By comparasion, the IBM family just got WYSIWIG and pictures in text about a year ago with WordPerfect 5.0 (which still sucks). > > >> one was instantly forced into software >> obsolescence. Original 128K owners have payed up to $4495 to keep their >> computer "current." >> >>At this point, the 64K ROM->128K ROM upgrade has become and upgrade or >>die situation, but IF AND ONLY IF you need new software. Even this has >>more to do with software companies than Apple. > >No, not really--software companies will take advantage of the hardware plat- >form. That isn't the point. You can still run the software written before roughly 1987, which was perfectly good software. Only if you want to run new software do you NEED an upgrade. >It's unrealistic not to expect them to do so. In reality, the Macintosh >128 (we're talking memory, not ROM's) was a short-sighted concept: when Apple >should have been making computers, it was building toasters. If the engineer- >ing articles in Byte in '84 and '85 are to be believed, the original Macintosh >was not what it could have been. If anybody who knows their ass from a hole in the ground is to be believed, then the IBM PC wasn't everything that it could have been in 1983. > >To this day, I have difficulty understanding why the Mac 128 was not released >with at least a high-speed hard disk interface. Of course, if we give the >gripers on usenet credit, this might be an example of planned obsolescence-- >release a limited computer, with lots of marketing (ala NeXT), fund R&D for >the next year or so on initial sales, then nuke it later on, replacing it >with a USEFUL computer. If this is the case, wouldn't you agree that the >tradition of mistrusting Apple upgrades is somewhat justified? How many people did you know who had a hard drive in 1984? or 1983, which was when it was designed. > >> I do, however, think that the Plus-era is perfectly usable for 99% of us-- >> I like mine, and have no interest in upgrading in the foreseeable future-- >> >>Right. So who cares if it's obsolete? I'm serious here. A lot of >>people (at least on Usenet) seem to think they have a right to have >>the best now, because when they bought their machine, it was the best >>then. They don't think this way about their cars, or their stereos, >>or whatever; I don't see why the computer ought to be any different. > >Just how many people are griping about the Plus being obsolete? Not me. And >not anyone I know. Seems to me that the people griping loudest are those >who spend thousands of dollars right before a machine introduction--such as >people who bought SE's in January, right before the SE/30 introduction. Kind of the person who buys a stereo receiver just before the next year's model comes out with FMX and hi-blend. They get the shaft, so what is your point? >The >typical "industry" reply is to say that someone would be an idiot to buy a >Macintosh in January, but a lot of computer users ARE idiots. Do you think >that these users should then be forced to take a loss on their SE investment, >then pour an extra couple grand into buying a superior machine? I don't. > >I DO think that a means should be made to meet these people halfway. It >might not be economical, but it keeps the customer happy. > >> When they stabilize with >> an architecture, or maybe design an expandable architecture, I'll jump >> on the bandwagon. >> >>Like maybe the PC/XT/AT/PS2/clone "architecture"? :-). Apple's done a >>good job balancing changing technology and product stability. It's hard. > >No, like the Apple II architecture--the basic 1978-era machine could be >expanded and modified to keep place with technology until the current day. >That's a far cry from the nine-month obsolescence period of current Mac's. >If you want a more sophisticated example, what about S-100 systems? You can't run GS/OS on an Apple ][. Neither can you run AppleWorks. > >>The same boards work in a IIcx that work in a II or IIx (or even an SE/30 >>if you buy an expansion chassis...). > >How about an SE? Uh-huh... How about 16-bit ISA "AT-bus" cards or MicroChannel cards in a PC, or Convertible, or even Compaq SLT/286. > >> The same software runs on an >>SE/30 as on a Mac Plus. It runs it better, granted, but that's part of >>the point of a growing product line. > >Just how does it run it "better"? What is your criteria? Seems to me that >it runs it FASTER, but that's only due to brute-force clock speed. Surely, >having been a member of a hardware design team, you can clarify your thoughts >better than THAT. > Just what do you mean by clock speed? Processor, Co-processor, bus, ram-refresh, or monitor scan rate? I would than that you can clarify your thoughts better than THAT. > >>Apple makes a lot of money. Apple also (so far) has been >>willing to spend a lot of money on the future. Apple is driving its own >>technology, something that costs a lot of money and involves a lot of >>risk. > >My premiss is that Apple makes a lot more money than it spends on R&D. When >one considers the tales of, for example, how the Mac 128 was priced, it's >very easy to cultivate a distrust of the company's pricing structures. And >yes, Amanda, any child knows that there are substantial development costs-- >but the issue here is whether, on a $2500 machine, the $200 hardware costs >exceed the development and marketing costs. Which I