kweeder@sunny3.che.clarkson.edu (Jim Kweeder) (09/14/88)
In article <70@bridge2.3Com.com> ngg@bridge2.3Com.com (Norman Goodger) writes: ============================================================================= Not that I want to pick on Norm in particular, but I had to reference somebody: ============================================================================= >The Boo-hiss should perhaps come on the products that seem to have no real >reason to be increased. But on CPU's Apple is justified, did they go to high? >Perhaps on some systems, like the Mac II, but also from what I hear and read >Apple cannot meet the demand of the Mac II sales, so does this justify raising >prices? Perhaps it does, it will allow a cooling off period so that supply >can meet demand until new CPU's are released probably sometime next year >hopefully after dram prices have normalized. So that they will be priced >competatively. And then price reductions on the Mac II will be pretty good >one might hope. While I can't disagree with the facts, I think Apple's thinking is strictly short sighted. Apple is in the position of having made two mistakes: (1) Going with an outside supplier for their memory (2) Having underestimated the market demand for their product. I won't say they should have avoided the first one (since Apple isn't alone in making this mistake), but they seem to have missed the mark on the second one pretty badly. Now that we HAVE the situation, the question is who should pay for it? Answer: all of us. However, that's not the view Apple has taken. Yes, the shortage of Mac II's does dictate a price increase and again yes Apple is going to need some cash to get those two memory plants on-line, but why dump the whole bill on the customer? A $1,000 increase on Mac II CPU's? Come on, I can BUY a PC SYSTEM (albeit a cheap 8088 machine) for that amount of money. In view of the two strategic blunders, Apple should bite the bullet and go into the red a little bit (or at least take a drastic reduction in profit). No company should expect a rosey profit picture in a year they need to build three major production facilities to continue their business. However, if you're an Apple stockholder, I wouldn't worry about that, yet. Apple's raising prices pretty much across the line indicates what they're trying to accomplish. Can they get away with it? Well yes and no. Yes in that people are perfectly right in that Apple is free to charge whatever they like and we're free to take our business elsewhere. I can't argue with that, but that's short sighted thinking. The "phrase of the day" is: pay me now or pay me later. Apple (wittingly or not) has choosen to pay later and pay they will. It's no mystery why more Macs don't adorn the desks of corporate America. With their current move, they're insuring that more of these desks will get IBM/Compaq/Tandy machines. Worse, more Macs won't be adorning the desks at home and people will then want an IBM machine at work. And look at Apple's position: for the first time, they're making signigicant inroads into the business market. The reason is the unique advantage the Mac Interface offers for graphics and desk top publishing. But, the IBM machines are getting this ability. Right now, it isn't as good as the Mac system, but Apple is handing them the time to get it right. So, should Apple increase it's prices? Well, yes. Demand is up, the whole industry is experiencing upward price pressure, etc. However, now isn't the time for *safe* thinking. Apple has the opportunity they've always wanted and they should strike while the iron is hot. If Apple wants to expand and succeed, they need to speculate with more plants and products. This means producing Macs 140 hours a week, savagely buying all the memory they can lay their hands on, taking a plunge into the bank for the capital to build those plants, and grimly holding the line on prices, yielding increases only when necessary. Increasing the price to what the market can bear will produce the advertised result: demand will go down. However, this demand may go away and never return. What I'm advocating certainly isn't safe or appealing, but no one is going to topple the MS-DOS world by wielding a pillow and Apple's chances will probably never be this good again. That's my two cents, Jim Kweeder kweeder@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
fenwick@garth.UUCP (Stephen Fenwick) (09/16/88)
In article <1356@sunny3.che.clarkson.edu> kweeder@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Jim Kweeder) writes: >While I can't disagree with the facts, I think Apple's thinking is strictly >short sighted. Apple is in the position of having made two mistakes: >(1) Going with an outside supplier for their memory (2) Having >underestimated the market demand for their product. I won't say they >should have avoided the first one (since Apple isn't alone in making >this mistake), but they seem to have missed the mark on the second one >pretty badly. I must take exception to the first point. A memory fab must constantly be straining the power/speed/density envelope to remain competitive; this can be ruinously expensive, as equipment (==entire fab lines) must be junked every two to four years. Add to this the cost of sustained packaging, circuit design, and semiconductor research, and a memory fab becomes a hundred million dollar and up annual operation. The advantage to possessing this capability (buying at the production cost) is greatly outweighed by the constant outlay for capital equipment, and the constant depreciation (in utility) of the equipment. Underestimating market demand is bad, and Apple should have known better. However, it is usually better to slightly underestimate demand (a healthy backlog looks very good to stockholders and Wall Street) than to overestimate and produce machines that must be dumped, or to idle production lines (a la many automobile makers). Steve Fenwick -- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////////// My company is not responsible for what I say. I might be... E-Mail route: ...!