twakeman@hpcea.CE.HP.COM (Teriann Wakeman) (09/21/88)
And the schism between the haves and have nots in this country keeps
getting bigger.
Once upon a time, there was a company called Apple Computer that was going
to bring the computer to the rest of us. Thousands of Macintoshes were
donated to schools. A group was formed inside Apple to come up with ways
to maximize Macintosh usability by handicaped people. Schools in poor
largely non-white areas were targeted for special help so that the kids
might someday find work on a more equal footing with their counterparts
from more financially advantaged areas. A group within Apple became
concerned by the lack of participation by girls in school computer
activities.
In a country where for the last eight years {years of prosparity according
to our president} the gap between the have nots and the haves have
widened; Where the average yearly income for a full time employee in
this country is under $25,000/year; Where more children then ever do not
live in homes because their parents cannot afford to house them; Apple has
spent considerable resources trying to bring computer literacy to the
poor and disadvantaged.
What has this accomplished? Many children from poor families have been
exposed to computers in schools for a few years and have come to realize
that with time they may be able to learn enough to free themselves from the
generations of poverty that spawned them. Do they get a chance to continue
learning at home or after they pass that sometimes brief window of exposure?
I suspect that all of us who have access to the NET and the know-how
to use it either have or soon anticipate having an income that has
enough disposable income to purchase a computer system. We use our
knowledge of the computer to help provide our income. We bitch about
Apple raising their prices and many of us go ahead and buy that new
system, grumbling all the way from the bank to the computer store.
But how many more people are there that now can not afford a Macintosh?
{Do you really think that the Plus will be sold much longer?}
What of all the work being done by groups within Apple exposing people to a
dream that they will never be able to afford??
Whatever happened to the dream of the computer for the rest of us? To the
vision of Mac decendants as common in households as a toaster?
When was the last time you saw a Mac being advertized as the computer
for the rest of us? Who are the rest of us?
Has the dream become a tease to those ever increasing numbers of people
who can not afford a Macintosh?
If the dream dies what of the dreamer?
TeriAnntedj@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Ted Johnson) (09/21/88)
>Whatever happened to the dream of the computer for the rest of us? To the >vision of Mac decendants as common in households as a toaster? I think you answer your own question (see below) >When was the last time you saw a Mac being advertized as the computer >for the rest of us? Apple hasn't advertised this way in a long time because THEY NO LONGER THINK THAT WAY. They are into making bucks, and are doing a very good job of it. Macs were never cheap, and I doubt there ever will be. So people may as well stop belaboring the point. I DO agree with TeriAnn that it would be great if everyone could be able to afford a Mac, but I don't think that Apple will ever make it possible. I think that this will only come about if Mac clones start appearing.... BTW, does anyone have any recent information about the progress of THE lawsuit? ;-) -Ted #include <std.disclaimer>
dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) (09/22/88)
Terriann asks: >Whatever happened to the dream of the computer for the rest of us? To the >vision of Mac decendants as common in households as a toaster? >When was the last time you saw a Mac being advertized as the computer >for the rest of us? Who are the rest of us? >Has the dream become a tease to those ever increasing numbers of people >who can not afford a Macintosh? I think the answer is that it died when Steve Jobs, Andy Hertzfeld, Burrell Smith, Guy Kawasaki all left Apple. Apple's focus for the Macintosh is no longer the individual--it is the individual in BUSINESS. Or the power to be your best in a CORPORATE WORLD. The vast majority of Macs are now sold directly into businesses. Gone (for the most part are those of US who put our money where our mouth was and personally bought a Mac and took it to work. Apple does not care about us anymore...their prices reflect that. To my mind the minimal Macintosh is a Mac II with at least 2 megs of memory, Color and at least a 90 meg hard disk. How many individuals will be able to afford this at the rate Apple's prices are going? Not many I assure you. So, where can we turn? Perhaps Steve Jobs once again...if the rumors of the features and price of his 4meg 68030 machine have enough truth to them. Steve Jobs took Jeff Raskin's vision of an appliance computer and productized it. John Sculley, JL Gassee have taken that vision in turn to grow Apple into a organization whose focus is to sell Macs to Businesses and Apple II's to Individuals. I don't want an Apple II, and I won't buy one. I want a Personal Workstation, and I think NeXt Inc. will be shipping one shortly. I wish Apple success in its ventures into the fortune 500... However a word of caution that I hope the Apple employes on the net can communicate up their management chain: There are a lot of little guys (I call them Change Agents) that you are leaving behind. We are the people who bought your machines in the past. We are the people who took your machines to work when management said a personal comptuer had to run MS-DOS. We are the people who develop small and large niche markets for you to penetrate by selling hardware. We are the people who CAN NO LONGER AFFORD YOUR STATE OF THE ART MACINTOSHES. We have to choose between buying cars, houses, feeding and clothing our families and (in the case of students) pay for our education. Your price points no longer make it feasible for us to choose Apple. What happened to increasing performance and functionality thru the use of the declining cost of technology? What is the REAL cost differential of using a 25 mhrz 68030 in the Mac IIx or even a 33m? Why didn't the SE ship with a 68000 at 16mhrz? The gap of access to technology and information has just grown wider. Perhaps some other company will step in to fill the void that exists, one can only hope. David L. Williams Change Agent Macintosh owner (since 1984) dlw@hpda.HP.COM ...!hplabs!hpda!dlw
viking@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (09/22/88)
"A computer for the rest of us." I think that idea followed Steve Jobs over to NeXT. :-) Seriously, I *do* think the Mac Plus will be sold for a while longer...and maybe even for less money. The problem seems to be a conflict between the corporate need to maximize profits (that's why they hired a guy from Pepsi, you know) and a tradition of innovation that may not be as valued anymore. The fact that Apple raised prices without warning (even developers found out after the fact) makes me a bit angry and disappointed, but I'll have to reserve judgement until the K-12 Mac and other announced products are presented to the public before I give up on Apple totally. Oh well...just a thought...
