mings@comix.cs.uoregon.edu (Ming Yau So) (11/15/90)
Did any of you out there have ever think of asking APPLE the following
questions ?
1. Why did they make the IIsi so small so that only third-height
internal harddisk could be used ? I know someone (and probably
APPLE, too) said that it is because APPLE want to lower the cost
of IIsi, and a half/full-height harddisk needs a bigger power
supply, which will raise the cost also. I know this is true, but
how much extra it cost to make a bigger case and use a bigger power
supply ? $100 ? $200 ? I guess it won't be more than $200. But
cares about that 200 dollars when your investment is about $3,000.
And with that extra $200, you can buy a much bigger and cheaper
harddisk to install it into the IIsi (the biggest third-height HD
in the current market is ~80MB).
So, APPLE, is this how you force people not to buy the cheaper IIsi,
and go to buy the expensive IIci, if they want to put a bigger than
80MB HD into the machine ?
2. From the recent Mac vs NeXT war, we know that NeXT sells their '030
and '040 workstation at about $3,000 to $4,000 (educational price),
and this price already include a MegaPixel monitor, keyboard, mouse,
HD, FDHD, bundled software, and _PostScript_. So why do APPLE still
sells the IIci cpu at about $4,000 and the IIfx cpu at about $6,000
(with educational discount) ? Remember that these prices does not
include monitor, keyboard, bundled software except HyperCard), and
PostScript; and given that the NeXTs has higher performance than the
IIci and IIfx.
So, APPLE, what's your pricing policy/scheme ?
3. APPLE said that one reason why they decided not to put an expansion
slot in the new MacClassic as they do in the SE is becuase they
found that less than 10% of the SE have make use of the slot. But
why don't APPLE make the survey after they have officially released
system 7.0 ? Bare in mind that, if you want to take the advantages
(TrueType, virtual memory) of 7.0, you must have a fast Mac, and
have an MMU in the Mac, but since 7.0 hasn't officially released yet,
all of the users, as well as the third-party hardware manufacturers,
do not know if any accelerator card is compatible with 7.0 or not.
It is very likely that many SE owner will make use of the
expansion slot after 7.0 has officially released, not before,
because they don't know which card should they buy. Though we may
upgrade the Classic just like we can upgrade the Plus, it is not as
easy as upgrading an SE.
So, APPLE, is this how you force your customers not to upgrade the
cheaper Macs with third-party hardware and go to buy a more
expensive Mac ?
4. Why did APPLE cut the IIcx line ? The IIcx is the only '030 Mac II
which does not cause so many problems as the IIci and IIfx do,
especially in software incompatiblilty. Futhermore, it is the only
not-so-expensive Mac II which gives you a lot of expandablilty: it
has 3 NuBus slots, the IIsi only has 1 (optional), that means you
cannot add an accelerator to the IIsi if you want to use it with a
third-party monitor while it is possible on a IIcx and still 1 more
NuBus left unused. If APPLE could change the IIcx ROM to 512K (which
is easy to do), I think more people will like it than the IIsi,
though it might be a little more expensive than the IIsi.
So, APPLE, is this how you force people who want a Mac II but does
not have too much money to buy a new yet but not-so-good IIsi ?
Any feedback is welcome, especially from APPLE (hear, APPLE ?).
___________________________________________________________________________
Ming Yau So | I only speak for myself.
P.O.Box 3795 Eugene OR 97403 | BECAUSE
Internet: mings@cs.uoregon.edu | I only know what I think.
