VS83F8@UMKCVAX3.BITNET (05/02/90)
>>... For example, say you owned a Chrysler >>Imperial. Are you necessarily upset that Chrysler stopped making >>that car? Were you upset when news got out that they were going to >>replace it? By forcing Apple to make such an old machine, with sales going >>down, we might all be the cause of Apple's downfall as a company, which in my >>opinion, makes the best personal computers around. It might be time to move >>on. > A Chrysler Imperial doesn't have 5 Million owners who collectively have >25,000 programs that run ONLY on a Chrysler Imperial. Also take into account >people who don't want to pay a fortune to buy a Mercedes when they can get >by with a revamped Imperial (the Fury, perhaps?) I think you see my point. > The apple II made Apple the profit it needed to develop the Macintosh. >It can still make money. There are over 50 million households that could >conceivably buy personal computers. If Apple wants to make some REAL money, >they should hit THAT market. Comment then Question: Comment:Give me, yourself, and Apple a break and let's talk economics. Now, as I understand it, Apple currently has the highest margins on its products in the industry, about 50%. That means that on each $10,000 mac fx apple sells they get $5,000 *profit*. Let us suppose for a second that a II product with a 386 power, multitasking operating system, fast peripherials, etc as well as compatiblity mode with 8bit and gs machines (similar to the dos compatibility in os/2) could be built. Let us further suppose that apple could market this in a world that is either dos, unix, mac, or mainframe oriented. okay. No way could apple maintain a 50% margin, maybe 10% which is typical in the clone wars. Have you priced cpu's lately? High end cpu's, and let us not forget that to remain compatible with 15 year old technology, Apple would have to custom design the chips, are VERY expensive. Let us say apple could put the whole package together in a IIc type box, and people could use their tvs for monitors, and could sell them to compete with the nintendo market at say $200. A ten percent margin would be $20. You'd have to sell about 250 of them for every mac II they sell now to make the same kind of money. Go jump off a ledge, people. That would be stupid. On the other hand, there is an established market for apple IIs that apple has not left out in the dark. For a few moments people consider what it costs Apple to support the II market!!! They hardly have to; you guys haven't been the profit center for years. That they choose to speaks highly of Apple, but doesn't suprise me. I have always loved Apple; its the spirit of the machines they build --> for me (yes even at 10,000 the mac fx is "for me;" give me an fx under A/UX over a sun /apollo/ decStation *ANY* time.) I think it is great that apple is continuing to offer support for the II even though I've not touched mine in years. That the product might be a board level II in a mac is hardly surprising; the technology has been exploited for a couple of years: there are PC/AT boards to run in your macs two. (In fact if this works out, one could theoretically run windows, II software [I hope gs compatiblitiy but won't hold my breath], and mac stuff at the same time; a gaming platform to kill for). Question: Why do you people have such hangups about the mac? I've been subscribing to the II list here for a little while and I get several distinct impressions: a) You ("generic internet users") consider the II a "hacker's machine," that is, one in which the average joe/joette can program. b) You (joe/joette) think the mac is a confining environment dictated by the programmers at Apple/Claris/MicroSoft/etc. Guys (no gender reference): Catch a clue! When my mac boots about ten million inits boot; My control panel is full to scrolling of the screen; my hard disk is crammed. Freeware, shareware all of it. This before you consider Desk accesories, and full length applications, and most especially HyperCard. And I've heard your opinions that hyperCard is a joke compared to applesoft. Come on guys (ngr): I've seen grown men/women spend hours programming supurb,complex applications in hypercard --> these are people who would never ever touch a computer before. The mac is the most extensible machine on the market. Please read extensible as flexible as hackable. Okay, I can see your reluctance to the price. But again guys (ngr) you are being blind! I work on a mac Plus, 2.5 meg ram and a sixty meg harddrive. $1800. Okay, I don't have color, but but I *do* have the best graphics on the market. Hopefully Apple will ship a low end color mac by years end and I'll upgrade Think about it guys. For you IIc'ers this is not much more; for you GS'ers, *this is cheaper!* And further, Apple is coming out with a card to save your investment in II software. God (apologies to faithful)! You people need to count your blessings you didn't get hooked into loving your sinclairs, or SOLs, or pc jrs, or (ad infinitum). Apple knows you exist; Apple cares; Apple is trying to keep you in the fold; Give a listen sometime. Jonathan. Entropy: Fight the real enemy before it's too late.