believe to be the case. Apple doesn't get all $2500. Dealers put incredible mark-ups on the machines becuase they are not available mail-order. > >By the way, Amanda, how does your "development" theory fit into the incredible >overpricing on Apple peripherals? I mean, merely THAT is sufficient cause >to question the pricing of the CPU boxes. Who cares, Apple hard drives aren't worth buying, the tape backup sucks, and CD-ROM is dead. I refuse to comment on the LaserWriters because I really love the NTX and would pay full price, and any PostScript printer can replace an NT. Apple's products are very sturdy, though. We have LaserWriter Pluses here at U of M that have printed more than 25,000,000 pages. We have a closet full of NT's waiting to replace them, but the old ones won't break. > >>What's AppleCare? > >A protection racket. Agreed. Macs don't really break except through abuse anyway. One glaring exception is the flyback transformers on old 512's. Everybody makes mistakes. > >>Apple's not perfect. No computer company is. I happen to think, for a >>lot of reasons, that Apple's the best we've got > >Yes, they produce most usable equipment. However, I think that Apple >also has a very large number of disgruntled customers. As soon as a realistic >market competitor appears (if they dare run the gauntlet of Apple's lawyers), >I think that's going to be the end of Apple Computer. In today's market, >though, I'm not going to hold my breath. I don't know anyone who is disgruntled with Apple, except price-wise. And I think you can blame most of that on dealers. +----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Bollinger | Internet: billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu | | 4297 Sulgrave Dr. +------+---------------------------------------------+ | Swartz Creek, Mi. 48473 | "My employer doesn't take my opinion any | +-----------------------------+ more seriously than you do." | | "You remember the IIe, it +---------------------------------------------+ | was the machine Apple made before they decided people didn't need | | machines with big screens, color, or slots." | | - Harry Anderson (from NBC's Night Court) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (03/22/89)
In article <11346@ut-emx.UUCP>, mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: > > To this day, I have difficulty understanding why the Mac 128 was not released > with at least a high-speed hard disk interface. Steve Jobs. At one time he was convinced that the Mac needed no more than 70 characters/line in its display. He figured this out by examining some number of typewritten documents...most of which had the margins set to give 70 characters or less. I was very nearly roasted by him when I passed him one day in the hallway and mentioned that 70 might not be enough for some reasonable applications. (I was saved when he got sidetracked into trying to find out where the leak had originated...) He was entranced with the visual design of the Cuisinart. Literally. He was very hot on the notion of the Mac as an appliance: just plug it into the wall and go. And the "high-speed" serial ports were a Good Thing, SCSI ports and the like were unecessary. And on and on. > > When they stabilize with > > an architecture, or maybe design an expandable architecture, I'll jump > > on the bandwagon. > > > No, like the Apple II architecture--the basic 1978-era machine could be > expanded and modified to keep place with technology until the current day. > That's a far cry from the nine-month obsolescence period of current Mac's. > If you want a more sophisticated example, what about S-100 systems? The Apple ][ what?!!!! I spent nearly five years in the Apple// division (whatever the name at any given time). The Apple//gs is an overpriced slug. Grossly overpriced. And it needn't have turned out that way, but that's the way things are today. Your example is a very bad one. It reeks. I hope the Mac doesn't follow the Apple//'s trail, much as I enjoyed using my //s for several years. > By the way, Amanda, how does your "development" theory fit into the incredible > overpricing on Apple peripherals? I mean, merely THAT is sufficient cause > to question the pricing of the CPU boxes. Apple (and most other manufacturers) use a fixed (by each given company) formula for pricing their equipment. Typically based on their cost per unit *at the time they begin producing machines for introduction*. Price schedules for peripherals are different than CPUs, mostly because more of the peripheral's internals are made by outside suppliers. You can bet the prices are going to be higher. (Take a look at the prices of DEC or HP peripherals some time...) Usually the price declines over time, but not at the rate at which the actual production cost declines. Not nearly. Roughly, the original Mac cost about 25% of what the selling price was. Apple had to pay for production, R&D, rent, office supplies, salaries, marketing, sales, marketing,... At one point, shortly after Mr. Sculley joined Apple (one of the best things to ever happen to the company, imo), twice as much money was being spent on marketing the Apple// as was spent actually making them. Apple's support is pathetic. Apple's warranties are insulting. Good luck in getting Apple to change their ways. Me, I'm going to push for commercial space flight in my lifetime.
mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) (03/22/89)
In article <95131@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >In article <11346@ut-emx.UUCP>, mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: >> To this day, I have difficulty understanding why the Mac 128 was not released >> with at least a high-speed hard disk interface. > >Steve Jobs. The detractors will please note that I have thus far avoided taking jabs at Jobs... :-) >I spent nearly five years in the Apple// division (whatever the name at >any given time). The Apple//gs is an overpriced slug. Grossly overpriced. >And it needn't have turned out that way, but that's the way things are >today. Your example is a very bad one. It reeks. I hope the Mac doesn't >follow the Apple//'s trail, much as I enjoyed using my //s for several >years. My interest in the Apple II lasted until about 1982. I still maintain that a machine that retains some level of expandability--and few can doubt that the II NEEDED to be expanded--for such a long time is something to be ad- mired. Agreed that the //GS is an overpriced slug. Right now, though, I think the II series should be nuked--but considering the attitudes of some so-called "educators" I know, that would be a very bad market mistake for Apple. >> By the way, Amanda, how does your "development" theory fit into the incredible >> overpricing on Apple peripherals? I mean, merely THAT is sufficient cause >> to question the pricing of the CPU boxes. > >Apple (and most other manufacturers) use a fixed (by each given company) >Price schedules for peripherals are different than CPUs, mostly because >more of the peripheral's internals are made by outside suppliers. You >can bet the prices are going to be higher. (Take a look at the prices >of DEC or HP peripherals some time...) Well, I can also look at it like this: a year and a half ago, I bought a ST-251N hard disk. Slapped on a power supply, stuck it in a case, installed a system cable, and had a 40-meg disk--for about $500. At that time, Apple was selling their slower 40-meg disk for $2000 (it may have been more; I can only remember the Consortium cost). The point here that strikes me is that at the time, an IBM user could toss 40 megs into HIS computer for less than I built *mine*. Inability to compete on the basis of storage has always struck me as a weak point on the Mac. >At one point, shortly after Mr. Sculley joined Apple (one of the best >things to ever happen to the company, imo), I agree entirely. I also see evidence that Apple's scrambling to try to create a more unified machine--there's a lot of leftover garbage from the Apple II days. However, that does not help the poor sods who buy overpriced equipment on the eve of them becoming obsolete. >Good luck in getting Apple to change their ways. Me, I'm going to >push for commercial space flight in my lifetime. This is just my annual tirade against Apple. I like to fool myself into think- ing it makes a difference. It's good practice, at least. :-) There seem to be an amazing number of ninnies reading the net these days, though...:-) Cheers, Robert Dorsett Internet: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mentat
mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) (03/22/89)
In article <4228fb1e.a590@mag.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) writes: >You are truly an idiot. Oh, come on kiddies. Why don't you go into a corner and cool off. Please come back, but only when you're prepared to show at least an iota of maturity. >STUCK with MacWrite and MultiPlan? MultiPlan was and is better than 1-2-3 >version 2.0 and 1-2-3 is much newer. As for MacWrite, is had WYSIWYG and >pictures containted in text in 1984. By comparasion, the IBM family just got >WYSIWIG and pictures in text about a year ago with WordPerfect 5.0 (which >still sucks). And with this, Mr. Bilkatt starts off on a totally irrelevant comparison of the IBM PC to the Macintosh. My comment was merely meant to point out that from a "real user's" viewpoint, the PC did--and does--offer business solutions that work. It is a continuing strong point, particularly when one considers that the underlying platform for that software is usually several thousand dollars cheaper. It is only since 1986 that the Macintosh has started to become a viable business machine. >>No, not really--software companies will take advantage of the hardware plat- >>form. > >That isn't the point. You can still run the software written before roughly >1987, which was perfectly good software. Only if you want to run new software >do you NEED an upgrade. Listen, child, "obsolete" does not mean "broken." I KNOW that old machines can run software that was written for them--that's stating the obvious. I have a friend with a TI 99/4A that still chirps