American Online: Ming So |___________________________________mckenzie@elaine5.stanford.edu (David McKenzie) (11/16/90)
In article <1990Nov15.044137.13223@cs.uoregon.edu> mings@comix.cs.uoregon.edu (Ming Yau So) writes: >Did any of you out there have ever think of asking APPLE the following >questions ? > > 2. From the recent Mac vs NeXT war, we know that NeXT sells their '030 > and '040 workstation at about $3,000 to $4,000 (educational price), > and this price already include a MegaPixel monitor, keyboard, mouse, > HD, FDHD, bundled software, and _PostScript_. So why do APPLE still > sells the IIci cpu at about $4,000 and the IIfx cpu at about $6,000 > (with educational discount) ? Remember that these prices does not > include monitor, keyboard, bundled software except HyperCard), and > PostScript; and given that the NeXTs has higher performance than the > IIci and IIfx. > So, APPLE, what's your pricing policy/scheme ? > I have nothing to do with Apple (except as a semi-satisfied customer - c'mon guys, get a real repair policy; I don't need a $340 analog board just because my $30 flyback transformer is dead), but this one isn't hard to answer. Steve Jobs is offering bargain prices on the new NeXTs because he is desperately trying to save his company from going under - he only sold a few Cubes (I think I saw 7,000 mentioned here), and if he doesn't sell a lot more machines than that soon he will a) fail to break into the market in a serious way, and b) probably go bankrupt soon (or at least have to dig very deep into his own or his backers' pockets to keep going). Apple is operating under no such constraints. Sure, they're not going to take over the PC market any time soon, but they sell an awful lot of Macs and Laserwriters, and will probably sell many many Classics. (Does anyone have any sales numbers?) They (and NeXT) are in business to make as much money as possible, not to provide the customer with a great deal. NeXT is only offering low prices now because they need to build market share so that they can make more money later. I am glad that NeXT is doing this - if they start to make progress it may have a salutary effect on Apple's prices. David McKenzie mckenzie@portia.stanford.edu
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (11/16/90)
In article <1990Nov15.044137.13223@cs.uoregon.edu> mings@comix.cs.uoregon.edu (Ming Yau So) writes: > 1. Why did they make the IIsi so small so that only third-height > internal harddisk could be used...? But > cares about that 200 dollars when your investment is about $3,000. By the same logic, there are a lot of nice things Apple *could* have added which would have cost only $200 apiece. Adding all of them probably would have resulted in a $20,000 machine. (In the computer industry, this is known as "creeping featurism.") You have to stop somewhere. > 3. APPLE said that one reason why they decided not to put an expansion > slot in the new MacClassic as they do in the SE is becuase they > found that less than 10% of the SE have make use of the slot. But > why don't APPLE make the survey after they have officially released > system 7.0 ? Bare in mind that, if you want to take the advantages > (TrueType, virtual memory) of 7.0, you must have a fast Mac, and > have an MMU in the Mac, but since 7.0 hasn't officially released yet, The MMU is required only for virtual memory. True Type and all other features of System 7 will run on any Mac that has at least 2M of RAM. As far as waiting until System 7 was out to conduct the survey on the Mac Classic, *ARE YOU CRAZY?*! Apple waited too long to introduce a low-priced Mac as it is. > all of the users, as well as the third-party hardware manufacturers, > do not know if any accelerator card is compatible with 7.0 or not. Third-party developers will know if their hardware is compatible if they have received the beta version from Apple. > 4. Why did APPLE cut the IIcx line ? The IIcx is the only '030 Mac II > which does not cause so many problems as the IIci and IIfx do, > especially in software incompatiblilty. The IIsi is the replacement for the IIcx. As far as compatability problems go, you can expect that manufacturers will fix any problems that do arise pretty quickly, because the si will now become *the* Mac II. > Futhermore, it is the only > not-so-expensive Mac II which gives you a lot of expandablilty: it > has 3 NuBus slots, the IIsi only has 1 (optional), that means you > cannot add an accelerator to the IIsi if you want to use it with a > third-party monitor while it is possible on a IIcx and still 1 more > NuBus left unused. At least one third-party developer is planning a NuBus expansion box that will allow you to add additional cards to the IIsi. See my comment above about creeping featurism. > So, APPLE, is this how you force people who want a Mac II but does > not have too much money to buy a new yet but not-so-good IIsi ? Huh? Apple is handicapping people without much money by *forcing* them to buy a less expensive machine with a faster CPU?
