kurt@Apple.COM (Kurt Hasel) (03/25/88)
Let me state first that I *do* work for Apple but this is completely my own opinion. I have no first-hand knowledge of what Apple's intentions are but (this being a free country and all) I do have a few guesses. This issue so far has been a wee bit strange. I am somewhat surprised by some of the attitudes expressed on the net. I wish to thank the two sturdily-fingered typists who entered actual complaint and an exhaustive legal background. Whether you agree with whatever opinions they have expressed or not, they are to be commended for raising this discussion above the "Yay Apple"/"Boo Apple" repartee of a great deal of the commentary. I have used the GEM environment and GEMpaint. I used them the first time I sat down behind a 386 and I never cracked a manual. I have seen a version of Windows on an AT and it was similar (only similar) to the Mac interface. However, it was licensed by Microsoft. That is the nub of the Microsoft part of the suit. Apple says that Microsoft exceeded the licensing agree- ment. I have not seen Windows 2.03 (I believe that is the correct version number) and all I have seen of the HP product is the screen comparison where it looked like a lo-res Mac. Not only am I no legal expert, but I haven't actually seen the products involved so I don't know how closely they match the Mac environment. I have no idea as to the merit of the suit. But then neither do most of the people who have been posting on this subject. This is a source of some irritation to me. The net is here for discussion of hot topics and I'm not trying to step on anybody's free speech, but let's try to keep things in perspective. There have been people on the net saying that Apple will win and win big. For the sake of my stock purchasing, let's hope so. Others have been saying that Apple has made a big mistake and I agree that that is a very real possibility. I have no idea as to how this is going to turn out. It's up to the courts to decide. This is where I pull out my Bic lighter for a small flame. Some posters on the net have been calling for a boycott of Apple and have sworn off Apple products. Why? Because Apple has decided to exercise its legal rights as an American corporation to try to sue the pants off the competition. Isn't that a bit of an overreaction? That is what I mean by keeping things in perspective. If you don't want to buy Apple I'm sure you can find a better reason. There. The Bic is now put away. And if you still want to stick it to Apple, the best way would be to buy Windows and New Wave. That way, if Apple wins the lawsuit you at least have the consolation have having some- thing that works like a Mac. :-) I have only been on the net a little while, and this is the first time I have gotten involved in anything the least bit controversial. I'll just have to wait and see if this is my baptism by flame. I don't have a signature file yet so... Bye--Kurt These have been my opinions, **NOT** those of Apple.
peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) (03/27/88)
in article <7778@apple.Apple.Com>, kurt@Apple.COM (Kurt Hasel) says: > If you don't want to buy Apple I'm sure you can find a better > reason. I can think of a real good reason. Their machines are too expensive! I love my Mac (I have an SE) and everyone I know who owns a Mac loves it, but guess how many people that really is? Besides myself, I know of only one other prof who has bought a Mac with his own money. There are lots more who would like to, and gads of students who would love to, but they always end up buying a Hong Kong Special--a PC clone. I'll never understand why Apple doesn't introduce an affordable Mac. If the interest here is any indication, they'd sell like hot-cakes. It doesn't seem like it will happen though. I read in the latest Mac that Apple has no plans to introduce a "low end" machine. The quote was something like "our research indicates that people want more and more sophisticated machines and a low end Mac wouldn't be in our best interests." It sure would be in the best interest of every one else! I think this way would be as good a way to increase their market share as suing the world... -- 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
straka@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Straka) (03/29/88)
In article <1017@aucs.UUCP> peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) writes: |in article <7778@apple.Apple.Com|, kurt@Apple.COM (Kurt Hasel) says: || If you don't want to buy Apple I'm sure you can find a better || reason. |I can think of a real good reason. Their machines are too expensive! |they always end up buying a Hong Kong Special--a PC clone. I'll never |understand why Apple doesn't introduce an affordable Mac. If the interest |here is any indication, they'd sell like hot-cakes. It doesn't seem like |in the best interest of every one else! I think this way would be as good |a way to increase their market share as suing the world... What would you take away from a Plus or SE to make a low-end Mac? In what ways would it have to be inferior to the above, yet still usable? I think that the current used market for older Macs serves this low-end market, IF IT DOES, INDEED, EXIST. For example, a 512K or a 512KE satisfies both of the above criteria. Add a cheap HD (and SCSI) to a 512KE, and you have a relatively cheap setup. -- Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka Advice for the day: "MSDOS - just say no."
rusty@hodge.UUCP (Rusty Hodge) (03/30/88)
In article <1017@aucs.UUCP>, peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) writes: > in article <7778@apple.Apple.Com>, kurt@Apple.COM (Kurt Hasel) says: > > If you don't want to buy Apple I'm sure you can find a better > > reason. > > I can think of a real good reason. Their machines are too expensive! > I love my Mac (I have an SE) and everyone I know who owns a Mac loves > it, but guess how many people that really is? Besides myself, I know of > only one other prof who has bought a Mac with his own money. There are > lots more who would like to, and gads of students who would love to, but Just how compatible would this budget-Mac have to be? It obviously wouldn't have more that 1mb of RAM, and probably wouldn't use SIMMS, and probably nothing would be socketed, etc. Besides there are budget Macs now- Used 512's. But no one wants a 512e because it can't run MF and a lot of the new system software. Everyone wants to be able to use the latest greatest software - and usually compromises are made in software that is compatible with the least common denominator. And aren't you happy with the MacPlus's recent price reduction??? -- Rusty Hodge, HCR Inc, 1588 N. Batavia St. Orange, CA 92667 (714) 974-6300 rusty@hodge.cts.com [ccicpg!arnold crash]!hodge!rusty FAX (714) 921-8038 uucp: (714) 921-1090 (login: nuucp) Dial-A-Joke (714) 966-0976
jwhitnel@csi.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) (03/31/88)
In article <4177@ihlpf.ATT.COM> straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.) writes: >In article <1017@aucs.UUCP> peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) writes: >|in article <7778@apple.Apple.Com|, kurt@Apple.COM (Kurt Hasel) says: >|I can think of a real good reason. Their machines are too expensive! >|they always end up buying a Hong Kong Special--a PC clone. I'll never >|understand why Apple doesn't introduce an affordable Mac. If the interest >|here is any indication, they'd sell like hot-cakes. It doesn't seem like >|in the best interest of every one else! I think this way would be as good >|a way to increase their market share as suing the world... > >What would you take away from a Plus or SE to make a low-end Mac? In what >ways would it have to be inferior to the above, yet still usable? The cost of a Plus could come down quite a bit from what Apple charges, but probably won't (although the current $1300 street price isn't too shabby). The reason is what you are paying for is not just the hardware but also the current and future software development Apple does. Things like Hypercard, the ROMs, color quickdraw, HFS and MultiFinder all cost money to develop. Because Apple is it's own unique world, all of the things have to be developed by Apple for you to get them free with the hardware (or relativly cheap upgrades). In the Hong Kong PC clone world, the clone builders don't have to support the software overhead and so can charge just the manufactoring cost plus appropiate markup. IBM and the major clones do support the development (or do it themselves) and you notice it in their prices. >Rich Straka ihnp4!ihlpf!straka > >Advice for the day: "MSDOS - just say no." Advice for tomorrow: "OS/2 - just say no." Jerry Whitnell Been through Hell? Communication Solutions, Inc. What did you bring back for me? - A. Brilliant