along running ITS crap. The point is that for a long time,the Macintosh user was compelled to upgrade to match the computer to his initial expectations--which were, to a very large extent, fuelled by Apple marketing ("The computer for the rest of us."). >If anybody who knows their ass from a hole in the ground is to be believed, >then the IBM PC wasn't everything that it could have been in 1983. The PC didn't have the model of the Lisa (or the strong influence from PARC) to contend with, either. Expectations among consumers were very high. >You can't run GS/OS on an Apple ][. Neither can you run AppleWorks. I wouldn't know--I gave up on the II a long time ago. There was a version of AppleWorks floating around in 1982, which was intended for the II Plus. Probably ran on the II, but I can't say. Personally, I couldn't stand Appleworks. >>>The same boards work in a IIcx that work in a II or IIx (or even an SE/30 >>>if you buy an expansion chassis...). >> >>How about an SE? Uh-huh... > >How about 16-bit ISA "AT-bus" cards or MicroChannel cards in a PC, or >Convertible, or even Compaq SLT/286. You're comparing Apples to IBMs again--why? While you're about it, why not try to plug in a IIX monitor card into a PC? I really don't see your point. >Just what do you mean by clock speed? Processor, Co-processor, bus, >ram-refresh, or monitor scan rate? I would than that you can clarify your >thoughts better than THAT. I will leave that to Amanda. >Apple doesn't get all $2500. Dealers put incredible mark-ups on the machines >becuase they are not available mail-order. I priced it once--at the best, the dealer gets 50%, and usually quite a bit less. Dealers don't make much money on hardware, if a number of salesman- acquaintances are to be believed. >Agreed. Macs don't really break except through abuse anyway. One glaring >exception is the flyback transformers on old 512's. Everybody makes mistakes. Hmm, if that happened on a car, I would suspect we would have seen a major callback. >I don't know anyone who is disgruntled with Apple, except price-wise. And I >think you can blame most of that on dealers. This entire discussion is about prices compared to what one gets, kiddo. Robert Dorsett Internet: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mentat
ngg@bridge2.3Com.Com (Norman Goodger) (03/24/89)
In article <864@tasis.utas.oz> ben@tasis.utas.oz (Ben Lian) writes: > I'm going to get rid of the Mac Plus while I still can get some money for it, take a loan out to acquire a IIcx (and humouring Apple one last time), then toss out the IIcx for a NeXT when the software for it matures in about 1 to 1-1/2 years' time. I'll bet you that NeXT has really got Apple worried, eh? Just as commercial companies aim to maximise the profit of the shareholders, you should aim to maximise what you get out of the good money you pay for a PC. To heck with allegiances if another company produces a better machine, and there is good software for it as well. BTW, I don't know if NeXT is going to be able to hold their pricing on their machine. The $6,500 announced for their base configuration is almost too good to be true. >>>>>>>>> I think that the wait for NeXT to do anything is going to be a lot longer than one thinks, there has not much been made of the "cube" since a few weeks after it was announceed and Job's short comings in the machine started to sink in...If it ever really ships, its not going to dent Apple's market....its still a unix box, and the average Mac user is not going to love Unix no matter what front end you stick on it... -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-Sysop FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything)
ben@tasis.utas.oz (Ben Lian) (03/24/89)
In article <42206779.a590@mag.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) writes: >In article <864@tasis.utas.oz> ben@tasis.utas.oz (Ben Lian) writes: >>one last time), then toss out the IIcx for a NeXT when the software for >>it matures in about 1 to 1-1/2 years' time. I'll bet you that NeXT has >>really got Apple worried, eh? Just as commercial companies aim to >>maximise the profit of the shareholders, you should aim to maximise what >>you get out of the good money you pay for a PC. To heck with allegiances >>if another company produces a better machine, and there is good software >>for it as well. >> >>BTW, I don't know if NeXT is going to be able to hold their pricing on >>their machine. The $6,500 announced for their base configuration is >>almost too good to be true. >> >What would you be content with? There is always something better. As for >a company making a better machine, the NeXT isn't it. Besides, there is no >software for it. [Deleted description of problems with NeXT and praise of the Decstation 3100.] >I just don't see how so