das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) (11/16/90)
>So, APPLE, is this how you force people not to buy the cheaper IIsi, >and go to buy the expensive IIci, if they want to put a bigger than >80MB HD into the machine ? We're not forcing anyone to do anything. Perhaps you forget that you can connect as large a hard disk as you like to the external SCSI connector of either machine, or any Mac, for that matter. >So, APPLE, what's your pricing policy/scheme ? The same as the one NeXT has...whatever the market will bear. Call the marketing department of NeXT if you don't believe me. >APPLE said that one reason why they decided not to put an expansion >slot in the new MacClassic as they do in the SE is becuase they >found that less than 10% of the SE have make use of the slot. But >why don't APPLE make the survey after they have officially released >system 7.0 ? Bare in mind that, if you want to take the advantages >(TrueType, virtual memory) of 7.0, you must have a fast Mac, and >have an MMU in the Mac, What does system 7.0 have to do with a slot? You don't need an MMU to run TrueType, it will run on any machine. VM will not run on SE's upgraded with 3rd party 68020/68030 processors. You can buy an Apple upgrade to an SE/30 if you need VM, but I saw an add in MacWeek for memory at $35 a SIMM, so why not buy real RAM. Also the Mac Classic was ready to ship, and System 7.0 wasn't. I thought you wanted a low-cost system RIGHT NOW, THIS VERY MINUTE? > Why did APPLE cut the IIcx line ? >So, APPLE, is this how you force people who want a Mac II but does >not have too much money to buy a new yet but not-so-good IIsi ? The IIcx is still available, its just not being heavily advertised. Like I said...we're not forcing anyone to do anything. Buy an Amiga. Buy an IBM. Buy a NeXT. Buy a dishwasher. David
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (11/16/90)
mckenzie@elaine5.stanford.edu (David McKenzie) writes: > They (and NeXT) are in business to make as much money as possible I was going to flame mings@comix.cs.uoregon.edu (Ming Yau So) for his silly harangue, and even had some of it written, but then I changed my mind and didn't post it. Then I read David's comment and couldn't resist. Folks, take that line from David's article I quoted above and print it out in big type and paste it on your office/terminal-room/whatever wall, right above where you read (and post) netnews. The next time you are about to post a "why does X do Y!" rant, re-read it, and think about it. Every company in a capitalistic society basically does everything they do to make as much money as possible. Sure, some companies do some things because they have a sense of social responsibility, and some companies probably even do things because their CEOs are raving psychopaths, but by and large, every decision a company makes is made with the hope of increasing the amount of money they make. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, at least not if you believe in the capitalist system. The debate about the relative merits of capitalism could fill many newsgroups (and probaby does), but it certainly doesn't belong here, so we'll just take it as a given. Why did Apple make the si only take 1/3 height disks? Because they thought it would make them more money. Why did they give the 128, 512, and Plus no expansion slots? Because they thought it would make them more money. Why did they give the II 6 expansion slots? Because they thought it would make them more money. Why the cx only 3 slots and the si only one (and a funny one at that)? Same reason. I'm sure even such trivial things as changing the exterior paint color from beige to grey (platinum, if you insist) was done because somebody thought it would make them more money. Let me give you another example. Recently, MacConnection announced that they had stopped using styrofoam peanuts as packing material for environmental reasons. Much as I applaud their decision (being the rabid environmentalist that I am), I have to realize that at least part of the decision had to do with making more money. If there were doing it for purely altruistic reasons, would they be making their decision the focus of their current ads, and touting it so loudly in their catalog? They know that, by switching from styrofoam to newsprint for packing, they make people like me more likely to order from them instead of the competition, and thus they will, ready now, make more money. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) (11/16/90)
In article <46625@apple.Apple.COM> das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) writes: [lot's of stuff defending Apple's maketing policies deleted] > > Like I said...we're not forcing anyone to do anything. Buy an Amiga. > Buy an IBM. Buy a NeXT. Buy a dishwasher. Well after using Mac's for around 5 years( and liking them) that is exactly what I did. Repackaging isn't working for the american automobile industry and it won't work in this one either. Apple would do well to listen to some of its talented engineers a bit more as opposed to the MBA types. I am very disappointed with Apple. Of course it is a free world and as you pointed out we could all buy dishwashers. Thank's for the advice. My wife is most grateful. The IIci and IIfx were taking up a lot of room. You might try adding the word price/performance to your vocabulary, but I forgot that the most powerful computer isn't the one with the most Mips, MFLOPS,HD,etc...It's the one that gets used the most! You must take us all for idiots. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my very own opinions]
freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) (11/16/90)
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >The IIsi is the replacement for the IIcx. As far as compatability >problems go, you can expect that manufacturers will fix any problems >that do arise pretty quickly, because the si will now become *the* >Mac II. How long will it take, before Apple introduces yet-another-Mac-II? Will that new Mac II also become *the* Mac II. Somehow, every time I expect a Mac to become the "standard" machine, another Mac comes along that takes over that position. Freek "the Pistol Major" Wiedijk E-mail: freek@fwi.uva.nl #P:+/ = #+/P?*+/ = i<<*+/P?*+/ = +/i<<**P?*+/ = +/(i<<*P?)*+/ = +/+/(i<<*P?)**
vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (11/17/90)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 16-Nov-90 Re: Some questions to > APPLE David Shayer@Apple.COM (1817) > Buy an Amiga. Buy an IBM. Buy a NeXT. Buy a dishwasher. Can we quote you on those first three? No disclaimer, I notice.... -Vince Del Vecchio vd09@andrew.cmu.edu
george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) (11/18/90)
In article <1467@carol.fwi.uva.nl> freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) writes: >ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >>The IIsi is the replacement for the IIcx. As far as compatability >>problems go, you can expect that manufacturers will fix any problems >>that do arise pretty quickly, because the si will now become *the* >>Mac II. > >How long will it take, before Apple introduces yet-another-Mac-II? >Will that new Mac II also become *the* Mac II. Somehow, every time I >expect a Mac to become the "standard" machine, another Mac comes along >that takes over that position. Ahhhhhh.... The price of progress. -- / George D. Nincehelser \ uunet!swbatl!george \ / / Southwestern Bell Telephone \ Phone: (314) 235-6544 \ / / / Advanced Technology Laboratory \ Fax: (314) 235-5797 \ / / / /\ 1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101 \ de asini umbra disceptare \
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (11/18/90)
In article <1467@carol.fwi.uva.nl> freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) writes: >ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >>The IIsi is the replacement for the IIcx. As far as compatability >>problems go, you can expect that manufacturers will fix any problems >>that do arise pretty quickly, because the si will now become *the* >>Mac II. > >How long will it take, before Apple introduces yet-another-Mac-II? >Will that new Mac II also become *the* Mac II. Somehow, every time I >expect a Mac to become the "standard" machine, another Mac comes along >that takes over that position. > But in this case the 'change' is to eliminate non-32bit Quickdraw color machines. In other words the incompatibility is not a new one, the IIci had it. And since this new machine is a much higher volume machine than the IIci was, and the LC will probably have even higher volume, means that manufacturers who didn't fix their 32bit Quickdraw combatibility will be doing so this time. I don't think it's really a question of 'standard' or not, it's the old "are their enough effected to make it worth while for me to fix it". During the last year it's obvious a lot of people said no for the IIci. I don't think they'll be saying no for the new machines. jim -- __ __ / o / Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com | Proud / / /\/\ /__ Silvar-Lisco, Inc. +1.408.991.6115 | MacIIsi /__/ / / / /__/ 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 | owner
rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) (11/18/90)
In article <17626@yunexus.YorkU.CA> philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: >You might try adding the word price/performance to your vocabulary, but I >forgot that the most powerful computer isn't the one with the most Mips, >MFLOPS,HD,etc...It's the one that gets used the most! Read this. Understand why it's true. Anton +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison | +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (11/18/90)
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >mckenzie@elaine5.stanford.edu (David McKenzie) writes: >> They (and NeXT) are in business to make as much money as possible > Folks, take that line from David's article I quoted above and print >it out in big type and paste it on your office/terminal-room/whatever wall, >right above where you read (and post) netnews. The next time you are about >to post a "why does X do Y!" rant, re-read it, and think about it. I think few people would expect Apple to act like a charitable institution. The issue was the upgradeability of various Mac models. Rightly or wrongly, Apple has been accused of arbitrarily limiting the expandability of some of its products (i.e. not providing upgrades that would be relatively easy to make available). I submit that such behavior on the part of any for- profit company would not be moral, would represent a lack of respect for the customers thanks to whom the company enjoys such prosperity as it does, and is in no way dictated by the capitalist system within which Apple operates. The norms of vendor-client relationships in our Capitalist society are whatever we make them; nothing dictates that the vendor's hands be permanently clenched around the customer's neck. In my opinion, the new product introductions, items such as the II=>IIfx upgrade and 8*24GC card, and finally (after six years) customer support, signify that in the instance of Apple and Mac users, the vendor is at last beginning to live up to its billing. As far as prices are concerned, again, few people would expect Apple to cut its overall profits altruistically by slashing prices. The idea is that lower prices would more than make up for the resulting per-unit profit cuts by wider sales, and, strategically, making the MacOS more of a competitor to DOS in the worldwide installed base. Apple's constant assertions that this or that design decision in the new models was necessary to keep prices down are semi-disingenuous: while optimized engineering and manufacturing certainly have their place in making the new machines affordable, Apple's margins in the last few years have been well above average for the industry, according to the press reports I've seen. The fact that price reductions could have been made even without the reduction in manufacturing costs, and that they were made in an effort to expand the market, is proven by statements from Michael Spindler ("We'll have to eat margin," a few months ago, and less- sharply-worded versions of this for the past few years from him) and John Sculley. "The Market" is not this static thing, David, and your management is finally beginning to act on that assumption. Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (11/19/90)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 16-Nov-90 Re: Some questions to > APPLE Freek Wiedijk@fwi.uva.nl (660) > How long will it take, before Apple introduces yet-another-Mac-II? Will > that new Mac II also become *the* Mac II. Somehow, every time I expect > a Mac to become the "standard" machine, another Mac comes along that > takes over that position. It's called improving technology, or progress...
