time@ox.com (Tim Endres) (06/02/90)
FLAME ON Apple, once again, has a marketing department with its head up its collective asshole! Their recent pricing of A/UX 2.0 is an obvious gouge, attempting to recoup development efforts. We have been developing for two years now, a full communications system which will revolutionize the typesetting industry. We have a system by which people click a mouse button, and their entire typesetting job, full specification and shipping instructions included, is piped via high speed modems to the typesetter. There, it is automatically spooled and typeset, and then shipped with an invoice and shipper that are printed automatically. The heart of the system is a UNIX based CPU which receives the incoming data, and spools to the printers, and performs administrative funcitons. We have, for obvious reasons, been focusing our development on A/UX, and until recently thought this is the system we would ship. We spent months getting the pricing of our product to be competitive. We are competing with products based on 386 technology. Our pricing was based on being able to bundle A/UX for under $250. Now we find out that A/UX 2.0 is $800 minimum, and Apple has no alternative. No "binary only" pricing. No "limited user" pricing. No "quantity" pricing. No "VAR" arrangement pricing. NOTHING!!! We are now priced uncompetitively. We were paying a premium for requiring Apple Hardware (ever price a MacIIx against a 386?). We are now redisinging the system to run on Sun's Sparc SLC! Gees, you mean I can pay $6000 for a 2MIPS box running an out of date SystemV, or pay $5000 for a 12MIPS box running BSD 4.3? And get real support?! If Apple does not get this one figured out, they can forget ever making A/UX a viable platform, since no developer in their right mind will want to add $800 to their product in exchange for basically being able to run the Finder! I am afraid that John Gilmore's observations of a year ago continue to bare true within Apple's A/UX market thinking. Developers! BEWARE OF A/UX 2.0! Apple can not support it, they can not price it, they will not sell it! And your product will sink along with its sales! FLAME OFF Tim Endres. Number One Graphics East Lansing, MI.
name@portiaStanford.EDU (tony cooper) (06/02/90)
In article <1990Jun1.185845.24189@ox.com>, time@ox.com (Tim Endres) writes: > > Apple, ... > ... Their recent pricing of A/UX 2.0 is an > obvious gouge, attempting to recoup development efforts. > Apple has made mistakes before, concerning overpricing. Slumps in sales have been attributed to overpricing a few times in the past. And industry "experts" have said that the lack of a low cost Mac has been costly for Apple. Reducing the price of A/UX will increase sales of it. And probably sales of peripherals, particulary hard drives and CDROMs will increase. There are far more Macs out there than UNIX machines. So Apple has a chance of making A/UX the most popular UNIX around. I think it is a fair price, perhaps, for a UNIX person who wants a UNIX system. But why not sell it for far less to entice MacOS users to have a look at it. I realize that Apple has to pay royalties on it. But since they do not make a direct profit from selling MacOS, why is there a need to make a direct profit from A/UX? Eventually MacOS and A/UX will converge to a single system. Can't have two different prices for the one system right? Tony Cooper
mahesh@news.nd.edu (Mahesh Subramanya) (06/03/90)
From article <1990Jun1.185845.24189@ox.com>, by time@ox.com (Tim Endres): > > Developers! BEWARE OF A/UX 2.0! > Apple can not support it, they can not price it, they will not > sell it! And your product will sink along with its sales! > I have got to agree with the above. It is almost scary to see what Apple gets away with when it comes to foisting things off on its *devoted* fans. Overpriced hardware, ridiculously antiquated system software, and on those occasions when it actually has a chance to do something right, the price goes right off into the distant horizon (the portable and A/UX come to mind instanter). With A/UX, they have *such* a great oppurtunity to get things done properly, but will they do it? Nooooo... Just goes to show, when push comes to shove, I doubt that UNIX really carries a lot of weight in Applesville. "Just wait for 7.0" the voices cry. "It'll blow the doors off such imbecilic OSs as UNIX" cry the same knowing voices. Methinks that when it comes to UNIX, somebody up there is saying "If they want it, let them have it, but make 'em pay for it. Besides, when 7.0 comes out, no one will give UNIX a second look". Me also thinks that Sculley, and the rest of the decision makers at Apple need to be severly lobotomized. On second thoughts, belay that, 'twould be just a waste of time. Oh Apple, my Apple of yore, whom I worshipped as the saviour of the personal computers, whither didst thou go. Ever since those