SAB121@psuvm.psu.edu (05/02/90)
In article <9005020758.AA27657@apple.com>, VS83F8@UMKCVAX3.BITNET says: > >>>... For example, say you owned a Chrysler >>>Imperial. Are you necessarily upset that Chrysler stopped making >>>that car? Were you upset when news got out that they were going to >>>replace it? By forcing Apple to make such an old machine, with sales going >>>down, we might all be the cause of Apple's downfall as a company, which in >my >>>opinion, makes the best personal computers around. It might be time to move >>>on. >> A Chrysler Imperial doesn't have 5 Million owners who collectively have >>25,000 programs that run ONLY on a Chrysler Imperial. Also take into account >>people who don't want to pay a fortune to buy a Mercedes when they can get >>by with a revamped Imperial (the Fury, perhaps?) I think you see my point. >> The apple II made Apple the profit it needed to develop the Macintosh. >>It can still make money. There are over 50 million households that could >>conceivably buy personal computers. If Apple wants to make some REAL money, >>they should hit THAT market. > >Comment then Question: > >Comment:Give me, yourself, and Apple a break and let's talk economics. > Now, as I understand it, Apple currently has the highest margins > on its products in the industry, about 50%. That means that on > each $10,000 mac fx apple sells they get $5,000 *profit*. Let us Well, here is an interesting fact. No wonder no one can afford a Mac and IBM Clones get all of the market. Maybe, JUST MAYBE if Apple wasn't so money grubbing and was more interested in helping the LOYAL base that has already been built up (After all, the II line has been around for over 12 years now, I would assume that quite a few people know how to run standard Apple software...), they could make some money even on the "obselete technology. As IBM is learning now, the so called obselete technology often sells just as good if not better than "state of the art" merely because it is what everyone is most familiar with. If Apple is so concerned about the profit margin, sell out to a company that will give the II some push and let the people who are faithful to the II keep what they are used too. After all, since Apple is so intent on following an IBM type marketing scheme (The bigger and more expensive, the better), why don't they take a page from IBM and start letting clone makers handle their "obselete" technology while still keeping the patents and making some cash off royalties? > suppose for a second that a II product with a 386 power, multitasking > operating system, fast peripherials, etc as well as compatiblity > mode with 8bit and gs machines (similar to the dos compatibility > in os/2) could be built. Let us further suppose that apple could > market this in a world that is either dos, unix, mac, or mainframe > oriented. okay. No way could apple maintain a 50% margin, maybe > 10% which is typical in the clone wars. Have you priced cpu's lately? > High end cpu's, and let us not forget that to remain compatible with > 15 year old technology, Apple would have to custom design the chips, > are VERY expensive. Let us say apple could put the whole package Custom chips are that expensive huh? Tell that to Commodore. Apparently according to your estimates the Amiga 3000 should sell for around $15000 easy! After all, they are running a 68030 (JUST LIKE THE MAC IIs), with ALL SORTS of custom chips for blitter control and screen displays, color pallettes, sound, and a couple of others. Also it has an 68882 math co-processor, mega memory, hard disk, 880K drives, COLOR, and last but certainly not least, UNIX! Can you say that your Mac gives you all that for $3000? Why doesn't Apple get their head out of their behinds and realize that it isn't THAT hard to make a cheap but powerful computer! > together in a IIc type box, and people could use their tvs for > monitors, and could sell them to compete with the nintendo market > at say $200. A ten percent margin would be $20. You'd have to > sell about 250 of them for every mac II they sell now to make the WHO IS ASKING FOR A $200 COMPUTER? GET REAL JERK! We are willing to pay a fair and decent price for our computer. After all, we paid $2000 for the machines we have now! Hell, if we want to get anything from Apple, we know better than to ask for a really cheap price. WE DON'T WANT NINTENDO! We want a nice, decently powered little machine, for a pretty agressive price, perferrably with some good support for compilers and a half decent platform for development because, after all, the II started out as a developers machine. The other thing we want is a HOME Computer! I'm not asking to have a company buy 500 IIgs machines, but I would like compatibility with what I'm working with in the office, as well as a computer that my children can understand. It would be VERY nice to have a computer with tons of educational software, as well as a pretty agressive business software, games, and graphics, all at a price that the average man can afford. After all, that was what the original II was, a machine that you didn't need a PhD to program, that could have fun games, do wordprocessing, and all for a price that you couldn't resist. > same kind of money. Go jump off a ledge, people. That would be ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ My my my, aren't we getting just a little nasty. How would you feel