{ sun | sri-unix }!pyramid!garth!fenwick USPS: Intergraph APD, 2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto, California AT&Tnet: (415) 852-2325 //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
ngg@bridge2.3Com.Com (Norman Goodger) (09/16/88)
In article <1356@sunny3.che.clarkson.edu>, kweeder@sunny3.che.clarkson.edu (Jim Kweeder) writes: > > > While I can't disagree with the facts, I think Apple's thinking is strictly > short sighted. Apple is in the position of having made two mistakes: > (1) Going with an outside supplier for their memory (2) Having > underestimated the market demand for their product. I won't say they > should have avoided the first one (since Apple isn't alone in making > this mistake), but they seem to have missed the mark on the second one > pretty badly. > > Now that we HAVE the situation, the question is who should pay for it? > Answer: all of us. However, that's not the view Apple has taken. Yes, > the shortage of Mac II's does dictate a price increase and again yes > Apple is going to need some cash to get those two memory plants on-line, > but why dump the whole bill on the customer? A $1,000 increase on Mac II > CPU's? Come on, I can BUY a PC SYSTEM (albeit a cheap 8088 machine) for > that amount of money. In view of the two strategic blunders, Apple should > bite the bullet and go into the red a little bit (or at least take a drastic > reduction in profit). No company should expect a rosey profit picture in > a year they need to build three major production facilities to continue > their business. However, if you're an Apple stockholder, I wouldn't > worry about that, yet. Apple's raising prices pretty much across the line > indicates what they're trying to accomplish. > > Can they get away with it? Well yes and no. Yes in that people are > perfectly right in that Apple is free to charge whatever they like and > we're free to take our business elsewhere. I can't argue with that, but > that's short sighted thinking. The "phrase of the day" is: pay me now > or pay me later. Apple (wittingly or not) has choosen to pay later and > pay they will. It's no mystery why more Macs don't adorn the desks of > corporate America. With their current move, they're insuring that more > of these desks will get IBM/Compaq/Tandy machines. Worse, more Macs won't > be adorning the desks at home and people will then want an IBM machine > at work. And look at Apple's position: for the first time, they're making > signigicant inroads into the business market. The reason is the unique > advantage the Mac Interface offers for graphics and desk top publishing. > But, the IBM machines are getting this ability. Right now, it isn't as > good as the Mac system, but Apple is handing them the time to get it > right. > So, should Apple increase it's prices? Well, yes. Demand is up, the > whole industry is experiencing upward price pressure, etc. However, now > isn't the time for *safe* thinking. Apple has the opportunity they've > always wanted and they should strike while the iron is hot. If Apple > wants to expand and succeed, they need to speculate with more plants and > products. This means producing Macs 140 hours a week, savagely buying > all the memory they can lay their hands on, taking a plunge into the > bank for the capital to build those plants, and grimly holding the line > on prices, yielding increases only when necessary. Increasing the price > to what the market can bear will produce the advertised result: demand > will go down. However, this demand may go away and never return. What > I'm advocating certainly isn't safe or appealing, but no one is going to > topple the MS-DOS world by wielding a pillow and Apple's chances will > probably never be this good again. > That's my two cents, > Jim Kweeder > kweeder@sun.soe.clarkson.edu Jim's arguement is so full of holes, its no wonder we have a drought. He starts off with a real lame arguement that everyone that needs DRAM should be making their own, without even considering the MAJOR expense of such a move. Making chips is no easy task, it can cost millions. The largest chip makers in the world right now are having problems with effectively making 1 meg chips, and he expects Apple to jump right in and make their own. Lets be realistic, it could take months or years before production could ramp up enough to meet current demand, only to have it wash down the drain and spent millions for nothing....not what I would call a bright idea. The idea that any company can accurately predict the market demand is