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 Gees, you mean I can pay $6000 for a 2MIPS box running an out of date SystemV, or pay $5000 for a 12MIPS box running BSD 4.3?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 ************************************************************************
rob@uokmax.uucp (Bolo) (06/03/90)
In article <190@news.nd.edu> mahesh@news.nd.edu (Mahesh Subramanya) writes: >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 ^^^^^^^ Funny, we've never had any trouble getting through to tech support, the few times we've had to call. They've been very helpful. >> 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. Remember, A/UX is an ADD ON operating system for the Macintosh. You already get the Macintosh OS free. So, let's compare prices against Unix for, say, your typical 386. What's the price on a 386 Unix with: windowing system, TCP/IP support, SLIP support, NFS, Adobe Transcript, C and Fortran compilers, UUCP, full Berkeley networking, job control, streams and sockets, fast file system, nroff, troff, Berkeley line printer system, multiple ethernet support (we've got 4 in our router), and all standard utilties. Retail, since that's what I've heard quoted for A/UX. The prices I've seen seem pretty much in line with other systems, especially if you consider other factors than straight single-quantity price. For example, Sun may include the OS in the price of the box, but they also charged us around $800 for the last SUNOS upgrade to our Sun 3. Not to mention charging an additional $750 for an ethernet driver that works with more than 2 ethernet cards. (university price, with no support). Oh, and if you haven't checked, the price for A/UX goes down drastically with quantity (or, it did for 1.1.1. I don't have a price list for 2.0 yet). Dropped from around $600 at quantity 1 to something under $50 at some large number. I also seem to remember a VAR program for A/UX that was announced about the time it was first released. If it still exists (ever existed?) then it should have some quantity discounts involved also (assuming you plan on selling more than a few systems). Robert -- Robert K. Shull rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu chinet!uokmax!rob
kyt@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu (Kok Yong Tan) (06/03/90)
The more I think of it, the more I miss the days when the two Steves at Apple were around, particularly the Woz. Then, IBM was the boogeyman... Maybe it's just having MBA people around? They seem to destroy anything they get their itchy little fingers on. Perhaps IBM was just as inventive and "decent" until the MBA got to control the company... =============================================================================== Kok-Yong Tan can be contacted via: | "Oscularis fundamentum!" InterNet: kyt@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu | - Annoyed Latin scholar CompuServe: 75046,256 | America Online: Lallang | ===============================================================================
gt0228b@prism.gatech.EDU (FALCO,VINNIE) (06/04/90)
FLAME ON I cannot agree more with the sentiments expressed over A/UX 2.0 and Apple's pseudo-pricing policy. There should definitely be some competitive pricing for the Macintosh, but it seems that with an interface as sophisticated and ROM supported as the one found on the Mac, a clone would be impossible since third parties would be pirating Apple's proprietary source code (the sources in ROM of course, i.e. Quickdraw) Any attempt to make a clone of the Macintosh that has any hope of working is doomed to failure, because I will bet that a major portion of the software (ESPECIALLY Microsoft-ware, that seems to crash everytime I try and run it with my INIT arsenal turned on) will refuse to work due to the sensitive interdependence of applications and the Macintosh ToolBox. I also do not rule out the possibility that people at Apple (not necessarily programmers and technicians who do real work and get their hands dirty in source code, as opposed to 'suits') have just said outright "Let's bilk the public, and take advantage of the blind devoted fools who LOVE the reputation Apple has set up (like me)". Why are so many new computers coming out? When I got the IIx, it was fresh off the assembly lines, and I figured that I would not have the same problem that ousted me from the Apple II line (first the Apple IIe, then the IIc, then all sorts of new ROMs and upgrades and extended cards and such) and the Apple IIGS line (a really dumb idea if you ask me -- all the price of the mac with none of the software or power. What a waste of time, the IIGS is clearly trying to be the 'poor mans Macintosh' only no poor man could afford it). I firmly believe that the only real way to buy a computer is to take whatever amount of cash you are ready to spend on it, and buy the most advanced computer from your company of choice that you can afford. So I got the IIx figuring that it would not be obsolete (in terms of power AND price) TOO soon, but barely a while goes by, and then BAM! IIcx...BAM! IIci...BAM! IIfx! by the time the year is over, there will be 8 or 9 new computers out above the IIx! Considering what the IIx cost me, it is definitely the LAST computer I will ever buy for a LONG time (I will have to flip perhaps 50,000 more burgers to get another one). Anyway, in summary, I agree with those two dudes above, and I think that as the smoke clears and a clear view is afforded, the buzz will wear off as the devotees and fans of the Mac get done wrong left and right. FLAME OFF
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.
gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) (06/05/90)
In article <8@genco.uucp> rad@genco. (Bob Daniel) writes: > >As far as Apple's pricing.. AT&T SysV ver. 4.0 with Open Look is $4995!! Hmmm.. Where did you get your figure? It seems obvious that it is alittle high. Commodore should be releasing their SysV Release 4.1 soon, and I can assure you that it won't be $4995. It also includes Open Look. See ya, Ralph gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu gilgalad@zip.eecs.umich.edu gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu Ralph_Seguin@ub.cc.umich.edu gilgalad@sparky.eecs.umich.edu USER6TUN@UMICHUB.BITNET Ralph Seguin | In order to get infinitely many monkeys to type 565 South Zeeb Rd. | something that actually makes sense, you need to Ann Arbor, MI 48103 | have infinitely many monkey editors as well. (313) 662-1506
cramer@sun.com (Sam Cramer) (06/05/90)
In article <8@genco.uucp>, rad@genco (Bob Daniel) writes: >As far as Apple's pricing.. AT&T SysV ver. 4.0 with Open Look is $4995!! From who? For what? This doesn't sound right to me. I believe that SVr4 pricing is competitive with OS/2, which is somewhere in the mid-hundreds of dollars. Sam
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (06/06/90)
IMHO, the whole flame thread that I think Tim Endres (sp) started
is ridiculous. He is just one of many that always wants something
good for next to nothing. In comparsison to Unix OS costs for
most platforms AUX 2.0 is cheap. Even SCO Xenix is around $500
or so from what I understand and that I don't think is anywhere
as good as what AUX 2.0 is. When are people going to understand
that you don't get something good for nothing. You are always going
to pay and pay alot for good software. I can think of page layout
and Database programs that cost almost as much as AUX...
--
Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862
3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie.
Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything)
UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COMsobiloff@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
liam@cs.qmw.ac.uk (William Roberts) (06/08/90)
In <364@three.MV.COM> cory@three.MV.COM (Cory Kempf) writes: >If Apple wanted A/UX to be considered as a viable unix system, they really >should (at the VERY LEAST) provide X/Motif as part of the system, and cut >the price of the system as well (after all, people who are using A/UX are >not using MacOS -- Why should they have to pay for it?) We bought A/UX (140 systems to date) because we want to have both: we want process protection so that programming mistakes don't kill the whole operating system (we teach Computer Science which involves lots of practical programming work), but we want low cost quality document preparation that people can use without us having to teach them (our teaching timtable is already full). With A/UX 1.1 we already get this is a slightly fudged way - we do use X11 for our graphics courses and students can use it all them time if they wish. However they don't seem to want to: most of them would rather have access to MS-Word, SuperPaint and HyperCard. A/UX 2.0 will be even better, because they will have an easier time manipulating their filestore and and they will be able to run Word at the same time as developing their programs, reading mail etc etc. A/UX is a viable unix, but Unix is a commodity and there are loads of places you could buy it from. What we want (and are apparently about to get) is Unix plus all of the Macintosh stuff. -- William Roberts ARPA: liam@cs.qmw.ac.uk Queen Mary & Westfield College UUCP: liam@qmw-cs.UUCP Mile End Road AppleLink: UK0087 LONDON, E1 4NS, UK Tel: 071-975 5250 (Fax: 081-980 6533)
gda@creare.creare.UUCP (Gray Abbott) (06/11/90)