dweebs in the three-piece suits took over, Apple hasbeen going right down the proverbial tubes. So they make profits. B.F.D. Oh. I forgot. After all, Apple's main aim IS to make a profit right? So who cares what the customer wants. They can only buy Macs from Apple right? So whatever Apple makes, thhey will buy right? So it really doesn't matter what Apple charges for stuff, 'cos people will buy it right?? (Oh my lord, I sound exactly like I used to sound when I talked about IBm four years ago. Time to stop) Just to round off the flame, if I see that ^%$*&% Knowledge Navigator again in an Apple presentation, I don't know what I will do. Boy. Does that feel good. Its been simmering in me for a looooong time ************************************************************************ Mahesh Subramanya INTERNET: mahesh@darwin.cc.nd.edu Senior Analyst Office of University Computing NeXT: mahesh@numenor.cc.nd.edu University of Notre Dame Voice: (219) 239-5600 x6421 Notre Dame, IN 46556 ************************************************************************
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (06/04/90)
In article <1990Jun1.185845.24189@ox.com>, time@ox.com (Tim Endres) writes: > Apple, once again, has a marketing department with its head up > its collective asshole! Their recent pricing of A/UX 2.0 is an > obvious gouge, attempting to recoup development efforts. So what would you suggest? Raising the price of everything else in order to subsidize A/UX users? A LOT of time and money has gone into A/UX. Apple has to pay for it somehow... Development time doesn't grow on trees. You didn't have to pick A/UX for a platform. If a cheapo 386 UNIX port is what you want to pay for, that's what you should be using. If you are adding capabilities and value to your product by putting in on A/UX, then what's the problem with paying more for it? TANSTAAFL, dude :-). Lastly, if your product is really so revolutionary, talk to Apple. They are desperate for unique, sexy A/UX products... Apply some market pressure... -- Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation -- "If we don't succeed, then we run the risk of failure." -- Dan Quayle
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (06/04/90)
>You didn't have to pick A/UX for a platform. If a cheapo 386 UNIX port >is what you want to pay for, that's what you should be using. If you are >adding capabilities and value to your product by putting in on A/UX, then >what's the problem with paying more for it? I don't quite understand just what "cheapo 386 UNIX port" is being referred to. To get what you get with A/UX 2.0, you'd end up paying at least $1K-$1.5K street price for ISC's 386/ix or SCO's XENIX or UNIX. Even ESIX, with the same services, is about $800, the same amount which is being kvetched about. The price for A/UX 2.0 seems pretty much in line with other products on the market on platforms in the same ballpark. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu
rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel) (06/05/90)
In article <1990Jun2.003545.12613@portia.Stanford.EDU> name@portiaStanford.EDU (tony cooper) writes: > > >Eventually MacOS and A/UX will converge to a single system. Can't have two >different prices for the one system right? > >Tony Cooper A/UX won't be for everybody. Those who just need a PC class machine will not need UNIX. I can't imagine UNIX being used at home for the average user. As far as Apple's pricing.. AT&T SysV ver. 4.0 with Open Look is $4995!! I don't think A/UX at $800 is too rediculous.
steveg@umd5.umd.edu (Steve Green) (06/05/90)
In article <3089@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes:
)>You didn't have to pick A/UX for a platform. If a cheapo 386 UNIX port
)>is what you want to pay for, that's what you should be using. If you are
)>adding capabilities and value to your product by putting in on A/UX, then
)>what's the problem with paying more for it?
)
)I don't quite understand just what "cheapo 386 UNIX port" is being
)referred to. To get what you get with A/UX 2.0, you'd end up paying at
)least $1K-$1.5K street price for ISC's 386/ix or SCO's XENIX or UNIX.
)Even ESIX, with the same services, is about $800, the same amount which
)is being kvetched about.
)
)The price for A/UX 2.0 seems pretty much in line with other products on
)the market on platforms in the same ballpark.
)
)--
)Steve Dyer
)dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
)dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu
ESIX.. did someone say ESIX?? It does not matter what you pay for ESIX
because you cant even get close to AUX with it. ESIX running on a 20 mhz
386 (not sx) and 4 megs of ram is worthless. I never knew just how good
AUX was until I used ESIX. I hope it is not typical of 386 based UNIX.
BTW, I run AUX on an 020 macII and as MC Hammer says, "Cant touch this"
--
What do these names have in common?