real funny. Apple to me is doing pretty good to keep up as they have, let alone worry about underestimating the market...This goes right into the next statements Jim makes about buying an 8088 PC based system for the amount of the price increase, that makes no sense, if you can get comparable computing power, then it would make sense, but comparing the Mac II, to an ancient machine like that is pretty ludicrious. Also the statement that Apple and its stockholders should not make a "rosy profit picture" while building new facilities makes no sense, proper planning indicates the opposite, Apple should be able to do just that, while expanding, it is just good business sense and logical... He also makes the statement that " no wonder more Mac's are not adorning the desktops of corporate Amercica" where you been Jim? Mac's have been crusing thru the front doors of corporate America for more than a year now. Granted the numbers do not match IBM, but its growing real fast. Also the idea of raising prices causing people to buy other equipment, is a fair one, but usually companies are going to buy the equipment that gets the job done, and keeps their training costs down. Price is NOT always the deciding factor in which computer to purchase. Lastly, Apple is not sitting on its hands, I am sure this was well thought out. Wall St. likes it too. And that can't be all bad. But some of the arguements were pretty lame. I think Apple will come thru this just fine. but only time will tell. It usually does.. Norm Goodger 3Com Sysop - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 news fodder News fodder
kweeder@sunny1.che.clarkson.edu (Jim Kweeder) (09/16/88)
In article <1417@garth.UUCP> fenwick@garth.UUCP (Stephen Fenwick) writes: >I must take exception to the first point. A memory fab must constantly >be straining the power/speed/density envelope to remain competitive; >this can be ruinously expensive, as equipment (==entire fab lines) >must be junked every two to four years. Add to this the cost of >sustained packaging, circuit design, and semiconductor research, and a >memory fab becomes a hundred million dollar and up annual operation. >The advantage to possessing this capability (buying at the production cost) >is greatly outweighed by the constant outlay for capital equipment, >and the constant depreciation (in utility) of the equipment. Well, your right, but I never said there wasn't any risk involved in getting into the memory business. One year ago, your argument would certainly have sold me (as it did sell every other computer maker), but look where it got Apple: Apple can't produce and introduce products it could very easily sell since there's no memory to make them. By going outside for their memory, Apple ran this risk. A year ago, it seemed a good risk; however, events have proved it to have been a mistake. IBM is jumping back into the memory business (I hear they're working like the dickens to bring a 2 MB chip to the market) so Apple has even greater problems. I guess this may be why Apple went ahead and bought an existing but idle memory plant and has started to build another one. Let's face it: no memory chips, no computer business. >Underestimating market demand is bad, and Apple should have known better. >However, it is usually better to slightly underestimate demand (a healthy >backlog looks very good to stockholders and Wall Street) than to overestimate >and produce machines that must be dumped, or to idle production lines >(a la many automobile makers). Again, sound, but safe reasoning. Apple has a great chance to take more of the market in personal computing. The lack of production facilities and memory prevents them from exploiting this fading opportunity. Jim Kweeder kweeder@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
kweeder@sunny1.che.clarkson.edu (Jim Kweeder) (09/16/88)
In article <78@bridge2.3com.com) ngg@bridge2.3com.com (Norman Goodger) writes: ====================================== Now I DO get to pick on Norman!!!!!! ====================================== >Jim's arguement is so full of holes, its no wonder we have a drought. [Meekly] Well, most of the Apple get's greedier... arguments are full of holes. You've got all the facts? Gee, why don't you give the rest of us the straight word? >He starts off with a real lame arguement that everyone that needs DRAM >should be making their own, without even considering the MAJOR expense >of such a move. Making chips is no easy task, it can cost millions. The If you need lots of DRAM to stay in business and your supplier whips the rug out from under you, what would you do? How about not being able to ship computers, software (A/UX), and introduce new products due to a lack of DRAM? Besides, I didn't say *everyone* and making computers costs millions (If you want to dance, you've got to pay the band. . . .). Besides, Apple agrees with me, they're building memory plants. >The idea that any company can accurately predict the market demand is real >funny. Apple to me is doing pretty good to keep up as they have, let alone >worry about underestimating the market... What's "accurate"? A backlog is nice, but lot's of people buying (read: commiting to) the competition's format because you don't have the goods is bad. >This goes right into the next >statements Jim makes