rwl@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ray Lubinsky) (04/21/89)
I just realized -- Jobs and the "if you want a NeXT, you'll have to go to college" biz has been a complete white wash! A previous poster (from apple.com, I believe) pointed out that Jobs had agreed not to compete in the business market for a set time after leaving Apple. Then, I just read an article where someone opined that H. Ross was behind the move to retail through Businessland... I put these ideas together with the fact that Jobs could never hope to squeeze a major profit out of the academic market in these times especially not in the liberal arts (for which these machines would be ideal), and I realized that he never intended to! He just wanted to make everyone who wasn't "allowed" to get a NeXT real hungry for one and then -- presto -- he changes his mind and now everyone can get one. It would have been more subtle if he'd put up more of a struggle to hold to the academic market and waited a little longer. It might not have even felt like we've been manipulated by slick hype instead of rational evaluation. At least I'm reassured that he's not as naive as I had thought he was. -- | Ray Lubinsky rwl@amber.cs.virginia.edu (Internet) | | rwl@virginia (BITnet) | | Department of Computer Science, ...!uunet!virginia!uvacs!rwl (UUCP) | | University of Virginia (804) 979-6188 (voice) |
craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Craig Hubley) (04/21/89)
In article <3098@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU> rwl@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ray Lubinsky) writes: >A previous poster (from apple.com, I believe) pointed out that Jobs had agreed >not to compete in the business market for a set time after leaving Apple. > >I put these ideas together with the fact that Jobs could never hope to squeeze >a major profit out of the academic market in these times especially not in the >liberal arts (for which these machines would be ideal), and I realized that >he never intended to! He just wanted to make everyone who wasn't "allowed" >to get a NeXT real hungry for one and then -- presto -- he changes his mind and >now everyone can get one. Sounds like New Coke to me. But there were plenty of reasons to do it anyway: >It would have been more subtle if he'd put up more of a struggle to hold to the >academic market and waited a little longer. It might not have even felt like >we've been manipulated by slick hype instead of rational evaluation. Four reasons I can see to do it now rather than later: 1. practical universities often buy what's in the real world, for reasons of software and hardware availability, cost (general-market hardware is cheaper, usually), and need to familiarize their students with it... can you imagine learning all about computers on a NeXT and then going to work and getting a FeCe on your desk ? Many universities are cautious and waiting for acceptance by markets other than themselves... after all, universities are full of cautious folk. 1/2 :-) 2. research universities often wait to be *given* stuff... NeXT can't do this unless it has a big business sales base, and that means the number of NeXTs will be limited in the major research universities that write all the software... how much of your budget are you going to spend on NeXT when Digital piles so many machines into your labs that you can't find space for them all, and you don't have enough money to pay research assistants ? When I was at Waterloo, such was the situation. 3. the business market is soft for the first time in years In fact, the university market is pretty tough, as you say. I would think the business market is softer, since there is now no clear successor to the IBM PC, the Mac SE/30 and IIx don't offer any new functionality at all, but at a fatter price. Because of POSIX and X/Open, many business folk are being baptized in Unix waters... the fact that both AT&T and OSF agreed that SysV.3 was the groundwork for their enhancements made a lot of people realize that the Unix wars will not have as many civilian casualties as the FeCe Bus Wars, or Mac-like interface lawsuit wars. 4. Jobs gets a clear shot at Sculley, just when Sculley is hurting most >At least I'm reassured that he's not as naive as I had thought he was. Naive ? Building the market for personal computers, recognizing the potential of the Xerox Star, creating the Macintosh and nurturing it... not the actions of a naive man. He's always had powerful friends, too, with good advice handy. I think this was yet another well-considered move. Craig Hubley Disclaimer: No, I don't work for *, I just like some of their stuff * = random computer company -- Craig Hubley ------------------------------------- craig@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu "Lead, follow, or get out of the way" mnetor!utgpu!craig@uunet.UU.NET ------------------------------------- {allegra,bnr-vpa,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,mnetor,utzoo,utcsri}!utgpu!craig
lih@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Andrew Lih) (04/22/89)
In article <3098@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU> rwl@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ray Lubinsky) writes: >I just realized -- Jobs and the "if you want a NeXT, you'll have to go to >college" biz has been a complete white wash! > >A previous poster (from apple.com, I believe) pointed out that Jobs had agreed >not to compete in the business market for a set time after leaving Apple. >Then, I just read an article where someone opined that H. Ross was behind the >move to retail through Businessland... Well, I am not sure if Jobs was totally serious about his "go to college!" response... The fact that Jobs entered the business market is not really surprising. If he indeed did make a deal with Apple about not entering the business market, then it is also not a surprise that NeXT entered the business market. Why? Examine one of the owners of NeXT: H. Ross Perot. He sold his startup EDS (Electronic Data Systems) to GM, and also made a deal to not "compete profitably" against EDS for a period of two years I believe. So what did H. Ross do? He started Perot Systems and bid against EDS for contracts, but for the next two years, Perot Systems will show a 0 profit on the books. I would like to know the details of the Apple-Jobs agreement if it does exist. If it says that Jobs cannot compete, then that would be a problem for NeXT, but if it says that Jobs cannot "turn a profit" then he can learn from his friend H. Ross... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= """"""" Andrew "Fuz" Lih Columbia University Center | @ @ | Instructional Computing for Computing Activities < ^ > \ - / lih@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu AJLUS@CUVMB.BITNET --- lih@heathcliff.cs.columbia.edu ...rutgers!columbia!cunixc!lih =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
mvs@meccts.MECC.MN.ORG (Michael V. Stein) (04/23/89)
In article <3098@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU> rwl@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ray Lubinsky) writes: [talking about Jobs selling to more than the college market ] >It would have been more subtle if he'd put up more of a struggle to hold to the >academic market and waited a little longer. It might not have even felt like >we've been manipulated by slick hype instead of rational evaluation. I'm really not sure what the big deal is about all this. Aside from that, I'm also not convinced by your reasoning. I listened to a NeXT rep about two months ago and he said that at a meeting of Job's academic advisors, the advisors had sharply changed their position. Supposedly the advisors had originally pressured Jobs into promising that the machine would be marketed only to education for the first year it was out - so they could show to the world what higher ed could do with the proper machine. At any rate, supposedly, a few months ago the advisors met again and decided that if they were ever going to get the third party software they wanted, the machine should be marketed to all groups. The story could all be a lie but most college profs are pompous enough to behave that way. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP mvs@mecc.mn.org