I had to add my 2 cents. I just got a demo of AUX 2.0. I need a machine which can serve multiple purposes: a Mac for working on proposals, a Unix box for development work and as a home base, and an X terminal for development on other machines on a network. I wanted a chance to take a good hard look at how good AUX is. I've been using various flavors of Unix on various workstations, supercomputers, and PCs for several years now, and I've gotten to be pretty cautious about what someone will deliver when they promise Unix. IMHO, AUX 2.0 DELIVERS! It is the most complete version of Unix I've seen, other than SunOS. For your modest $800 you get all kinds of stuff which is often missing from other, more expensive versions of Unix. For example, most of the PC Unix's (SCO Xenix, ISC) are "unbundled". For $800-1000 you get the basic system, which means the kernal and misc. tools like "cat", etc. What you don't get are development tools, like a C compiler, FORTRAN, lex, yacc, cb, prof, sdb, and all of those familiar goodies. Sometimes you don't even get "sed", "awk", or "grep" - I've written product delivery systems which depend on these tools; it hurts when they're not there. You also don't get any of the text processing tools, like troff, nroff, and spell. Try reading man pages for PD software without nroff sometime! These other bundles will cost you another $500-1000 each. Now you're talking about $1800-$3000. AUX comes with all of it for $800. In addition, lots of Berekley tools are missing from even professional workstations. Just as I was getting to like "style" and "diction", I didn't have them anymore. Another nice Berekley feature is "sendmail" - I'm trying to set up a mail/news server on a Xenix machine now, without "sendmail" - ouch! AUX has them. (I looked!) On top of this, you get all of the added functionality of AUX. You can use either a Mac style "icons and folders" interface, or a standard command line interface, or both. You can run Unix processes, Mac processes, and X windows all on one machine. You can drag files back and forth between the two file systems. You can "launch" a Mac application with a Unix command. Come on folks, this is a nice piece of work. Yes, the hardware is a little steeper than your basic 386 box, but I promise you the software is much nicer than any Unix you can run on that 386. Yeah, the X windows is an additional charge. It is on Xenix and ISC Unix, too. (I didn't get to see X windows working on the demo system - anyone have any experience with this? Please mail me your comments.) I understand the initial poster's complaint - he is trying to deliver a product and wants an unbundled "minimal" system at a lower, VAR price. I agree that there is a need here. But most of you are griping about the fact that AUX isn't free. As one who has priced and bought several of the alternatives, I think you're wrong - it's a bargain!
alexis@panix.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) (06/15/90)
I would like to ramble (and rant and rave) at great length on this subject but I will confine myself to three observations: 1) I honestly and seriously suggest that Apple owes all of its A/UX 1.x users a free upgrade. I would suggest that they should pay us for our trouble, but I said I was going to be serious. Isn't there some saying about "never have so few owed so much to so many?" :-) 2) All other things being equal, I'd be glad to pay double the price of A/UX 2.0. It's spectacular in lots of major ways. Of course, in the version I'm familiar with, they still haven't gotten basic things like UUCP right, but I'm assuming they will make the effort this time. The problem is that all other things are NOT equal. In terms of power, the Mac IIfx (much more so any of the other Macs) is a turd compared to any of the RISC boxes out there, some of which are selling for a good deal less. The reason Apple has been able to sell such slothly hardware is that their software makes up for it (so the argument goes, and I'm somewhat of a believer). By providing outstanding software at no cost (the system and the finder) they increase the value of the Mac to the point where it is no longer a price-performance loser. But if Apple starts charging a premium for the software too, there is no payback. 3) It's the whole market share vs. margins issue all over again. I can't believe that Sculley and his cohorts are so abysmally stupid that they still can't see this. Alexis Rosen A/UX victim alexis@panix.uucp apple!panix!alexis