about buying an 8088 PC based system for the amount >of the price increase, that makes no sense, if you can get comparable >computing power, then it would make sense, but comparing the Mac II, to >an ancient machine like that is pretty ludicrious. Oh, do you really NEED 32 bit power to word process or balance your check book? Maybe you should check into the nice products Cray Research has to offer :-). >Also the statement >that Apple and its stockholders should not make a "rosy profit picture" >while building new facilities makes no sense, proper planning indicates >the opposite, Apple should be able to do just that, while expanding, it >is just good business sense and logical... Proper planning????? Where've you been? Apple is building memory plants out of desperation. Now they're socking it to us for the bill. >He also makes the statement that " no wonder more Mac's are not adorning >the desktops of corporate Amercica" where you been Jim? Mac's have been >crusing thru the front doors of corporate America for more than a year >now. Granted the numbers do not match IBM, but its growing real fast. ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ Bingo, they don't match. They're not even close (I'm assuming that by IBM you mean IBM+Compaq+Tandy+....). Do you really think that a $1,000 price increase is the ticket to contiued growth? BTW, I said "mystery", not "wonder". >Also the idea of raising prices causing people to buy other equipment, >is a fair one, but usually companies are going to buy the equipment >that gets the job done, and keeps their training costs down. Price is >NOT always the deciding factor in which computer to purchase. Right, and I can get the job DONE with an 8088 machine (not fast, but done). For a few bucks more, I can get an 80286 machine and speed-up my work. Add a few grand, and I'll fix you up with 80386 20/25 MHz power, but you'll only want that if you do CPU intensive work. Now, for still more money, I can get you a Mac II which I think is a neat idea and is JUST the machine for doing graphics and desk-top-publishing, but wow, look at that price! You need real productivity gains to justify the cost. As for training, I instruct neophytes all the time in DOS and UNIX and occasionally for the Macintosh. I can safely say it doesn't take more or less time for any of these systems. >Lastly, Apple is not sitting on its hands, I am sure this was well thought >out. Wall St. likes it too. So was the decision to buy memory from a supplier :-). My point is that Apple is sitting on it hands while a opportunity stares them in the face. They've got the right product at the right time, but at the wrong price. I'm not saying a Mac II should cost $2,000 complete, but we're over 10 grand now. Except for desk-top-publishing, the Macintosh is a performance/dollar looser (your not going to sell me on it costs less to train Mac: do you really think it'll take less time to learn Word on the Mac than the AT?). Next year, Apple's position in the DTP business may not be nearly so good. Flame off, Jim Kweeder kweeder@sun.soe.clarkson.edu PS: I trust Apple will be around next year and doing fine. It's just that they could be doing much better. I keyed that subject line to attract attention :-).
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (09/16/88)
In article <1417@garth.UUCP> fenwick@garth.UUCP (Stephen Fenwick) writes: >Underestimating market demand is bad, and Apple should have known better. >However, it is usually better to slightly underestimate demand (a healthy >backlog looks very good to stockholders and Wall Street) than to overestimate >and produce machines that must be dumped, or to idle production lines >(a la many automobile makers). And IBM, which is quickly becoming the K-Mart of personal computer manufacturers (``Attention shoppers: for the next 20 minutes our dealers will be *paying you* to take PS/2 Model 60s and 80s off their hands...''). :-) -- 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
dlmnm@dcatla.UUCP (Michael N. Moran) (09/19/88)
>Can they get away with it? Well yes and no. Yes in that people are >perfectly right in that Apple is free to charge whatever they like and >we're free to take our business elsewhere. I can't argue with that, but >that's short sighted thinking. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > [stuff deleted] However, now >isn't the time for *safe* thinking. Apple has the opportunity they've >always wanted and they should strike while the iron is hot. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > [stuff deleted] Increasing the price >to what the market can bear will produce the advertised result: demand >will go down. However, this demand may go away and never return. What ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I'm advocating certainly isn't safe or appealing, but no one is going to >topple the MS-DOS world by wielding a pillow and Apple's chances will >probably never be this good again. >Jim Kweeder AMEN ... It's in everyone's interest (except big blue) to want the best product to survive the war against technical mediocrity. there ... i said it and i feel better ... mike
ngg@bridge2.3Com.Com (Norman Goodger) (09/20/88)