Bob, Flo, Augie, Curtis, Gordon, Rick, Rhonda, Meep, Bismark, Skip, Larson Petty
and Harry
...did I miss any?? steveg@umd5.umd.edubrian@umbc3.UMBC.EDU (Brian Cuthie) (06/05/90)
In article <2669D0E0.340B@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >In article <1990Jun1.185845.24189@ox.com>, time@ox.com (Tim Endres) writes: >> Apple, once again, has a marketing department with its head up >> its collective asshole! Their recent pricing of A/UX 2.0 is an >> obvious gouge, attempting to recoup development efforts. > >So what would you suggest? Raising the price of everything else in order >to subsidize A/UX users? A LOT of time and money has gone into A/UX. Apple >has to pay for it somehow... Development time doesn't grow on trees. >... Actually, I must disagree. Product pricing is a *marketing* decision. *Not* a cost accounting problem. Apple could more than repay the porting costs for A/UX by unbundling the product. I happen to agree with the original poster that few people are going to find it cost effective to build UNIX based products for the Mac. Admittedly, A/UX is probably the best UNIX I have used. The finder works quite well, and you can actually do Mac development. If your Mac program bombs into MacsBug, UNIX is still running, you've only crashed the finder process. Obviously this is the way it should be, but Apple could have botched it. Also, the networking support appears to be real good. Their implimentation of SLIP is fairly complete. >Lastly, if your product is really so revolutionary, talk to Apple. They >are desperate for unique, sexy A/UX products... Apply some market pressure... GOOD LUCK! I have been beating on several evangelists for some info for a product that they claim to be excited about for more than six months. No info yet. But, I just read that a competitor already has it. Figures... -Brian brian@beerwolf.umd.edu
brian@umbc3.UMBC.EDU (Brian Cuthie) (06/05/90)
In article <3089@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: >>You didn't have to pick A/UX for a platform. If a cheapo 386 UNIX port >>is what you want to pay for, that's what you should be using. If you are >>adding capabilities and value to your product by putting in on A/UX, then >>what's the problem with paying more for it? > >I don't quite understand just what "cheapo 386 UNIX port" is being >referred to. To get what you get with A/UX 2.0, you'd end up paying at >least $1K-$1.5K street price for ISC's 386/ix or SCO's XENIX or UNIX. >Even ESIX, with the same services, is about $800, the same amount which >is being kvetched about. > >The price for A/UX 2.0 seems pretty much in line with other products on >the market on platforms in the same ballpark. > Except, that if I'm trying to write a turn key application I can't buy A/UX runtime only systems. I don't necessarilly want to ship a compiler with every system. Or, networking for that matter (although I probably would want that). I don't really have a gripe about the price. Just the fact that it's unbundled. -brian brian@beerwolf.umd.edu
brian@umbc3.UMBC.EDU (Brian Cuthie) (06/05/90)
In article <3389@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> brian@umbc3.umbc.edu.UMBC.EDU (Brian Cuthie) writes: >In article <3089@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: << All kinds of stuff deleted from my original posting >> >>The price for A/UX 2.0 seems pretty much in line with other products on >>the market on platforms in the same ballpark. >> > >Except, that if I'm trying to write a turn key application I can't buy >A/UX runtime only systems. I don't necessarilly want to ship a compiler >with every system. Or, networking for that matter (although I probably >would want that). > >I don't really have a gripe about the price. Just the fact that it's >unbundled. ^^ Better insert the word 'not' up here. Otherwise, at least a 100 people will flame me for not saying the right thing. we now resume our regularly scheduled net trash. thank you. > > >-brian > >brian@beerwolf.umd.edu me again.
sobiloff@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy) (06/06/90)
Well, $800 is a little steep, but the educational discount is around $400, or so I've heard... -CCb "I drive fast. I drive safely. The two are *not* mutually exclusive, contrary to popular delusion." -CCb "I live in that solitude which is painful in youth, but delicious in the years of maturity." -Albert Einstein
es2q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Warren Selberg) (06/06/90)
> A/UX won't be for everybody. Those who just need a PC class machine > will not need UNIX. I can't imagine UNIX being used at home for the > average user. uh... no. From just what I've seen at CMU & what's happening in some places around the world, large-scale distributed computing networks will most likely become a standard thing in the future -- which means UNIX for the standard user. PS - AT&T SysV ver 4.0 for $5000, yes, but that's for a network, not a person. #========##========##========##========*========##========##========##========# # MegaloErik: Loosing contact with VICE 10... Welcome to Andrew! # # ARPA: es2q+@andrew.cmu.edu Fido: 129/107 BBS: Mac @ Night (412) 268-5534 # # GEnie: E.SELBERG Delphi: LORDERIK CIS: 71470,2127 MacList: 6009/1 # #========##========##========##========*========##========##========##========# ...48 hours of continuous study have proven that Elvis is alive and teaching math at CMU.
mwilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (06/06/90)
In article <kaP8oqm00WI181eEox@andrew.cmu.edu> es2q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Warren Selberg) writes: >uh... no. From just what I've seen at CMU & what's happening in some >places around the world, large-scale distributed computing networks >will most likely become a standard thing in the future -- which means >UNIX for the standard user. Large-scale distributed computing networks, yes. Compatibility with existing protocols, including some popular ones used by UNIX systems, yes. UNIX on the home users' desktop, no. There's just no reason to use UNIX as a basis for a home computer. It's quite obviously meant for a centrally administered system serving multiple users. That doesn't mean I don't like A/UX 2.0, but UNIX will rarely be used by someone who doesn't have access to a local system manager and it will never be standard for a turnkey personal computer system, meaning one aimed at the home market. --Mark Wilkins -- "According to our contract, at precisely midnight of the night of her greatest triumph, the party of the first part, (that's you), agrees to render up her soul, now and forevermore, to the party of the second part. (That's me). Shall we go?"
mulder@eb11.eb.ele.tue.nl (06/06/90)
> A/UX won't be for everybody. Those who just need a PC class machine will > not need UNIX. I can't imagine UNIX being used at home for the average > user. Hmm, my room-mate has a unix (BSD4.3) box, an Acorn Archimedes that is, and since the time he bought it I spent more time behind his unix machine than behind my own Mac and Lisa... I'm a programmer and I love unix to use as a programming environment. I use the Mac to write articles and such. I couldn't do without the Mac, but neither without the unix machine.. This is why I think A/UX is a Good Thing, if I had a big Mac (Only have an ordinary Mac Plus, into which I've put 2 meg of RAM, and a Lisa) and a good income I would buy A/UX. Now I need two machines to do the same job... Then I'd only need one! An BSD4.3 archimedes together would cost you about $5000, how much does a Mac IIfx with a big screen and A/UX cost you? The mind boggles...) Bye!!!!!!!!! pooh
es2q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Warren Selberg) (06/07/90)
> never be standard for a turnkey personal computer system, meaning one aimed > at the home market. I think you misunderstood.... from what I've seen, chances are a personal computer will become more of a personal workstation. It will be like having your own pmax or whatever you want (NeXT!) in your home, but connected to a _big_ central system. This could well mean UNIX for the average user (although I suspect people would be using something a bit better.... MACH maybe! 8) #========##========##========##========*========##========##========##========# # MegaloErik: Loosing contact with VICE 10... Welcome to Andrew! # # ARPA: es2q+@andrew.cmu.edu Fido: 129/107 BBS: Mac @ Night (412) 268-5534 # # GEnie: E.SELBERG Delphi: LORDERIK CIS: 71470,2127 MacList: 6009/1 # #========##========##========##========*========##========##========##========# ...48 hours of continuous study have proven that Elvis is alive and teaching math at CMU.
pok@cbnewsl.att.com (david.a.shinberg) (06/08/90)
I couldn't resist adding my two cnets worth. Do you realize that SunOS 4.1 costs $1200. To me it seems that A/UX 2.0 is a bargin. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ David A. Shinberg No matter where you go pok@attunix.att.com there you are. BB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rob@uokmax.uucp (Bolo) (06/09/90)
In article <1990Jun8.165013.25@cbnewsl.att.com> pok@cbnewsl.att.com (david.a.shinberg) writes: >I couldn't resist adding my two cnets worth. Do you realize that >SunOS 4.1 costs $1200. To me it seems that A/UX 2.0 is a bargin. Just to add fuel to the fire :-), I checked university pricing for the A/UX upgrade (any previous version to 2.0). It runs $363 ($182 on CD). So much for the "expensive support" mentioned in another posting. BTW, the higher number is about 1/2 what Sun got us for on our last update. >David A. Shinberg No matter where you go Robert -- Robert K. Shull rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu chinet!uokmax!rob