if Apple announced tomorrow that the Mac line had been discontinued and a new machine was being released that only cost 8 times as much if you wanted any kind of speed, color, or graphics. > stupid. On the other hand, there is an established market for > apple IIs that apple has not left out in the dark. For a few > moments people consider what it costs Apple to support the II > market!!! They hardly have to; you guys haven't been the profit > center for years. That they choose to speaks highly of Apple, but Perhaps if Apple would spend a little more on development, as well as more time and money on promoting the Apple II instead of breaking their arms patting themselves on the back over killing the Apple II, we COULD be at the center of the profit. Oh, and as for what you have said earlier about new II machines and the expense. Isn't that just what IBM has done? They all have compatibility with the earlier machine. > doesn't suprise me. I have always loved Apple; its the spirit of > the machines they build --> for me (yes even at 10,000 the mac fx > is "for me;" give me an fx under A/UX over a sun /apollo/ decStation ^^^^ Sure, if someone GAVE one to me, you wouldn't have to twist my arm. But when it came down to buying it, I think I'd have to seriously look at an Amiga, so that I might have a LITTLE money left over to buy software, accessories, a car, a stereo, pay the rent, put in a swimming pool, etc. > *ANY* time.) I think it is great that apple is continuing to > offer support for the II even though I've not touched mine in > years. That the product might be a board level II in a mac is > hardly surprising; the technology has been exploited for a couple Yeah, but it is dissappointing to those of us who bought GSs on the assurance that the machine would be around for years and would have LOADS of support from Apple. To see this dry up has been one of the major disappointments that I have had with the company, and have made me regret more than once that I let nostalgia push me into buying an Apple (either a GS or a MAC, either way it was all because of the company), instead of getting a machine that has the power and support that I want and need. > of years: there are PC/AT boards to run in your macs two. (In fact > if this works out, one could theoretically run windows, II software Seems kinda funny, a while back you were discussing obselete technology. This is about as obselete as it gets yet you are cheering. That doesn't make much sense. If it is stupid to put out another machine based on this design, it is stupid to put out cards, etc that go into the "state of the art machines" that all seem to have very little of the "soul" that the Apple II has had since day one. Maybe going from a garage to a huge corporation has hurt Apple more than anything else. It seems that in the days it was in the garage, Apple CARED about the user. Somehow, that caring feeling seems to be fading fast. > [I hope gs compatiblitiy but won't hold my breath], and mac stuff > at the same time; a gaming platform to kill for). > >Question: > Why do you people have such hangups about the mac? > > I've been subscribing to the II list here for a little while > and I get several distinct impressions: > a) You ("generic internet users") consider the II a > "hacker's machine," that is, one in which the > average joe/joette can program. > b) You (joe/joette) think the mac is a confining > environment dictated by the programmers at > Apple/Claris/MicroSoft/etc. > > Guys (no gender reference): Catch a clue! When my mac boots > about ten million inits boot; My control panel is full to scrolling > of the screen; my hard disk is crammed. Freeware, shareware all of > it. This before you consider Desk accesories, and full length > applications, and most especially HyperCard. And I've heard your > opinions that hyperCard is a joke compared to applesoft. Come on > guys (ngr): I've seen grown men/women spend hours programming > supurb,complex applications in hypercard --> these are people > who would never ever touch a computer before. The mac is the > most extensible machine on the market. Please read extensible > as flexible as hackable. > > Okay, I can see your reluctance to the price. But again guys > (ngr) you are being blind! I work on a mac Plus, 2.5 meg ram > and a sixty meg harddrive. $1800. Okay, I don't have color, but > but I *do* have the best graphics on the market. Hopefully > Apple will ship a low end color mac by years end and I'll upgrade > Think about it guys. For you IIc'ers this is not much more; for > you GS'ers, *this is cheaper!* And further, Apple is coming > out with a card to save your investment in II software. > OK, why I don't like the Mac (NOTE: This is the short summary. For the whole novel, which will be about 487 pages when it is finished, send $1,999.95 [ after all, this is about APPLE, we should keep the prices about in the same inflation rate] to Apple II Forever Fund, Box 488, Espyville, PA 16424. All envelopes without money orders (no personal checks please) will be deposited in the circular file.) is a very complex argument. 1) COST: You state the cost of a Mac+. The Mac+ is a dog. To compare it to the GS or any high end Mac is to compare the II (note: NOTE THE II+ even, just the original 48K Apple II) to a GS or a MAC SE/30 with math co-processor. The + is slow, in black and white, and it can be argued that the Amiga has the best graphics on the market. At least the ones I've seen blow away the disgusting grainy look of the Mac+. 