many people can be duped with the newest media darling, >when what they have does everything they want. As for Apple being scared, I >don't think the NeXT keeps them awake at night. Ah ha! Someone took my bait! And Touche! Point is that it is very to get any objective assessments of new products except through lengthy hands-on use. I read the write-ups in BYTE and MacWorld and thought that the machine was just too good to be true. HOWEVER, assuming that the descriptions of the O/S are accurate, then there may yet be salvation for the machine. We'll just have to wait and see. I suspect that the original enthusiasm for NeXT was caused by the apparently good price/performance ratio. As for being content with the Mac family, I am, by and large, but NOT with their pricing here in Australia. You should see how much we pay for them, even from the Consortium. I am a long time Apple owner, having worked my way through a II+, a IIe, a Fat Mac and now a Mac Plus, and have seen the way Apple's prices have jinked up and down. But then, I guess business is business, and the only thing to do is to grin and bear it. And to repeat what I said in my previous posting, if you are in the market for a new machine and you see better value for money elsewhere, there is no reason to remain loyal to a brand if it doesn't provide what you perceive it should. I've stuck with Apple this far, but they are starting to get a little too expensive. -- bl ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Y H Lian ACSnet: ben@tasis.utas.oz Dept. of EE & CS ARPA : ben%tasis.utas.oz.au@uunet.uu.net University of Tasmania BITnet: munnari!tasis.utas.oz!ben@ GPO Box 252C uunet.uu.net (I think) Hobart, Tasmania 7001 UUCP : {enea,hplabs,mcvax,uunet,ukc}! A U S T R A L I A munnari!tasis.utas.oz!ben -----------------------------------------------------------------------
kelvin@cs.utexas.edu (Kelvin Thompson) (03/25/89)
In article <11346@ut-emx.UUCP>, mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: | | > The Macintosh was originally sold as a CONCEPT--with neither the | > software or hardware being adequate to support that concept. | > | >Bullshit. Nothing is sold as a concept (aside, perhaps, from real | >estate scams :-)). The Mac was and is sold as a product. There was | >and is a concept behind the product, and that concept *still* isn't | >fully realized, but that's a separate issue. | | No, NOT bullshit, Amanda. The TRUTH. The Macintosh was marketed on its | concept. I have dozens of magazine articles, ranging from the Wall Street | Journal to St. Mac, which make a great deal of the CONCEPT of the Macintosh. | I must emphasize this point, since the architecture itself was not usable-- | certainly not by PC standards. If Apple's own marketing figures are to be | believed, at least 100,000 users were stuck with using MacWrite, MultiPlan, | Habadex, and MS-BASIC for at least nine months--and it actually took as long | as a year and a half to get some good software. Well, I was one of those 100,000 users and I found it "useable," whether or not by "PC standards". I used a Mac 128 with two floppy drives and an an Imagewriter to do a 100-page, 20-figure Masters thesis. True, I had to partition the thesis into 7-page segments, I eventually had to give up on merging graphics into MacWrite, and I had to do a lot of floppy swapping and waiting on Finder.... It certainly would have been nice to have done it a few years later on a Mac II with a hard disk and MultiFinder, but I had an October 1984 deadline. Given the constraints -- fall of 1984, writing a thesis (with figures), my spending power -- the Mac 128 was the best thing around. (Plus I had MacTerminal and a modem.) Screw whatever "concepts" the ads had, the machine was worth the money. | To this day, I have difficulty understanding why the Mac 128 was not | released with at least a high-speed hard disk interface. I have no difficulty: Apple had to make some design and marketing compromises. The same reason it had 128K instead of 512K of RAM. | Robert Dorsett | Internet: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu | UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mentat -- -- Kelvin Thompson, Lone Rider of the Apocalypse kelvin@cs.utexas.edu {...,uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!kelvin
kathie@tekecs.GWD.TEK.COM (Kathleen Huddleston) (03/25/89)
Dealers do make a healthy profit on Apple, but less that you might think. Apple sells to dealers for approx. 65% retail (depends on your volume -- the really big dealers do a bit better), and the street prices on Apple things are 70-80% of suggested retail, so dealers make 5-15% per unit. There are some other factors in the dealer world (Apple partially supports advertising, etc.), but it's not the huge profits some might imagine.