jack@Taffy.rice.edu (Jack W. Howarth) (11/19/90)
Boris,
I would be surprised if Apple's margins on the new macs weren't initially
50% or so. They probably have designed these machines understanding that the
prices will collapse as does the 286 market which is the competition. I was
disappointed that they didn't go for a 16 MHz 68000 to make the 'Classic'
a little less classical.
Jackboris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (11/20/90)
jack@Taffy.rice.edu (Jack W. Howarth) writes: >Boris, > I would be surprised if Apple's margins on the new macs weren't initially >50% or so. They probably have designed these machines understanding that the >prices will collapse as does the 286 market which is the competition. I was >disappointed that they didn't go for a 16 MHz 68000 to make the 'Classic' >a little less classical. > Jack That would support my point, and that is that even without the engineering and manufacturing streamlining, there was plenty of margin for Apple to eat. I, too, regret the decision to keep using the 8MHz 68000, which is twelve years old this year and makes it difficult to defend the Mac line as technologically advanced. Incidentally, Apple has clocked the IIsi, at least, to be faster than full- fledged 12MHz 386 machines. The 286 is comparable to the LC and Classic only in raw speed, because most 286 machines are too slow and have too little memory to run Windows efficiently. Now, competent users of course realize that the Mac is a far superior platform to DOS. However, the proliferation of DOS tells us that there are few competent users. Therefore the DOS world needs to be aggressively reeducated. Apple has made a good start which will yield not-insignificant results, but it needs to do much more. Recently someone here signed with the line "DOS: an operating system originally designed for a microprocessor at which contemporary household appliances would sneer." I think it should become Apple's alternate advertising slogan. Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
mckenzie@elaine29.stanford.edu (David McKenzie) (11/22/90)
In article <1990Nov18.110128.8081@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > >>mckenzie@elaine5.stanford.edu (David McKenzie) writes: >>> They (and NeXT) are in business to make as much money as possible > >> Folks, take that line from David's article I quoted above and print >>it out in big type and paste it on your office/terminal-room/whatever wall, >>right above where you read (and post) netnews. The next time you are about >>to post a "why does X do Y!" rant, re-read it, and think about it. > >I think few people would expect Apple to act like a charitable institution. >The issue was the upgradeability of various Mac models. Rightly or wrongly, >Apple has been accused of arbitrarily limiting the expandability of some >of its products (i.e. not providing upgrades that would be relatively easy >to make available). I submit that such behavior on the part of any for- >profit company would not be moral, would represent a lack of respect for >the customers thanks to whom the company enjoys such prosperity as it does, I have a few comments: First, although the originator of this thread talked about Mac upgradeability in part of their article, I was not responding to this point - my post addressed the question of Mac prices vs. NeXT prices. Second, I don't think that a corporation can be said to have morals, good, bad or indifferent. Ethics, perhaps, but providing poor customer support isn't a matter of ethics, but is instead just a management/policy choice. (Probably a poor one in the long run, but that's another issue.) If you don't like Apple's products or service, complain about them, or refuse to buy them (in which case you should if possible tell the appropriate person why you aren't willing to buy the product). Unless you have a contract with Apple, they have no obligation to provide you with anything - customers need to convince companies that it is in their best interest to provide good service, lots of upgrade paths, or whatever. [lots of stuff omitted] >Sculley. "The Market" is not this static thing, David, and your management >is finally beginning to act on that assumption. I don't have a 'management' - I'm just a lowly Stanford graduate student. (I don't know where you got the idea that I work for Apple, although they'd probably pay me more than I make now. 8-) 8-) ) David McKenzie mckenzie@portia.stanford.edu