In article <1361@sunny1.che.clarkson.edu>, kweeder@sunny1.che.clarkson.edu (Jim Kweeder) writes: > > Besides, Apple agrees with me, they're building memory plants. They maybe building memory plants, but they are contracting with Micron tech to do most of the work from what I've read, you can correct me if I am wrong. I got a letter from Micron this weekend, with prices of DRAM for the Mac, you can get 8-megs for $4500...and you wonder why they raised the price. Granted Apple is not paying that price, but still...big bucks... > Oh, do you really NEED 32 bit power to word process or balance your check > book? Maybe you should check into the nice products Cray Research has > to offer :-). As far as I am concerned the more power the better, be my guest and work on an 8088 machine...I think you'll get bored of that real quick.. > a $1,000 price increase is the ticket to contiued growth? BTW, > I said "mystery", not "wonder". The price increase maybe and probably will be temporary. Its most likely to allow supply to catch up with demand, then prices will be re-adjusted. > Right, and I can get the job DONE with an 8088 machine (not fast, but done). > For a few bucks more, I can get an 80286 machine and speed-up my work. Add > a few grand, and I'll fix you up with 80386 20/25 MHz power, but you'll > only want that if you do CPU intensive work. Now, for still more money, > I can get you a Mac II which I think is a neat idea and is JUST the machine > for doing graphics and desk-top-publishing, but wow, look at that price! > You need real productivity gains to justify the cost. A 20-25mhz 386 sstem could cost you more than a Mac II, even at its new price. and you could still get most work done faster on a Mac II. > As for training, I instruct neophytes all the time in DOS and UNIX and > occasionally for the Macintosh. I can safely say it doesn't take more > or less time for any of these systems. This was your funniest statement yet, its been proven over and over again for those that are new to computers, training on the Macintosh takes far less time to reach the the same level of competency than on the PC. up to 50% less time or more...so maybe for the few people you train, but overall that safe statement on your part has no basis in fact. > So was the decision to buy memory from a supplier :-). My point is that > Apple is sitting on it hands while a opportunity stares them in the face. > They've got the right product at the right time, but at the wrong price. > I'm not saying a Mac II should cost $2,000 complete, but we're over > 10 grand now. Except for desk-top-publishing, the Macintosh is a > performance/dollar looser (your not going to sell me on it costs less > to train Mac: do you really think it'll take less time to learn Word > on the Mac than the AT?). Next year, Apple's position in the DTP > business may not be nearly so good. Where you buying your Mac II's? Even with the price increase I can get a Mac II for far less than $10k. Of course this depends somewhat on configuration. If you want it with 8megs of ram, yes you would probably easily pusk $10K But if you configed a 386 system equally (as much as possible anyway) it would be a close race.... You do pose some interesting arguements, but only time will see what will really happen. I agree with the statement you made below as the most logical. > Jim Kweeder > kweeder@sun.soe.clarkson.edu > > PS: I trust Apple will be around next year and doing fine. It's just that > they could be doing much better. I keyed that subject line to attract > attention :-). Norm Goodger 3Com Sysop - MacInfo BBS - @415-795-8862
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (09/20/88)
In article <1361@sunny1.che.clarkson.edu> kweeder@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Jim Kweeder) writes: >As for training, I instruct neophytes all the time in DOS and UNIX and >occasionally for the Macintosh. I can safely say it doesn't take more >or less time for any of these systems. >[ ... ] >I'm not saying a Mac II should cost $2,000 complete, but we're over >10 grand now. Except for desk-top-publishing, the Macintosh is a >performance/dollar looser (your not going to sell me on it costs less >to train Mac: do you really think it'll take less time to learn Word >on the Mac than the AT?). Next year, Apple's position in the DTP >business may not be nearly so good. Unless you're instructing them in FrameMaker on a Sun (which I don't think is the easiest program to use myself), nothing under Unix and very little under DOS is as easy to use as the programs on a Mac. Are you seriously comparing troff or TeX to PageMaker? Maybe some of the new Windows programs under DOS are usable, but for documents that require multiple fonts/graphics, nothing comes close to the Mac yet. Even Word on the Mac, which many people feel is too DOS-like, is easier to learn than Word on the PC. So yes, I *am* saying that it takes less time to learn Word on the Mac than on the PC. Within 15 minutes Mac Word users can create fairly complex documents with different fonts and graphics, and can easily create headers, footers, and footnotes. I don't think there's anyone on the face of the earth who can pick up PC Word in that amount of time. It takes that long just to explain to people what the difference between "Transfer-Spell-Hyphenate" and "Galley-Format-Style-Paragraph-Change" is and what page to look it up on in the manual when you forget again tomorrow. Also, the "10 grand" figure is somewhat misleading. We're in the process of buying a Mac, and we'll be spending about that amount of money, but for it we're getting a Mac II, 80 meg disk, 2 megs memory, Radius 2 Page Display, Apple scanner, tape backup, Excel, Word, PowerPoint, MacDraw, Illustrator, lots of other odds and ends. I'm sure I've forgotten some. On the PC, Word, and I guess Excel are available. Apple's position in the serious DTP market is as solid as it can get. It has competition from PageMaker on the PC (and Ventura to some extent). But to our company (and many others), the saving 2 or 3 thousand dollars does not justify moving to a system where data-interchange is next to impossible, expandability is limited (i.e., adding new monitors, moving to new software as we outgrow what we currently have without massive retraining costs), and many essential tools are simply unavailable (Illustrator, Freehand, object-oriented draw programs, presentation graphics packages, to name a few). To me, this is the same as hearing from a programmer that it's just as nice to develop under DOS as under Unix. While there are compilers and linkers in both environments, if you want or need to work in a development environment of any sophistication, there really is no comparison. Sorry for the length and possible irrelevance of this posting (it really had nothing to do with DRAM shortages or Apple's strategic planning). It just irritates me when people blithely assume that money is the only (or even the predominant) deciding factor in the purchase of a computer system. -- 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
kweeder@sun.soe (Jim Kweeder) (09/20/88)
In article <645@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: [Material Deleted] > Are you seriously comparing troff or TeX to PageMaker? NO, of course not. > Within 15 minutes Mac Word users can create fairly complex >documents with different fonts and graphics, and can easily create >headers, footers, and footnotes. I don't think there's anyone on the >face of the earth who can pick up PC Word in that amount of time. > >Apple's position in the serious DTP market is as solid as it can get. >It has competition from PageMaker on the PC (and Ventura to some >extent). But to our company (and many others), the saving 2 or 3 >thousand dollars does not justify moving to a system where >data-interchange is next to impossible, expandability is limited (i.e., >adding new monitors, moving to new software as we outgrow what we >currently have without massive retraining costs), and many essential >tools are simply unavailable (Illustrator, Freehand, object-oriented >draw programs, presentation graphics packages, to name a few). Steve, I couldn't agree more. The Apple Macintosh II is the premier machine for desk top publishing. The ability to change fonts, inter- change information easily, and the point and shoot ability of the mouse make it the system of choice. Nothing in the PC world comes close and it's far away easier to use than something like LaTeX or troff (although I do use LaTeX, but I do alot of math. . . .). But Steve, it won't stay this way forever. Apple got it right first, but others are soon to follow. Apple needs to establish themselves as the DTP leader and not sit back and wait for IBM and others to catch-up (this will happen anyway, but Apple should at least try to keep out in front). Apple has the initiative and should keep it. Jim Kweeder kweeder@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (09/21/88)
In article <645@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: >In article <1361@sunny1.che.clarkson.edu> kweeder@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Jim Kweeder) writes: >>As for training, I instruct neophytes all the time in DOS and UNIX and >>occasionally for the Macintosh. I can safely say it doesn't take more >>or less time for any of these systems. >>... do you really think it'll take less time to learn Word >>on the Mac than the AT?). I found that having PC Word experience helped in learning Word on the Mac. I had only used the PC for afterhours consulting and I was generally given a style sheet to apply to the current project. When I bought Macs instead of PCs for the writing group at work, I suddenly found myself as the only writer (as the result of a layoff). Not only did I have to convert 4000+ pages from NBI to Mac, but I had to continue the regular production schedule for new software releases on two systems. Needless to say, you learn a whole lot faster when you must be productive immediately. After a few months of using Mac and not using PC word, I quickly forgot how to function on the PC. When the former consulting job became my new fulltime job, I lasted only 9 days. I was happy to crawl back to my former employer and reclaim my Mac. Until I tried Mac Word, I was happy with PC Word. But I don't ever want to go back to PC Word. Every time I tried to do something (like create a table), I was reminded of how much harder it was on the PC. It was much like trying to do with one hand what you had learned to do with two hands. So, if you want people to use a PC, don't let them touch a Mac. After a few months you've lost them from the PC. (And Windows was absolutely crude after getting used to the Mac interface.)