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/22/88)
>"A computer for the rest of us." > >I think that idea followed Steve Jobs over to NeXT. :-) Seriously, I >*do* think the Mac Plus will be sold for a while longer...and maybe >even for less money. > >The problem seems to be a conflict between the corporate need to maximize >profits (that's why they hired a guy from Pepsi, you know) and a tradition >of innovation that may not be as valued anymore. Are you sure you folks aren't living a Fantasy? I bought into the Macintosh early. A 128K, two floppy system ran me $2800 (THAT early. I still have it, it's still working every day, although now it's got two megs and a hard disk. And is on it's third analog board....). My 512K upgrade ran me $700 or so. I can't believe anyone who's been involved with the Mac since early days EVER believed they were buying on price. The Mac has never been the 'cheap' machine. It's always been for 'the rest of us' who knew there had to be something better than MS-DOS and cryptic commands. It wasn't a price point, it was a philosophy. And I don't believe Apple EVER marketed the Mac as the machine for those who couldn't affor a PC. The rest of us are those folks who want machines that work WITH us, not AGAINST us. The Mac as 'cheap commodity for all us poor folks' is a Fantasy created by those who want it. It's not Apple's dream, and never has been. So quit screaming at Apple for not being something they never pretended to be. You want cheap, go buy an Atari or an Apple ][. You want state of the art, you want good, you want power, you want Toys, you have to expect to pay for it. The best always extracts a premium. And Apple deserves it. I *could* have saved myself enough money to buy a second Mac by waiting until the prices dropped to where they have today. Think about what it cost to buy a 128K then, and how much Mac you could get for that now (two Mac Plusses, at street price). Then look at the University program, the University discounts, the developer discounts. Go price what an IBM PS/2 with enough hardware to run the Presentation Manager costs -- and be willing to wait for the presentation manager on top of it. Take a look at the cost curve of the Mac line since the introduction. And then compare that to the power curve. THEN tell me the Mac used to be 'for the rest of us' and isn't any more. THEN tell me the Mac is expensive. It's a damn sight less expensive than the Good Old Days you all seem to remember so fondly..... If you don't like Mac prices, don't buy Macs. Go buy a PS/2, and run something that's almost as good, almost as fast, and almost as cheap as a Mac. There are those of us who happen to be glad that Apple isn't giving away the future (those margins and high prices, among other things, guarantee the research and development that'll make future Mac's even better. Give them away today, they won't exist tomorrow). Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms
gwe@cbnews.ATT.COM (George W. Erhart) (09/23/88)
In article <69545@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>"A computer for the rest of us." >Are you sure you folks aren't living a Fantasy? I bought into the Macintosh >early. A 128K, two floppy system ran me $2800 (THAT early. I still have it, >it's still working every day, although now it's got two megs and a hard disk. >And is on it's third analog board....). My 512K upgrade ran me $700 or so. Hold on Chuq ... I, too, was an early purchaser of a Mac 128K. The thing that you are forgetting is that the equivalent IBM machine (the PC) fell in price and has always been cheaper to upgrade. I know that comparing the two machines is like comparing apples (pun) and oranges in terms of hardware and software. Personally, I have been waiting for an inexpensive color mac for some time now, but I am not going to pay $6000 for a Mac II. I am now considering a Mac+, 40 Meg Drive and Radius FPD, but that is still going to run $3000+ bucks. And now I have to worry about the Mac+ being unsupported (i.e. no longer manufactured) and uncompatible with furture software like my poor Mac 128K upgraded to 2 Meg via Levco. (And even with that, I am not getting color or more CPU.) One other thing, because of the price, the Mac is not the machine for the casual user. I do not use my machine enough to warrant a $6000 purchase. This is unfortunate, in that the Mac, with it's user interface, is the perfect machine for the casual user. -- George Erhart AT&T Network Systems/Bell Laboratories att!cbdkc1!gwe
landman%hanami@Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman) (09/23/88)
In article <3600031@iuvax> viking@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu writes: >The fact that Apple raised prices without warning (even developers found >out after the fact) makes me a bit angry and disappointed, but I'll have >to reserve judgement until the K-12 Mac and other announced products are >presented to the public before I give up on Apple totally. A moment's thought should convince you that they *HAD* to do it with no warning to get the desired effect. If they wanted to lower demand (and increase profit margin), it wouldn't make much sense to tell everyone that prices are going up in a month or three; that would cause a short-term INCREASE in demand (and more systems would be sold at the lower price). Timing of announcements is a tricky art, and companies have been destroyed by mismanaging it (e.g. Osborne). As far as I can see, Apple handled this one as well as possible. There are more important things to get mad at Apple for. Howard A. Landman landman@hanami.sun.com UUCP: sun!hanami!landman
bob@eecs.nwu.edu (Bob Hablutzel) (09/23/88)
> Apple does not care about us anymore...their prices reflect that. To my mind > the minimal Macintosh is a Mac II with at least 2 megs of memory, Color and > at least a 90 meg hard disk. How many individuals will be able to afford this > at the rate Apple's prices are going? Not many I assure you. I assume that a Porsche makes a good family car, too? Look, nothing personal, but I wish people would realize a few things: a Mac II is a luxury. color is a luxury. large memory is a luxury. big disks are a luxury. To my mind, the minimal Macintosh is a Mac Plus with a single floppy. It just depends on what you want to use the Mac for. If you want frills, you pay for frills. Period. One should not complain that a machine on the cutting edge with the power _and software base_ of the Mac II is expensive. You get what you pay for. (Yes, I have a Mac II. No, I don't feel any need to justify myself. I was willing to pay the price for it, and have no regrets. Of course, I'm busy writing systems programs. If I were just writting term papers, no way I'd blow my money on a Mac II). > So, where can we turn? Perhaps Steve Jobs once again...if the rumors of the > features and price of his 4meg 68030 machine have enough truth to them. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Look, with the current reputation of NeXT (Do they set release dates with a dartboard, or what?) I would wait at least a year before even considering buying one. No point in throwing out perfectly good money. Yes, even if the machine does everything but blow my nose for me. Bob Hablutzel BOB@NUACC.ACNS.NWU.EDU Disclaimer #1: These opinions are mine. Disclaimer #2: I wasn't originally going to say "blow my nose for me".
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (09/23/88)
(I probably will regret posting this, but here goes.) In article <11540170@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) writes: > >I think the answer is that it died when Steve Jobs, Andy Hertzfeld, Burrell >Smith, Guy Kawasaki all left Apple. Do you long for the days when a 128K machine cost $2000 - 2500? This is not to disparage the efforts of those people, but simply to point out that all was not perfect back in 1984. >Apple does not care about us anymore...their prices reflect that. To my mind >the minimal Macintosh is a Mac II with at least 2 megs of memory, Color and >at least a 90 meg hard disk. How many individuals will be able to afford this >at the rate Apple's prices are going? Not many I assure you. Why is this the minimal Macintosh? I doubt that many individuals would buy such a configuration from any vendor. I doubt that anyone at Apple took great joy in raising prices. If Apple was out to get every dollar possible, don't you think we would have raised prices a while ago? The demand for machines hasn't gone up only recently; it has been high for quite a while. Memory has been tight for many months. It would have been very easy to raise the price of CPUs at the same time we raised the price of memory upgrades. >However a word of caution that I hope the Apple employes on the net can communicate up their management chain: > >There are a lot of little guys (I call them Change Agents) that you are >leaving behind. You are doing this yourself. As someone pointed out, this newsgroup (among others) is summarized and distributed to hundreds of people internally who wouldn't otherwise read Usenet. >What is the REAL cost. differential of using a 25 mhrz 68030 in the Mac >IIx or even a 33m? Why didn't the SE ship with a 68000 at 16mhrz? It seems anomalous to me to complain about high prices in one paragraph and then about engineering changes such as these which would only increase the cost of the machines. Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 46-B Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr
dtw@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Duane Williams) (09/23/88)
In article <17578@apple.Apple.COM>, Larry Rosenstein writes: | (I probably will regret posting this, but here goes.) | | In article <11540170@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) | writes: | > | >I think the answer is that it died when Steve Jobs, Andy Hertzfeld, Burrell | >Smith, Guy Kawasaki all left Apple. | | Do you long for the days when a 128K machine cost $2000 - 2500? This is not | to disparage the efforts of those people, but simply to point out that all | was not perfect back in 1984. In 1984, I paid $1050 for a 128K Mac; so did lots of other people. I would bet that the majority of people who bought a Mac in 1984 got it for less than half the retail price. Do you regret posting yet, Larry? :-) -- uucp: ...!seismo!cmucspt!me.ri.cmu.edu!dtw arpa: dtw@cs.cmu.edu
marc@rna.UUCP (Marc Johnson) (09/23/88)
In article <11540170@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) writes:
<
<Apple does not care about us anymore...their prices reflect that. To my mind
<the minimal Macintosh is a Mac II with at least 2 megs of memory, Color and
<at least a 90 meg hard disk. How many individuals will be able to afford this
<at the rate Apple's prices are going? Not many I assure you.
<
Right on.
<... I don't want an Apple II, and I won't buy one. I want a Personal
<Workstation ...
Damn straight.
<
< [lots of other good things to say]
<
<However a word of caution that I hope the Apple employes on the net can
<communicate up their management chain:
<
<There are a lot of little guys (I call them Change Agents) that you are leaving
<behind.
<
< We are the people who bought your machines in the past.
<
< We are the people who took your machines to work when management
< said a personal comptuer had to run MS-DOS.
<
< We are the people who develop small and large niche markets for you
< to penetrate by selling hardware.
<
< We are the people who CAN NO LONGER AFFORD YOUR STATE OF THE ART
< MACINTOSHES.
<
< We have to choose between buying cars, houses, feeding and clothing
< our families and (in the case of students) pay for our education.
<
< Your price points no longer make it feasible for us to choose Apple.
<
< What happened to increasing performance and functionality thru the
< use of the declining cost of technology? What is the REAL cost
< differential of using a 25 mhrz 68030 in the Mac IIx or even a 33m?
< Why didn't the SE ship with a 68000 at 16mhrz?
<
<The gap of access to technology and information has just grown wider.
<
<Perhaps some other company will step in to fill the void that exists, one can
<only hope.
Hear, hear!
(and let's hope they do)
Marc Johnson
Rockefeller Univ.
marc%rna@rocky2.rockefeller.edu
rna!marc@rockvax.bitnet
...cmcl2!rna!marcrnv@motsj1.UUCP (Ron Voss) (09/24/88)
In art. <11540170@hpsmtc1.HP.COM>, dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) writes: > Terriann asks: > >Whatever happened to the dream of the computer for the rest of us? To the... > Apple's focus for the Macintosh is no longer the individual--it is the > individual in BUSINESS. Or the power to be your best in a CORPORATE WORLD. .. > Steve Jobs took Jeff Raskin's vision of an appliance computer and productized > it. John Sculley, JL Gassee have taken that vision in turn to grow Apple into > a organization whose focus is to sell Macs to Businesses and Apple II's to We all wish Macs cost less. And all other products at the top of their class. The Apple board of directors is required by law to work in the best interests of the stockholders. This usually means to maximize profits, short term, long term, and/or both. Tell me you think they're making mistakes. Jobs et al made a marketing decision to sell to the rest of us. The ploy worked on you and me and millions. You think the price-performance ratio is worse now? -- Ron Voss, Motorola Microcomputer Div hplabs!motsj1!rnv CIS 73647,752 408-991-7390 Opinions: My own
merchant@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) (09/24/88)
In article <430043@hpcea.CE.HP.COM>, Teriann Wakeman writes: >And the schism between the haves and have nots in this country keeps >getting bigger. > >Once upon a time, there was a company called Apple Computer that was going >to bring the computer to the rest of us. Thousands of Macintoshes were >donated to schools. A group was formed inside Apple to come up with ways >to maximize Macintosh usability by handicaped people. Schools in poor >largely non-white areas were targeted for special help so that the kids >might someday find work on a more equal footing with their counterparts >from more financially advantaged areas. A group within Apple became >concerned by the lack of participation by girls in school computer >activities. >[...] >But how many more people are there that now can not afford a Macintosh? >{Do you really think that the Plus will be sold much longer?} > >What of all the work being done by groups within Apple exposing people to a >dream that they will never be able to afford?? > >Whatever happened to the dream of the computer for the rest of us? [...] >When was the last time you saw a Mac being advertized as the computer >for the rest of us? Who are the rest of us? My word, Madison Avenue loves people like you. "The Computer For The Rest Of Us" was a slogan. Nothing more. It's called advertising and it's designed to make consumers like you and me think that we are, somehow, better than our common man for buying a product. We don't have ring around the collar, unlike like those dolts who don't use Wisk, we don't have underarm wetness, unlike those smelly people who don't use Sure. We get to partake of the future of computers, unlike those people who buy IBM equipment. I'm not sure how many Macintoshes were donated to elementary-type schools. I don't think too many. I know they donate them to colleges. What strikes me as interesting as you figure that Apple does this to be help mankind. Let me give you an example of another donation, around here. CADKEY, Inc., makes a CAD program for MS-DOS machines. They have a 100 unit site-license available to any educational institute who wants it. Free. Why? Because they were interested in the future of mankind? Wrong. This way, college students use it. These are the same students who will come out of the school and be working and, in a few years, possibly remember this program and have their company buy copies. The college gets free software, they're happy. CADKEY gets lots of users and is able to increase it's "market share" claim. They're happy. Unfortunately, the software stinks. I don't trust the alleged altruism of corporations. If they're being nice, there's always a reason. Apple still does things to make their products usable by the handicapped, not because it sees handicapped people as just as vital to the workforce as non-handicapped, but because they are a market-niche and that means more sales. Let's get into reality mode, here. Apple isn't going to lose money just to benefit mankind, no matter what their adverts imply. --- "Everyone's looking at you..." Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP) (Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.edu)
mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) (09/24/88)
In article <69545@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > There are those of us who happen to be glad that Apple isn't giving > away the future (those margins and high prices, among other things, > guarantee the research and development that'll make future Mac's even > better. Give them away today, they won't exist tomorrow). No one said Apple should give Mac's away; I do wonder how much the market can bear, or if it makes sense in the long term. Sales have a way of snowballing. Sales you fail to make this year can add up to many lost sales in the years to come. Apple is going the way of the majority of American corporations: maximize *this* quarters profits and pretend it can have only good affects on long term profits. Even worse, long term planning becomes "this quarter, next year". About that wonderful, and expensive, R&D Apple is investing in... This has been a "reason" for higher prices for years now. Is there a need to spend even *more* money a year? Will spending more really help R&D efforts? I think not; R&D is needed, but surely the already record profits are funding it sufficiently. The money could be better spent elsewhere. Where? Well, Apple could price the SE to be competitive with PC/AT-clones, and by *investing* in the needed production lines, could *grow* a much larger market share, and, in the long term, much larger profits. The Mac Plus is not such a machine because 1) it is too expensive, both in end price and in manufacturing costs, 2) cannot be bought with an internal hard drive, and 3) has an absolutely horrid keyboard. Even better would be a "headless" SE, so people could buy up to a larger screen. That way lies huge profits. Brian McElhinney mce@tc.fluke.com
merchant@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) (09/24/88)
In article <11540170@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) writes: > What happened to increasing performance and functionality thru the > use of the declining cost of technology? Gotcha. Have you checked memory prices? They aren't declining. I that's why Apple is raising their prices. --- "Come on, fire me up." Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP) (Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.edu)
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (09/24/88)
In article <11540170@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) writes: >Apple does not care about us anymore...their prices reflect that. To my mind >the minimal Macintosh is a Mac II with at least 2 megs of memory, Color and >at least a 90 meg hard disk. How many individuals will be able to afford this >at the rate Apple's prices are going? Not many I assure you. I'm sure Apple stockholders will be glad to hear your idea of a "minimal" system. My brother just bought a lowly Plus (without an external drive) and an Imagewriter, yet he's still able to run nearly *every* program in the Macintosh line. With just 1 meg, 1 drive, and a RAM disk. He might break down and get the external drive in a couple of months, once he saves up enough money. Live within your means. We'd all like people to hand us the most expensive state-of-the-art technology for free, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. If you can't afford the $1400 (what my brother's system cost -- and note that it doesn't cost more now, even though Apple raised prices on most of their other products), buy a PC clone. Of course, I don't know what kind of system you can get for $1000 that still runs programs like Word, Excel, Draw, etc., etc., and still has an icon/windowing interface. If you really need to run 3 programs at once, or if you *really* need to run Hypercard (my brother will be too busy writing papers to fool around with Hypercard), add memory or a hard disk. The system you mention is in no way a "minimal" system. Minimal for what? What on earth do you need a 90 meg hard disk for? What does color get you? How much faster is a Mac II compared to an SE or a Plus, especially for what you'll be using it for? My brother won't be able to type any faster on a Mac II, and if it takes him 10 seconds to save a file instead of 1, so what? I'm sorry to rant and rave like this, but I've had my 512->512e->2meg+SCSI (third party) for almost 3 years now and I don't feel any real need to chuck it all for a Mac II. Why should you? Macintoshes are cheaper and more capable now than they ever have been. PCs are cheaper now than ever, but they aren't much more capable (most PC programs have barely evolved in the last few years, and very few if any approach the ease of use and sophistication of Macintosh programs). Stop beating on Apple because they aren't the Free Hardware Foundation and look around at the alternatives. (There, I feel much better) -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." {uunet,cmcl2}!esquire!sbb | sbb%esquire@cmcl2.nyu.edu | - David Letterman
osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP (09/24/88)
[mucho discussion about Apple leaving behind "the rest of us."] I too am a Change Agent, having bought one of the first 128's made, later upgrading to a (gasp!) "Fat Mac" and eventually moving to a dual-floppy SE with an external 40meg hard disk. This will be the LAST Macintosh I will ever buy. Like many others here, there's no way someone like me (teacher and graduate student) is going to shell out $6000+ for a Mac II or its ilk. What I wanted to say, though, was in reference to a quote by, I *think*, Sculley, a few years ago, inreference to Apple's behavior. He said "The future of Apple Corporation depends entirely on the success of the Mac in the business world." That statement seems to clarify Apple's marketing policies. It's not just no longer a "computer for the rest of us," it's no longer a *company* for the rest of us. I do feel somewhat "used" at this time. One of the main purposes of Apple's University Consortium setup was to "get lots of Macs out on the market," via college people. Once that was done, however, said benefactors were left behind, and still are. I resent being used as a marketing springboard. Sure, it was a good deal at the time: a 128 with a printer for about $1800. Never mind the fact that the thing was practically unusable (obsolete) before I had the loan paid off. Sometimes it looks like Apple's doing the same thing with the Mac II. An overpriced box with a single floppy drive and a single megabyte of RAM. A setup that takes full advantage of the II's capabilities costs a bloody fortune. Meanwhile, I meet people putting together umpteen-MHz PC clones with 40meg hard disks for a thousand dollars or so, and I wonder who the REAL suckers are in this business. When I think of the PC setup I could have put together for the cost of this SE/hard disk outfit...gawd, it takes my breath away..... At any rate, unless something *incredibly* drastic happens, my next computer will *not* be an Apple. Not unless they change their tune considerably. Of course, it would be an undescribably sweet feeling for Job's NeXT machine to thunder onto the market for some $2500 or so with a big RAM, hard disk, 68030/68881, etc. I'd buy one for the sheer pleasure of it. Oh well, back to work. Just a couple more years and it'll be paid for...(-8> Ron Morgan
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/24/88)
>I do feel somewhat "used" at this time.
I'm not sure I understand this statement. Why? Does the fact that Apple has
shifted marketing emphasis mean they came and took your computer back? Or
that your computer suddenly stops working?
What has this done to remove value from your machine that makes your
perceive yourself as being used?
I'm an old 128K'er myself. We have two of them, plus a laserwriter, at home.
The amount of money I have invested in MacDuff (early 128K+early
512K+ROM+2Meg Dove+SCSI+Fan+two power boards+etc+etc+etc) would probably
BUYT a Mac2 if I'd saved it all and waited until now. But then, I would have
lost all those years of work and production and fun (especially fun) by not
having the Mac.
I don't really understand how shifts in future marketing directions suddenly
invalidate the past, or cause existing hardware to suddenly become
worthless. I don't understand how you can be 'used' in this context.
Besides, I really think you're looking at one thing and ignoring the entire
marketing picture. Apple has not tossed out the University program. Students
can still get major discounts on Macs and equipment. Apple is still donating
hardware to schools. Apple hasn't, by any means, tossed out the University
market. Concentrating on one item in the entire marketing structure isn't
realistic. And think about it: what other manufacturers have ANY program
like the Apple University program? Or their developer discount program? Has
IBM ever Fed-Ex'ed a new release of the operating system to their entire
developer base?
Maybe Apple succeeded too well, if you think about it. They've won the
University market and the small business market and the home market -- as
well as they're going to win them. If they want to continue to gain market
share and sales growth, they have to find new markets. That means Business,
which is the only area where sales haven't kept pace.
They have to shift marketing orientations. It's a grow or die world out
there. If Apple wants to grow, they can't decide to simply be satisfied with
what they have. They have to go out and take more. And if you really look at
it, they haven't abandoned their old territories -- if they had, all those
student discounts would be going away.
Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
Editor/Publisher, OtherRealmsjcc@ut-emx.UUCP (Chris Cooley) (09/25/88)
-- Heartfelt beliefs which, in my opinion, expressed how SHITTY --
-- Apple Computer has become, have been deleted. --
I passionately agree with what David Williams posted, by the way.
He goes on:
> The gap of access to technology and information has just grown wider.
>
> Perhaps some other company will step in to fill the void that exists, one can
> only hope.
>
> David L. Williams
> Change Agent
> Macintosh owner (since 1984)
Hopefully, this will happen NeXT month...
--chris
--
J. Chris Cooley | husc6! -\
Computation. Center (COM 1) | im4u! -->-cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!jcc
Univ. of Texas at Austin | uunet! -/
Austin, TX 78712 |jwhitnell@cup.portal.com (09/26/88)
Somebody (No names, this is a generic flame :-) writes...
|Hopefully, this will happen NeXT month...
I hate to disappoint all of you who think NeXT will have the "computer for
the rest of us", but you are all dreaming. Most of the press "rumors"
suggest that it will be a 68030 with 4 mb of ram, a 1024x1024 screen running
display postscript using a special processor, lots of disk space and Mach,
a UNIX work-alike. A machine like this does not come cheap. If you want
to know how much the Next machine will cost you, look at Sun's prices for
their '030 box, look at the Mac IIx and look at any other '030 boxes. See
any shipping for under $6K? Neither do I. I don't expect NeXT to break
any price barriers either. The NeXT box will be another box for "the
few of us who can afford it." Me, I'm sticking to the Mac world. My Mac II
may be expensive, but at least it has lots of software for it.
If there is anyone who still thinks the NeXT box will be "for the rest of us",
I got a great deal on a this bridge...
--
Jerry Whitnell
jwhitnell@cup.portal.com
..!sun!cup.portal.com!jwhitnellrob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) (09/26/88)
>In article <11540170@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) writes: >Apple does not care about us anymore...their prices reflect that. To my mind >the minimal Macintosh is a Mac II with at least 2 megs of memory, Color and >at least a 90 meg hard disk. How many individuals will be able to afford this >at the rate Apple's prices are going? Not many I assure you. > >... I don't want an Apple II, and I won't buy one. I want a Personal >Workstation ... > Personally, I think the minimum Personal Workstation is a Sun 4 with a 25 inch color monitor, 32 meg, and dual 1200 meg drives. Oh yeah, and a 4 gig optical cartridge for backup. And a color scanner. And a color printer. And some software. I can't get by with anything less, and I think it's a shame that Sun doesn't care anymore. How many individuals will be able to afford this at the rate Sun's prices are going? Not many I assure you. Oh yeah, for those with higher-than-average densities: :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Be realistic. I know people who get by fine with a Commodore 64. It does everything they want to do. I know people who complain that our Alliant is too slow. I'm sure that there are people who can't get by with just ONE Cray. The system you talk about costs about $5000 university pricing, which means you should pay about $7000 street price (still less than $9000 even with the price increase) Even adding in A/UX, a minimal color Sun will run you a lot more. Then check out maintenance/repair costs, software costs. I think you've already got your Personal Workstation Robert -- Robert K. Shull University of Oklahoma, Engineering Computer Network att!occrsh!uokmax!rob or sun!texsun!uokmax!rob
rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) (09/26/88)
In article <3082@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dtw@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Duane Williams) writes: >In article <17578@apple.Apple.COM>, Larry Rosenstein writes: >| In article <11540170@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) >| writes: >| Do you long for the days when a 128K machine cost $2000 - 2500? This is not >In 1984, I paid $1050 for a 128K Mac; so did lots of other people. I would I just paid $4000 for a color Mac II with 2 meg of memory, and another $1000 or so for a 100 meg drive. And yes, I too paid $1050 for a 128k Mac. And $400 for a single sided drive so I could use it. And another $400 or so for a printer. About $2000 total. So, compare what you got then for $2000 and what you get now for $5000. I'm still not convinced it's such a bad deal. >Do you regret posting yet, Larry? :-) Keep on postin' -- Robert K. Shull University of Oklahoma, Engineering Computer Network att!occrsh!uokmax!rob or sun!texsun!uokmax!rob
rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) (09/26/88)
In article <6315@ut-emx.UUCP> jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (Chris Cooley) writes: >> Perhaps some other company will step in to fill the void that exists, one can >Hopefully, this will happen NeXT month... I thought it was going to happen LaST year. Or was that year before LaST. (Not to say that I won't be glad to see the NeXT machine. Whenever it arrives.) -- Robert K. Shull University of Oklahoma, Engineering Computer Network att!occrsh!uokmax!rob or sun!texsun!uokmax!rob
coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) (09/27/88)
Did I miss something here? As far as I remember, "The computer for the rest of us" had nothing to do with price. This ad strategy refered to the idea that finally here was a computer that didn't require a 4-year degree just to turn on. Apple was selling the friendly, mouse driven user interface as a means to make computers accessable to "the rest of us." All this Apple bashing about prices and dreams is just noise. If it's not worth what Apple is charging, buy something else. Stephen Coy uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy
tecot@Apple.COM (Ed Tecot) (09/27/88)
In article <10159@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> merchant@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) writes: >Apple still does things to make their products usable by the handicapped, not >because it sees handicapped people as just as vital to the workforce as >non-handicapped, but because they are a market-niche and that means more >sales. Wrong. I wrote Easy Access because I wanted physically handicapped people to share in the Macintosh experience. You have no idea just how satisfying this can be. _emt
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/27/88)
>Personally, I think the minimum Personal Workstation is a Sun 4 with a 25 >inch color monitor, 32 meg, and dual 1200 meg drives. Actually, I find I get by just fin with 500 megs of disk. And while I ran my sun4 with 98Megs of RAM for a while, 32 does just fine. 98 is definitely faster, but there just isn't that much of a difference for what I do these days... And I prefer a hi-res mono to color. Easier on the eyes, but most of my work is textual, not graphics. Definitely a Nice toy. But what does this have to do with Macintoshes? Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms
mcdonald@fornax.UUCP (Ken Mcdonald) (09/27/88)
I deleted Chuq's article to save space, but I'd like to reply to his
contention that Apple has won the home and university markets as well
as they can. This is just not true! There are a very large number of
university students who are buying IBM clones because of the difference
in price--this is IMPORTANT to students. But I can understand Apple's
approach to the U's, they are already giving them a pretty good price
break. Much sadder, to my point of view, is the very large number of
homes (four families, to my own personal knowledge) who would like to
purchase Macs, but find the price to high. To capture a larger share
of this market, Apple simply has to introduce a Mac with pricing approx.
equal to the current U. price for a Plus. If they can make money
marketing Pluses to the universities, they can make money doing this
as well, and gain a large and loyal following in the process.
Ken McDonald
{...!ubc-cs!mcdonald@fornax.UUCP}peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) (09/27/88)
>I doubt that anyone at Apple took great joy in raising prices. If Apple was >out to get every dollar possible, don't you think we would have raised >prices a while ago? The demand for machines hasn't gone up only recently; >it has been high for quite a while. Memory has been tight for many months. >It would have been very easy to raise the price of CPUs at the same time we >raised the price of memory upgrades. Is this implying that at least one of the reasons that the prices were increased in because of the increased memory prices? If so, why did the Mac SE dual floppy go up more than the Mac SE HD20? And why did the Mac Plus not go up at all (not that I'm complaining about that--it's all we can afford now)? I can't fault Apple for wanting to increase their profits. They are a business first and foremost. But it is depressing to those of us who against many odds try to promote Apple equipment. Large universities and businesses can overlook these increases. But not the little guys. It is very clear that Apple has left us behind... -- Peter Steele, Microcomputer Applications Analyst Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada B0P1X0 (902)542-2201x121 UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Peter BITNET: Peter@Acadia Internet: Peter%Acadia.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) (09/27/88)
In article <70321@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>Personally, I think the minimum Personal Workstation is a Sun 4 with a 25 > >Definitely a Nice toy. But what does this have to do with Macintoshes? > Maybe I should have put TWO lines of smileys. Allow me to explain. My reply was to someone who claimed that the "minimum acceptable system" is a Mac II with 2 megs and a 90 meg hard drive. This struck as a bit odd. While I'm sure that there are applications that require this, I imagine that there are a lot of people with Commodore 64's, Apple 2's, PC XT's, etc., etc. that still need to be informed that there systems are unacceptable. >Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ >Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms -- Robert K. Shull University of Oklahoma, Engineering Computer Network att!occrsh!uokmax!rob or sun!texsun!uokmax!rob
sandrock@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (09/28/88)
* > What happened to increasing performance and functionality thru the * > use of the declining cost of technology? * * Gotcha. * * Have you checked memory prices? They aren't declining. I that's why Apple * is raising their prices. * --- * "Come on, fire me up." Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP) * (Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.edu) Are you sure? From page 4 of the Sept. 26 issue of "Digital Review": MOBILE, Ala. -- Citing reduced dynamic RAM (DRAM) costs, QMS announced that, effective immediately, it has reduced the price of two color printers by $3,000 each. Admittedly the printers contain 8MB and 12MB of RAM each, and admittedly the subject is getting beaten to death, but wouldn't it have been great to see price CUTS announced from a certain other manufacturer as well? Let's hope that Apple still has a few things "up its sleeve" for "the rest of us"! Cheers, Mark Sandrock (sandrock@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu)
jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (Chris Cooley) (09/28/88)
In article <17834@apple.Apple.COM>, Ed Tecot writes: >In article <10159@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, Peter Merchant writes: >>Apple still does things to make their products usable by the handicapped, not >>because it sees handicapped people as just as vital to the workforce as >>non-handicapped, but because they are a market-niche and that means more >>sales. > >Wrong. I wrote Easy Access because I wanted physically handicapped people to >share in the Macintosh experience. You have no idea just how satisfying this >can be. > > _emt We have several ways of expressing ourselves upon reading this article: Oooooh! In your face! Burned you! Whoosh! Yes! (and the stereotypical favorite:) Yeeehaaw! The first step in waging a war is to dehumanize the enemy. It's good to see that there are Apple employees to broadcast their views to the net so that we don't see this discussion drop into a Good Guys vs. Faceless, Totally Evil Ones war. --chris -- J. Chris Cooley | husc6! -\ Computation. Center (COM 1) | im4u! -->-cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!jcc Univ. of Texas at Austin | uunet! -/ Austin, TX 78712 |
joej@oakhill.UUCP (Joe Jelemensky) (10/01/88)
If Apple really wants to win the business world they would come out with a SE class machine without a monitor instead of a stupid laptop.
ned@moivre.ACA.MCC.COM (Ned Nowotny) (10/01/88)
In article <5303@fluke.COM> mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) writes: >Where? Well, Apple could price the SE to be competitive with PC/AT-clones, >and by *investing* in the needed production lines, could *grow* a much larger >market share, and, in the long term, much larger profits. > Look, folks, whatever the advantages and desirable characteristics of the Macintosh, the problem with buying an Apple product is that they are a sole source manufacturer. The people who run the company are doing just fine running the company. Apple is making money hand over fist and that is all the bean counters want or need. Anything else you believe Apple "stands" for today, is the result of very successful marketing. (Or any other day, remember Jobs ran the company, not Wozniak.) As distasteful as it may be, price/performance is best in the IBM/Clone PC market on the low-end and Unix workstations on the high-end precisely because competition is alive and reasonably well in these multiple manufacturer markets. Frankly, consumers are better served by targeting their dollars on the best available products in competitive markets rather than on the products available in a sole source market. In the long term, the offerings will excell and consumers may even be able to afford to upgrade from their earlier purchases. Disclaimer: I am definitely NOT a fan of IBM or MS-DOS. And while I LIKE Unix-based systems, I program for a living. I am certainly aware that a Macintosh-like system may well be more appropriate for most computer users. But PLEASE take off the rose-colored glasses. There is no such thing as a free lunch, the Easter Bunny, or an altruistic computer manufacturer dedicated to bringing low-cost computer solutions to "the rest of us." -- Ned Nowotny (ned@mcc.com or {ihnp4,seismo,ucb-vax,gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!pp!ned)
dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) (10/02/88)
In article <870238@hpcilzb.HP.COM>, tedj@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Ted Johnson) writes: > > BTW, does anyone have any recent information about the progress > of THE lawsuit? ;-) > > -Ted > > #include <std.disclaimer> It seems to me that it is to Apple's advantage to not have the suit settled for a LOOOOOONG time. This would especially be true if it is likely that their "look-and-feel" really is the domain of Xerox Parc! This way, potential Mac-Clone makers must cower in the corner in fear and trembling, waiting for the present situation to clear itself. dharvey@wsccs I am responsible for Nobody and Nobody is responsible for me. The only thing you can know for sure is that you can't know anything for sure.
mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) (10/07/88)
ned@moivre.aca.mcc.com.UUCP (Ned Nowotny) writes: >>mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) writes: >>Where? Well, Apple could price the SE to be competitive with PC/AT-clones, >>and by *investing* in the needed production lines, could *grow* a much larger >>market share, and, in the long term, much larger profits. > >The people who run the company are doing just fine running the >company. Apple is making money hand over fist and that is all the >bean counters want or need. If the long term effects of high prices is a decline of market share, then the bean counters will be very unhappy, even if there is still a good profit. A low cost Macintosh would dramatically increase market share. Apple could introduce such a machine, not out of the goodness of their own hearts, but out of good old capitalistic greed: to make even more money. As a software developer I want the Macintosh market place to be as large as possible, in order to increase the number of potential buyers. So I'm greedy too. You're comments on the need for a competitive market place are right on the mark. The introduction of the NeXT machine *may* be the start of a consumer graphics computer marketplace. For various reasons, Amiga and Atari just didn't do this. Steve Jobs might. Brian McElhinney mce@tc.fluke.com
lynch@rocky5.rockefeller.edu.rockefeller.edu (Berkley Lynch) (10/08/88)
In article <5455@fluke.COM> mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) writes: (some stuff deleted) >If the long term effects of high prices is a decline of market share, then the >bean counters will be very unhappy, even if there is still a good profit. A >low cost Macintosh would dramatically increase market share. Apple could >introduce such a machine, not out of the goodness of their own hearts, but out >of good old capitalistic greed: to make even more money. > >As a software developer I want the Macintosh market place to be as large >as possible, in order to increase the number of potential buyers. So I'm >greedy too. > >You're comments on the need for a competitive market place are right on the >mark. The introduction of the NeXT machine *may* be the start of a consumer >graphics computer marketplace. For various reasons, Amiga and Atari just >didn't do this. Steve Jobs might. > > >Brian McElhinney >mce@tc.fluke.com Ahem. I have been following the discussion of the NeXT computer, and I just want to point out that it is certainly a contradiction to discuss a "low cost" computer in the same breath as the NeXT box: the price discussed on the net is approx. $6000! It may be a great machine, but it is NOT going to replace mac plusses or SEs, and it certainly is not comparable to an Amiga or Atari! This is the great weakness in this machine. There is apparently NO LOW END OPTION! How many of you plan to buy one for home use (not including developers)? NeXT will compete with SUN (which should be especially worried) and the Mac II, but remember, only a small part of Apple's sales are of IIs. Just an opinion. -Berkley Lynch, RU-
mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) (10/11/88)
In article <210@rocky8.rockefeller.edu> lynch@rocky5.rockefeller.edu.UUCP (Berkley Lynch) writes: >Ahem. I have been following the discussion of the NeXT computer, >and I just want to point out that it is certainly a contradiction >to discuss a "low cost" computer in the same breath as the NeXT >box: the price discussed on the net is approx. $6000! True if we were discussing cheap computers; I was (I thought!) discussing a competitive marketplace. Computers are always going to be getting faster, stronger and leaping taller buildings -- but staying at about the same price. 80386 PCs are a half to a third the price of a 68030 box from Apple. Given the rumored feature set for the NeXT machine, six grand is *cheap*! And, wonder of wonders, the price might actually go *down*! Imagine what a 25 MHz 68030 machine with graphics assist will cost when you are finally able to buy one from Apple... and it still might not have DMA. :-) As to NeXT actually succeeding, that's a another story. Right now there is a division between cheap/home/personal computers and workstations. This distinction will disappear, and NeXT apparently intends to take advantage of it. I hope Jobs succeeds; after all, it looks to be the second "computer worth criticizing"! Brian McElhinney mce@tc.fluke.com