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (03/28/89)
In article <1084@lts.UUCP> amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) writes: >At this point, the 64K ROM->128K ROM upgrade has become and upgrade or >die situation, but IF AND ONLY IF you need new software. Even this has >more to do with software companies than Apple. Absolutely. I have a friend who does all her work for law school on an old 512 with a single 400k disk drive. Works great for her, and she has no plans to upgrade in the near future. I'm still running with my 512->512e->2meg+SCSI (third party) and am very happy. Occasionally I feel like I want a bigger screen, but it's not so important. I run all the current software (although not in color, of course), so why does everyone think that they absolutely need the newest, top-of-the-line Mac? Why not wait a while and see what else comes out of Cupertino? Buy a super-fast 140meg hard disk and a Plus, throw an extra meg of memory in, and you've got a pretty terrific system (unless you're doing all sorts of number-crunching, or you want to use PixelPaint, I suppose). So what if it's obsolete in a couple of years? You'll only be out the money you spent on the Plus, and that's only about a grand or so. Less than the Mac II->Mac IIx upgrade cost that some people are griping about. And who knows what will be available in 1991. Maybe you'll really want one of the first commercially-available NeXTs. Then how will you feel with 10 grand sunk in a Mac IIx? Well, that's enough for now. As with everything, if you can afford it, fine, but if you can't, or if you have other things to spend your money on, well, you just have to make do for a while. Welcome to the real world. -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." cmcl2!esquire!sbb | esquire!sbb@cmcl2.nyu.edu | - David Letterman
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (03/28/89)
In article <4228fb1e.a590@mag.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) writes: >Who cares, Apple hard drives aren't worth buying, the tape backup sucks, and >CD-ROM is dead. I refuse to comment on the LaserWriters because I really >love the NTX and would pay full price, and any PostScript printer can replace >an NT. Just a note about the NTX. Few people seem to have noticed, but it is truly a breakthrough product (just like the original Macintosh and the Mac II were). A few years from now, when *every* printer has PostScript and *every* printer has a SCSI interface, people will be griping about how much Apple charges for the NTX, and why they didn't put a SCSI port on the original LaserWriter, since *everyone* knows that a printer is useless without 173 resident fonts. Apple products let you do whole *worlds* more than comparable PC-based products (and even Unix-based products, unless you're willing to hire a few sysadmins to maintain your network for you). They let you do all this *now*, not five years from now. It's hard to justify paying $5000 for a 16Mhz 68030 and a floppy drive, but it becomes much easier when you decide to network a few of them, or put one or more LaserWriters on AppleTalk and make them available to every Macintosh you've purchased (running every Macintosh application). If my friend at Citibank were running an "inexpensive" PC-based system, I wouldn't be able to give him the number of a mail-order house and have him just call up and order a half-dozen fonts. "Sure, Mark, just drop them in your System Folder". Try that on a PC. Try adding a second monitor to a PS/2. Fat chance. Try using a *large* monitor on a PS/2. Does it run with all your software? Nope. In fact, try doing what my friend Mark (who has no technical background) did at Citibank with their Macintoshes: buy LocalTalk cabling, AppleShare, and a LaserWriter and install a complete functioning network in an afternoon. Then ask whether it's worth paying a little extra for your hardware, even if it is just a terribly slow 68030 with only 1 meg of memory and no fast static RAM cache or any other bells and whistles. For all the expense, I think you really do get your money's worth from a Macintosh system. So I wish people would stop griping about how much money Apple is making on each sale and how little of it they're investing in new hardware design. Instead, be glad that you can do *now* what people who own every other type of computer (personal and otherwise) won't be able to do for years yet. -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." cmcl2!esquire!sbb | esquire!sbb@cmcl2.nyu.edu | - David Letterman
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (03/28/89)