2) No color. This is a BIG minus, as color is not THAT expensive to add in. RGB video should be standard on EVERY mac, not an expensive option. Who can take a Macintosh seriously when it has a dinky little screen that isn't even color? 3) The dinky little screen: Makes the Mac+, SE, and SE/30 a bitch to work with if you have poor eyesight (I do), and also makes it look like a toy. How can a big business justify a Mac when the IBM LOOKS professional, not like an art deco sculpture! After all, my GS looks better than a Mac+,SE,SE/30. 4)Apple has screwed me over once, what is to stop them from doing it again? I probably won't ever buy a Mac just for the shoddy way that I have been treated as an owner of the Apple II. > God (apologies to faithful)! You people need to count your blessings ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Apology accepted. > you didn't get hooked into loving your sinclairs, or SOLs, or > pc jrs, or (ad infinitum). Apple knows you exist; Apple cares; > Apple is trying to keep you in the fold; Give a listen sometime. > I have yet to be shown that Apple cares. I see that people AT Apple care, but I haven't seen a glimmer of support from Apple the company. Maybe if they would PAY people to listen to us, as well as making it easier to voice our concerns (EMAIL addresses, etc.), it would help. Maybe, just maybe, I might be interested in another Apple. Until then, forget about it. > >Jonathan. Entropy: Fight the real enemy before it's too late. Oh, to Apple II DTS, this was not directed at you. You are about the only people that I have seen at Apple that are interested in helping out the II. Anyway we can vote you people onto the board of directors???? ...Sal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Salvatore A. Buttice Before ^^^^^\_<sab121@psuvm.psu.edu> Box 488 May 4 _____/ <SAB121@PSUVM.BITNET> Espyville, PA 16424 After May 4--><sir-alan!salb@uunet.UU.NET>
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (05/02/90)
In article <9005020758.AA27657@apple.com> VS83F8@UMKCVAX3.BITNET writes: > ... Let us say apple could put the whole package > together in a IIc type box, and people could use their tvs for > monitors, and could sell them to compete with the nintendo market > at say $200. A ten percent margin would be $20. You'd have to > sell about 250 of them for every mac II they sell now to make the > same kind of money. Go jump off a ledge, people. That would be > stupid. According to your logic, Nintendo should have sold Macs at 50% margins instead of their game systems. > a) You ("generic internet users") consider the II a > "hacker's machine," that is, one in which the > average joe/joette can program. Yes, the Apple II family comes standard with a built-in programming language, and awful as you may think it is, this was an significant enabling step toward making computing accessible to the public. > Guys (no gender reference): Catch a clue! When my mac boots > about ten million inits boot; My control panel is full to scrolling > of the screen; my hard disk is crammed. Freeware, shareware all of > it. This before you consider Desk accesories, and full length > applications, and most especially HyperCard. Funny, sounds a lot like my IIGS. So why should I get a Mac instead and lose the use of my bookcase full of Apple II software? > ... I've seen grown men/women spend hours programming > supurb,complex applications in hypercard --> these are people > who would never ever touch a computer before. The mac is the > most extensible machine on the market. Please read extensible > as flexible as hackable. What? Hypermedia systems don't require a Mac. In fact we have HyperStudio on the IIGS and if Apple decides to release it HyperCard itself for the IIGS. > ... you are being blind! I work on a mac Plus, 2.5 meg ram > and a sixty meg harddrive. $1800. Okay, I don't have color, but > but I *do* have the best graphics on the market. Who's blind? There are graphic systems far superior to the Mac+, although (apart from color) the IIGS isn't one of them. > Hopefully Apple will ship a low end color mac by years end > and I'll upgrade And hopefully they'll ship a high end Apple II and I'll upgrade. What we (Apple II users) resent about the Macintosh is that Apple drastically reduced support for the Apple II line AND USED FLIMSY EXCUSES to justify ignoring the needs of this major segment of their customer base for many years. There was NO NEED for that, and they have pissed us off.
gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) (05/03/90)
SAB121@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >WHO IS ASKING FOR A $200 COMPUTER? GET REAL JERK! We are willing to pay a fair Then he responds to another poster as follows. >> same kind of money. Go jump off a ledge, people. That would be > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >My my my, aren't we getting just a little nasty. How would you feel if Apple If there's one thing I hate more than flames that are posted so that the rest of us have to scan over them, it is hypocrisy. Please realise that if the other person doesn't respect you, he will not respect your opinion. Don't insult him. --Glenn (I may not respect the opinion that you hold, but I'd give my life to defend your right to hold it.)
gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) (05/03/90)
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: [Someone points out that Nintendos sell for $200 (I've seen 'em for <$120) and that means that they'd have to sell 250 of these to make as much money as selling 1 Mac fx. or something like that.] >According to your logic, Nintendo should have sold Macs at 50% margins >instead of their game systems. I wouldn't be at all suprised if Nintendo made 0% profit on the CPU. They have a proprietary encoding scheme for the game cartridges so noone else can manufacture games for the machine. Using this legal monopoly, they make all of their money on the cartriges. Not a bad Idea, for a game machine: The low initial investment makes the things sell, and once people have the CPU, they're going to buy guys to justify their investment. But it wouldn't work for computers: Imagine if only Apple could write programs for the Mac. An interesting aside: An article in the LA Times claimed that the as-yet unused expansion connector on the back of the Nintendo is to be used to network Nintendos so you can compete in nation-wide games competitions, etc. What if they come up with their own on-line services like prodigy? Hmm. --Glenn
WPW100@psuvm.psu.edu (Will Wong) (05/03/90)
>In article <9005020758.AA27657@apple.com> VS83F8@UMKCVAX3.BITNET writes: > ... I've seen grown men/women spend hours programming > supurb,complex applications in hypercard --> these are people > who would never ever touch a computer before. The mac is the > most extensible machine on the market. Please read extensible > as flexible as hackable. Funny, I've seen people spending weeks reentering data for a hypercard stack into dBase on a PC after having hypercard crash several times and losing their data several times. (apparently, hypercard isn't very careful about opening and closing files) Needless to say, they gave up on hypercard rather quickly... The mac is one of the more unstable machines on the market.
dhsieh@topaz.rutgers.edu (David Shea) (05/03/90)
In article <90122.193817WPW100@psuvm.psu.edu> WPW100@psuvm.psu.edu (Will Wong) writes: >>In article <9005020758.AA27657@apple.com> VS83F8@UMKCVAX3.BITNET writes: >> ... I've seen grown men/women spend hours programming >> supurb,complex applications in hypercard --> these are people >> who would never ever touch a computer before. The mac is the >> most extensible machine on the market. Please read extensible >> as flexible as hackable. > >Funny, I've seen people spending weeks reentering data for a >hypercard stack into dBase on a PC after having hypercard >crash several times and losing their data several times. What in the world are you talking about? When Hypercard crashes, a Hypercard stack does not loose it's data. >(apparently, hypercard isn't very careful about opening and closing >files) OPENING and CLOSING files? Every bit of data which is entered into a Hypercard stack is saved almost instantly! >Needless to say, they gave up on hypercard rather quickly... I wouldn't blame 'em if what you described is really what happened. >The mac is one of the more unstable machines on the market. I am both an experienced Apple II user as well as an experienced Mac user. I have deep rooted feelings for both the Apple II and the Mac. But speaking from experience, a Macintosh system, if it is set up correctly, *never* crashes. Please restrain from commenting on a subject which you obviously have little experience. David Shea ********************************************************************** * * * * 1-> dhsieh@topaz.rutgers.edu * Why not * * 2-> hsieh@pisces.rutgers.edu * have the best * * 3-> dhsieh@euler.rutgers.edu * of both worlds? * * 4-> don't bother * * * * (If you can afford it) :) * **********************************************************************
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (05/04/90)
VS83F8@UMKCVAX3.BITNET writes: > High end cpu's, and let us not forget that to remain compatible with > 15 year old technology, Apple would have to custom design the chips, > are VERY expensive. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Custom chips SAVE money, and Apple is consummate at making them. It is possible to design, simulate, and more or less PROVE that a custom chip will do what you want it to do... Apple has to be using this method. The initial outlay is pretty high, but once the customs go into high volume they are DIRT CHEAP compared to ANY other design method. Apple has shown every evidence of taking exactly this approach. The REAL reason the II is still so expensive is that it is still USING ten year old chips. Apple MANAGEMENT is SOLELY responsible for this. There is nothing to prevent the engineers from reimplementing the original logic (which is damned simple when you get down to it -- you just have to avoid kludging around the actual chips that were originally used!! This is what the IIGS and VOC do for some embarrassing reason). > Why do you people have such hangups about the mac? Because we don't want one, and Apple looks like it is trying to set us up to force one down our throats whether we like it or not. Apple could give us what we want -- MODERN APPLE //'s -- for a LOT cheaper than their "low cost macs" and that is why we are grumbling. > For > you GS'ers, *this is cheaper!* And further, Apple is coming ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > out with a card to save your investment in II software. That's what Apple's Ex-Management WANTED US TO THINK. Hypermedia is available ALREADY on the II series (even the 8 bitters!) and when HyperCard GS finally gets out... The Apple II can still do much of what a Mac does, not as pretty but CHEAPER. IF APPLE WOULD LET IT. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
lbotez@pro-grouch.cts.com (Lynda Botez) (05/04/90)
In-Reply-To: message from gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu
>>Who is asking for a $200 computer? GET REAL JERK! [tons deleted]
UUCP: crash!pro-grouch!lbotez
ARPA: crash!pro-grouch!lbotez@nosc.mil
INET: lbotez@pro-grouch.cts.com@GACVAX1.BITNET:youngdah@nic.gac.EDU (youngdah) (05/04/90)
> Funny, I've seen people spending weeks reentering data for a > hypercard stack into dBase on a PC after having hypercard > crash several times and losing their data several times. > (apparently, hypercard isn't very careful about opening and closing files) > Needless to say, they gave up on hypercard rather quickly... I'd have to agree with you here... Hypercard can be a real pain to mess around with on a "souped-down" Mac. I've never personally lost data from it but I have heard of it happening quite often. > The mac is one of the more unstable machines on the market. Why do you feel this way? Please elaborate. I would tend to disagree, as I feel that it is only through the Mac's stability (in terms of support, and the company behind it) that it has achieved its market share. I'm of the firm belief that Apple's perceived stability stemmed from its prior commitment to the Apple II line. People were sure that they could trust Apple to be around for their Mac's because Apple had the weight of the Apple II behind them. With Apple backstabbing the II users now, I wonder what people are going to think of buying a Macintosh... ? How can they be so sure that 4 or 5 years from now Apple wount have a new line of PC's based on some new CPU and their Macintosh's will fall by the wayside? Ben Youngdahl YOUNGDAHL@GACVAX1.BITNET
fmgst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Filip Gieszczykiewicz) (05/04/90)
Greetings. About MACs not being reliable and crashing often. So far, I have run about 200 public domain program on the MAC and I have witnessed about 60 "system reboots"... basicly the small window with the BOMB! So much for not crashing often..... -- _____________________________________________________________________________ "The FORCE will be with you. Always." It _IS_ with me and has been for 10 years Filip Gieszczykiewicz "..of future fame...." "Ok! So I have a dream..." FMGST@PITTVMS or fmgst@unix.cis.pitt.edu "My ideas, ALL MINE!!"
jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) (05/05/90)
SAB121@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > In article <9005020758.AA27657@apple.com>, VS83F8@UMKCVAX3.BITNET says: > > > >>>... For example, say you owned a Chrysler > >>>Imperial. Are you necessarily upset that Chrysler stopped making > >>>that car? Were you upset when news got out that they were going to > >>>replace it? By forcing Apple to make such an old machine, with sales going > >>>down, we might all be the cause of Apple's downfall as a company, which in > >my > >>>opinion, makes the best personal computers around. It might be time to move > >>>on. You are missing a big, big point there. What if Chrysler stopped making PARTS?!?!?!? Dealers stopped SERVICING the cars, and shop manuals went out of publication??? and just for fun, have all new cars run on an alternate fuel! NOW I have a right to be Pissed!! That's what it is like when a computer company stops supporting a machine. > >Comment then Question: > > > >Comment:Give me, yourself, and Apple a break and let's talk economics. > > Now, as I understand it, Apple currently has the highest margins > > on its products in the industry, about 50%. That means that on > > each $10,000 mac fx apple sells they get $5,000 *profit*. Let us I don't really find this kosher. Apple's marketing principles have not made them more profitable then anyone else. Just more expensive. The company has demonstrated that it is more short-term than long-term interested, thus the administrative troubles and the short-lived careers of the executives. Meanwhile, the public gets disillusioned and migrates to a platform that is more sensitive to their concerns. You are a mac user. If Apple migrated to an 88000 Unix platform and dropped the Mac+ as obsolete (it is, by the way) how would you feel? Would you settle for a $3000 base-system Unix machine with a Mac emulation mode as an option? Why not? >> suppose for a second that a II product with a 386 power, multitasking > > operating system, fast peripherials, etc as well as compatiblity > > mode with 8bit and gs machines (similar to the dos compatibility > > in os/2) could be built. Let us further suppose that apple could > > market this in a world that is either dos, unix, mac, or mainframe > > oriented. okay. No way could apple maintain a 50% margin, maybe >> 10% which is typical in the clone wars. Have you priced cpu's lately? > > High end cpu's, and let us not forget that to remain compatible with > > 15 year old technology, Apple would have to custom design the chips, > > are VERY expensive. False. The reason I and most other Apple users are so frustrated at Apple is that a Super Apple // would not be a difficult task. Faster chips exist, ASIC promises more, third party companies on limited budgets continue to make miracles, and the hardware glitches are not undefeatable challenges. Apple has the resources, but they squander it on lousy marketing on the Macintosh and executive feuding. And then they pass along the excuse that the Apple // is obsolete. Meanwhile, Commodore marches steadily toward credibility with a faster, more capable machine built with an ambitious attitude. I want a // that has Apple's software and reliability and the power rivaling the Amiga. It is a crime that the Amiga is known for its music capabilities when the //gs has a much more powerful sound chip. But Apple let it slide. The bottom line is that Apple doesn't give the // its due. They don't even give it a fair share. Then they (and you) bitch that it is not a worthwhile machine. They dig their own grave and we sink with them. That's worth comlaining about. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |Jeremy Mereness | Support | Ye Olde Disclaimer: | |jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (internet) | Free | The above represent my| |a700jm7e@cmccvb (Vax... bitnet) | Software | opinions, alone. | |staff/student@Carnegie Mellon U. | | Ya Gotta Love It. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
daveharv@pro-novapple.cts.com (Dave Harvey) (05/05/90)
In-Reply-To: message from VS83F8@UMKCVAX3.BITNET > > Question: > Why do you people have such hangups about the mac? > I'll tell you my own reasons why I don't like the Mac and don't wouldn't consider it an altrenative if the Apple II disappeared. The affordable Mac first of all doesn't have color and doesn't have a separate monitor removed from the CPU. It also doesn't have the wide range of applications from a MIDI interface to a process control. With a MAC you can't start off at a low bare bones machine and gradually increase the capability as you can with a II. I paid about $500 for my Apple IIGS CPU that included a mouse and keyboard. Over the years I've gradually increased the capability by adding things to it. Try and do that with a MAC! I have particular physical requirements where the monitor has to be separated from the cpu (due to a workstation in my home). Unless I go to a MAC II, I can't physically fit a non-MAC II in the space. Price of software is another minus for the MAC. The very same software for the Apple II and the MAC sometimes costs more for the MAC version. There might be some added capabilities but is it worth it? Another reason doesn't have anything to do with the Apple except maybe indirectly. The MAC is perceived as a business machine and for some reason in some Apple user groups the emphasis has been on business applications to the detrement of the Mac user who's a home user. So look at this way, who wants to be associated with a computer where the direction its going is more and more toward the business orientation and less and less toward the home use. I've recently become interested in the Amiga. It has color and is aimed toward the home. The company doesn't support it as well as Apple does. But in some respects that's not saying too much. I also don't like the graphics interface and even though Apple is trying to go and make the Apple IIGS user use that interface, there's still relief for us that don't like that option such as the ProSel which uses a text interface and can do a lot more than the finder with all of it's other programs such as cat.doctor and mr.fixit. There's other third party software that also uses a text interface. But as far as I know if I owned a Mac I wouldn't have any choice but to use a graphics interface. proline: pro-novapple!daveharv | uucp: crash!pnet01!pro-novapple!daveharv | Pro-novapple BBS arpa: crash!pnet01!pro-novapple!daveharv@nosc.mil | 300/1200/2400/9600 Baud Internet: daveharv@pro-novapple.cts.com | 703-671-0415 | Northern Virginia Apple Users Group | P.O. Box 8211, Falls Church, VA 22041 |
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (05/05/90)
jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) writes: [ comments on the original post, all of which I agree with, deleted ] >... The reason I and most other Apple users are so frustrated at >Apple is that a Super Apple // would not be a difficult task. Faster >chips exist, ASIC promises more, third party companies on limited >budgets continue to make miracles, and the hardware glitches are not >undefeatable challenges. Apple has the resources, but they squander it >on lousy marketing on the Macintosh and executive feuding. And then >they pass along the excuse that the Apple // is obsolete. This single paragraph says it all. >Meanwhile, Commodore marches steadily toward credibility with a >faster, more capable machine built with an ambitious attitude. I want >a // that has Apple's software and reliability and the power rivaling >the Amiga. Exactly. When I got a good look at the Amiga hardware manuals I instantly realized that Apple could be grinding them into the dirt... but because of the internal politics Apple is fighting itself and the awesome manufacturing capability they have acquired for themselves sit around doing nothing when they could be making the Apple // into a powerful low end force. Look at what the PC clones (and the Amiga) have been able to accomplish -- their hardware compatibility issues make the Apple //'s look like a description of XMODEM. >It is a crime that the Amiga is known for its music >capabilities when the //gs has a much more powerful sound chip. But >Apple let it slide. Hopefully Apple will have the balls to let the MIDI synth tools fix that. >The bottom line is that Apple doesn't give the // its due. They don't >even give it a fair share. Then they (and you) bitch that it is not a >worthwhile machine. They dig their own grave and we sink with them. And now that top management has had its enema, we need to give them as many hints as possible. There are Apple II champions in Apple; at the internal product fair for the Mac IIfx there were a bunch of GS's running our standard list of demos and the MIDI synth tools -- a lot of managers went home impressed with new knowledge about what the Apple // is capable of. The more help we give Apple, the better. The up & coming low cost macs sound like they are going to be real dogs, and Apple had better realize that a dual product strategy can be made to work, because the GS makes a better "educator's Mac" than any Mac could. 'Golden Gate' machines are not cost effective, because a SOFTWARE bridge is already in place and is getting better all the time. Complaining on the net is fine, but paper letters to Apple carry much more weight. Everyone who complains on the net should write a letter to Apple, seriously. The II infinitum letter campaign had quite an effect, and my //f paper made it to the right people so fast that one of the Apple II champions (who told me about it) said "it did really well -- for conventional channels." The Apple //'s only REAL enemy is its bad reputation, and this is due primarily to Apple as company failing to realize its potential (and management botching various attempts -- VOC, ROM 03 come to mind). People who really know what they are talking about will tell you that the Apple // _can_ be fixed, but they have differing opinions as to whether or not it _should_ be fixed. However, if the low cost macs are as bad as rumors indicate then the Apple // may be Apple's only real hope in the low end. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
@GACVAX1.BITNET:youngdah@nic.gac.EDU (youngdah) (05/06/90)
> The reason I and most other Apple users are so frustrated at > Apple is that a Super Apple // would not be a difficult task. Faster > chips exist, ASIC promises more, third party companies on limited > budgets continue to make miracles, and the hardware glitches are not > undefeatable challenges. Apple has the resources, but they squander it > on lousy marketing on the Macintosh and executive feuding. And then > they pass along the excuse that the Apple // is obsolete. I feel exactly the same way. The Apple II line has excellent development potential, ... it certainly hasn't reached a dead end with the fast 65816s that are now available, not to mention the potential for a 65832 in the future. And who would disagree that it wouldn't be possible to make a ROM 4 machine (or whatever) with better graphics if Apple just looked at the incredible FTP demos: Super Harrier, Nucleus GS, and Photonix? They blow away programs that use Apple's tools/routines without any additional hard- ware. Go figure! > It is a crime that the Amiga is known for its music capabilities when > the //gs has a much more powerful sound chip. But Apple let it slide. This is very true. The Apple IIgs has the best sound potential of any other stock computer on the market. 32 oscillators / Sampling are an unbeatable combo. But the GS has been out there for 4 years. Where are those fantastic MIDI programs, those incredible Synthesizer-Emulation applications? On the Amiga. If Apple had just shown some enthusiasm in the IIgs's music ability when the computer first came out we might have had something like SoundSmith 3 years ago. But who would disagree that Apple didn't want to see one cent of the money and one second of the software development leave the large Mac music forum to go to its "embarising" brother, the Apple IIgs? Its amazing that Apple can simply ignore so many disgrunteled customers. Any other company that tried that would probably get canned in an instant. It seems, however, that many of us II users have been using this computer line for quite awhile. We remember Apple when we'd argue long and hard to protect its reputaton. We remember when it was Apple II vs. Big Blue... Not Apple II vs. Apple. What we as users have to remember is not to be blind to Apple's change. The Apple computer that we deal with today is not the same Apple computer that we knew and loved 3-12 years ago. I hope someone from Apple is actually reading these messages and taking note of what we all are discussing... otherwise, we mine as well just quit this discussion on Apple computer's naughtiness right now, save the band- width, and go back to answering each other's questions. After all, it seems that we, the Apple II users, have become the "Apple II support" specialists. Not Apple. Ben Youngdahl YOUNGDAHL@GACVAX1.BITNET