In article <11374@ut-emx.UUCP> mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: >The point here that strikes me is that at the time, an IBM user could toss 40 >megs into HIS computer for less than I built *mine*. Inability to compete on >the basis of storage has always struck me as a weak point on the Mac. It's the PC world's inability to compete on the basis of *software* that's always struck *me* as more of a problem. I don't care that my PC buddies have cheap 80 meg hard disks -- they still can't effectively use a PostScript printer for the majority of their software, or do even rudimentary cut and pasting between applications. And once said IBM user tossed the 40meg disk into his system, he could run Illustrator, just like you, right? Or PageMaker? Or Excel? Plus, no one forces you to buy peripherals from Apple. Buy them from Jasmine and save some bucks. Apple hardware is definitely overpriced when compared to similar hardware from other vendors (although it's not *that* much more expensive than offerings from IBM or Compaq). But their (system) software is truly a bargain. It's good to have a little perspective on the state of computing before you gripe, gripe, gripe.... (P.S. I hear DOS 4.0 just broke the 32meg disk size "barrier" and also lets you run a visual shell. Wow! What an advance! Lots of R&D going on in the Microsoft labs these days, huh? I sure am glad I saved all this money by buying a PC... :-) -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." cmcl2!esquire!sbb | esquire!sbb@cmcl2.nyu.edu | - David Letterman
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (03/28/89)
In article <11376@ut-emx.UUCP> mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: >And with this, Mr. Bilkatt starts off on a totally irrelevant comparison of >the IBM PC to the Macintosh. My comment was merely meant to point out that >from a "real user's" viewpoint, the PC did--and does--offer business solutions >that work. It is a continuing strong point, particularly when one considers >that the underlying platform for that software is usually several thousand >dollars cheaper. They work only if you don't want to do anything differently than you did in 1985 or 1986. But many business now want to run things like PageMaker, Windows, Illustrator, Excel -- things that were either available on the Macintosh years ago or were part of it's system software from the beginning -- and find that they simply can't, because either the software is just now becoming available or because it makes too many demands on their hardware. Which means that all of a sudden that bargain hardware isn't really such a bargain any more. And all those old Pluses still run all that software (and all the new stuff too). Glad I still have my old, overpriced Plus... -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." cmcl2!esquire!sbb | esquire!sbb@cmcl2.nyu.edu | - David Letterman
ngg@bridge2.3Com.Com (Norman Goodger) (04/06/89)
This message is in response to a couple of messages about mac pricing, upgrades, super drives, etc. The jist of one poster is obsolesence is in the mind of the user. If you need a new Mac, you'll buy it or upgrade. Another poster comes back and says that the Mac was started as a concept, and was not viable until the Plus came out which forced users to upgrade to a Plus or die....THere are some good points in each post..and there was to much stuff to quote. No Mac user has ever been forced to upgrade, there are people out there still using 128K Mac's with Write and Paint and its doing what they want it to. Other people are never satisfied and no matter what Apple did, it would not make any difference, they would find fault. I for one am glad that Apple has provided upgrades for most "every" System they've made. Unlike the "blue" counterparts where your alternative is a clone or a new computer, which either way is a new computer for $$$. While the new upgrade prices are hefty, no one will deny that, you get alot of performance for your $$ over the machine its replacing, in light of future system software or if you are moving from say an SE to SE30. I don't buy the "mac is a Concept" stuff, Job's original visions for the Mac do not qualify to me as a concept. Marketing scheme perhaps, but thats as far as it goes. The bottom line is you do what you need to do to get your work done. If that requires a new & faster Mac, you'll pay for it. If your Plus or SE does the job, why worry about it? BTW one poster mentioned something about Apple trade in's for older to newer CPU's, while Apple does not do this a variety of Dealers do. They'll give you a fair price in trade for your Mac to which ever new one you want. While NOT all dealers do this some do. Chances are you could get a few hundred more than you'll get in trade by selling outright, the opportunity is still there if you do not want to go thru the hassles of selling to upgrade. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-Sysop FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything)