gow@sakari.mrceg (Ed Gow) (09/25/90)
I went looking for Outbound adds in a recent Mac magazine and was dismayed not to find them. I also recently looked at the Mac emulator on the Atari Stacy portable (which is superb beyond my wildest expecatations). The fact is that I don't have $7 grand for a Mac portable. This morning I saw this on the net: >NO MORE ROM-MATES. Not to be outdone by IBM, Apple Computer first bought >Outbound's laptop technology and licensed it back to the Colorado >lap-Mac maker, and now they've deliberately shut down the legal suppy >of Mac ROMs for these and other machines. > As of September 15, Apple stopped selling Mac ROMs to anyone, unless they >are in exchange for a "broken" set. Previously, Apple dealers and service >centers could buy as many ROMs as they liked at $120 per set, but too many >were ending up in Outbounds and in Mac emulators for other computers." My question is this, how does the Mac buying public feel about this sort of business practice? Personally I feel like, to put it bluntly, they've been bending us over and now they're sticking it to us. Since there are now many other good GUIs coming out (in spite of Apple lawyers' best efforts) can they afford this? -Ed -- ------ Ed Gow ------ uwm!mrsvr!gemed!sakari!gow ----------- My opinions are NOT those of GE. MGB - The most fun you can have in a car without a back seat
brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) (09/26/90)
In article <GOW.90Sep25102757@sakari.mrceg> gow@sakari.mrceg (Ed Gow) writes: > >My question is this, how does the Mac buying public feel about this >sort of business practice? Personally I feel like, to put it bluntly, >they've been bending us over and now they're sticking it to us. Since >there are now many other good GUIs coming out (in spite of Apple >lawyers' best efforts) can they afford this? They invented it, they should reap its rewards...or is that 'rape their rewards'? No one disagrees that their machines are expensive. But Apple does do an aweful lot of R&D, and clone makers (to mix an apple and orange) do not. Cost of doing business. But, in order to expand market share, I do not feel they can maintain their present tight-gripped practice. They have done an unprecedented job of retaining their legal rights, quite successful. Though opening their market too widely (ala IBM) could hurt them, technology licenses are a viable option for Apple as well as developers using Apple ROMS, etc. I'd love to own one...but, uh, what have you heard about the Stacy? ;-) ============================================================================== BRANDON G. LOVESTED ::::=:::==::===:==== FOR EVERY VISION, Software Design Engineer ::::=:::==::===:==== THERE IS AN Grass Valley Group ::::=:::==::===:==== EQUAL AND OPPOSITE brandonl@gold.gvg.tek.com ::::=:::==::===:==== REVISION. ==============================================================================
abennett@athena.mit.edu (Andrew Bennett) (09/26/90)
In article <GOW.90Sep25102757@sakari.mrceg> gow@sakari.mrceg (Ed Gow) writes: > >My question is this, how does the Mac buying public feel about this >sort of business practice? Personally I feel like, to put it bluntly, >they've been bending us over and now they're sticking it to us. Since >there are now many other good GUIs coming out (in spite of Apple >lawyers' best efforts) can they afford this? > In the short run, it will preserve their market share. In the long run, I think they're pulling a 'Detroit' - they'll go on doing what they're doing, oblivious to reality, until one day they'll notice no one is buying their product. They'll then spend all that built up revenue on attempts to regain lost customers, instead of new R&D (Wang is an extreme example). I've been a Mac devotee since 1985. I've owned a 512, 512E, Plus, SE and a Mac II. I helped introduce them into a National Lab in 1986 (they're insanely popular there now), and a startup in 1987. This year, however, was a turning point. Until now, there wasn't really any choice if you wanted a truly friendly OS/GUI. That's all changing. X-Windows/Motif, which is slow & cumbersome, has just been upgraded to v1.1, which is leaner and 30% faster. I see no reason why things won't get better. After all, with multiple workstation vendors all competing with the same basic OS/GUI (and it's beginning to look like things are settling out that way), how else can they stand out in the eyes of the customer? They *have* to get faster & easier to use. Ditto for applications available - hardware vendors will encourage ports to help sell product, and once the first port has been completed, migration to other platforms is fairly quick. That, plus the ever-improving price/performance of workstations means that the Mac isn't as unique as it once was. I believe similar arguments may be made for PC's and PC compatables, except that the time-lag for improvements is longer (i.e. the workstations seem to have major improvements on a yearly basis, while PC's seem to run on a two to three year period - most likely due to the size and inertia of the installed base of platforms). Also, the installed software base is much larger. Today, the Macintosh is *still* your best choice. But in a year? In two? -Drew ---------------------------------------------------- Andrew Bennett abennett@mit.edu MIT Room 11-124H abennett%athena@mitvma.bitnet 77 Massachusetts Ave. Phone: (617) 253-7174 Cambridge, MA 02139 ** All disclaimers apply ** -----------------------------------------------------
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) (09/28/90)
In article <1494@gold.GVG.TEK.COM> brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) writes: >They invented it, they should reap its rewards...or is that 'rape their >rewards'? No one disagrees that their machines are expensive. But Apple does >do an aweful lot of R&D, and clone makers (to mix an apple and orange) do not. > >Cost of doing business. Brandon, I am not flaming you here, or even really commenting on your post. This is just a general rant... I have heard the R&D argument for Apple's prices an awful lot, and I can't help but begin to choke on it. Steven Jobs has managed to bring out a NeXT machine that kicks butt over the IIfx at half the price. His machine has a heck of a lot more innovative hardware than you will find in any Mac, an excellent graphical user interface, a full multi-tasking operating system (UNIX), an impressive interface builder, etc. Don't tell me that Steve didn't do any R&D to produce this machine. He may be using more off the shelf components than Apple (I'm not sure whether that is true), but if he is, it is obviously a working formula. The point here is not whether or not the NeXT will sell and be a successful machine. If it fails, I believe it will be more for reasons of the difficulty in breaking into the workstation/high-end-pc market. Hopefully, it will at least have a downward pressure on the overall price of machines in this catagory. =========== On a slightly different note: >But, in order to expand market share, I do not feel they can maintain their >present tight-gripped practice. They have done an unprecedented job of >retaining their legal rights, quite successful. Though opening their market >too widely (ala IBM) could hurt them, technology licenses are a viable option >for Apple as well as developers using Apple ROMS, etc. Has anyone heard of RomLIB for the Sun's? I don't have the posting handy, but there is a small company reverse engineering the Mac ROMS. Currently, they have a library for the Sun's that allows you to compile Mac source code and run applications on the Sun that look exactly like a Mac. Apparently, they support Inside Mac volumes 1-4 (so far). Their ultimate goal is to bring out a set of clone Mac ROMs. Rah Rah!!! If Apple doesn't get their buts in gear and get realistic about licensing Mac Clones, they could be in serious do-do. No doubt they will sue these guys, but: a) Apple can't get them on source code copyright infringement, as long as the clone ROMs are legitimately reverse engineered, without disassembling any Mac ROM code. Clone IBM ROMs have been around for years, and this has been hashed over in the courts many times. b) The look-and-feel argument only applies to the SYSTEM SOFTWARE, not the ROMS. The ROMs only provide the hooks to generate a given look-and-feel; they do not enforce a particular user interface. Clone makers could thus either write their own System Software, or, more likely, sell the hardware without System Software and allow the customer to buy his own Mac OS. Even if Apple then restricts system software sales to registered hardware owners, it is awfully easy to copy a System Disk... Of course, I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple then put in checks in their System software to verify that Apple Mac ROMS are being used, but this is a battle that I can't help but hope they will eventually either lose, or grow out of. Eric
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (09/28/90)
by ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell): > Don't tell me that Steve didn't do any R&D to produce this machine. > He may be using more off the shelf components than Apple (I'm not sure > whether that is true), but if he is, it is obviously a working formula. Do you recall this little thing abou heavy investment from Jobs, himself, Canon, and one Mr. Perot? > The point here is not whether or not the NeXT will sell and be a > successful machine. [...] Maybe not to you, but I think the price of the slab is squarely aimed at getting some marketshare and an installed base to build on. Until that happens, software is lacking and expensive and businesses lokk elsewhere. Add up the cost of just some of the major parts of the system and take a guess at the margin they are cutting. I am a die hard Mac person but I'm thinking real hard about this new toy. (I'm a CompSci major and it would be nice to have a UNIX machine to work on. Not to mention a big monitor, premptive multitasking OS, some nice bundled software, etc. all for less than an SE/30 with A/UX in a minimal configuration. Lots of CPU horsepower doesn't hurt either!) | If Apple doesn't get their buts in gear and get realistic about licensing | Mac Clones, they could be in serious do-do. No doubt they will sue | these guys, but: [...] | b) The look-and-feel argument only applies to the SYSTEM SOFTWARE, not | the ROMS. The ROMs only provide the hooks to generate a | given look-and-feel; they do not enforce a particular user | interface. Clone makers could thus either write their own System | Software, or, more likely, sell the hardware without System Software | and allow the customer to buy his own Mac OS. Even if Apple then | restricts system software sales to registered hardware owners, | it is awfully easy to copy a System Disk... However, if there is no legit use for such a clone sans System software from Apple, I think the courts would see the clone as requiring a violation of Apple's software license agreements (the one you agreed to when you broke that little seal on the package...) to carry out its intended use. Nasty nasty nasty. I will be curious as to wether the low cost Macs will be such price perfomers as the NeXTs are. The comparison of pricing for the slab + NeXT laser printer vs LaserWriter IIntx is very revealing. Like I said, I'm thinking real hard on this... -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| A fanatic is one who sticks to |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | his guns -- whether they are | U | - Ackphtth | loaded or not.
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (09/28/90)
In article <1026@mdavcr.UUCP> ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: > >Has anyone heard of RomLIB for the Sun's? I don't have the posting >handy, but there is a small company reverse engineering the Mac ROMS. ^^^^^ >If Apple doesn't get their buts in gear and get realistic about licensing >Mac Clones, they could be in serious do-do. No doubt they will sue >these guys, but: No buts-- Apple wins, unless the company sells it's soul to IBM or Sun or SomeBigGiantCompany with infinite legal resources. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (10/02/90)
>In article <1026@mdavcr.UUCP> ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: >If Apple doesn't get their buts in gear and get realistic about licensing >Mac Clones, they could be in serious do-do. No doubt they will sue >these guys, but: Today in the San Jose Mercury News, Sony announced that they were in the midst of talks with Apple, apparently instigated by Apple, for the purpose of having Sony manufacture a notebook Mac for Apple. In the article they specifically stated that it was not clear if this would include licensing the technology to Sony for them to manufacture and sell. But a quote from an Apple person was (approx.): "Licensing the technology is no longer an untouchable subject inside Apple." Maybe they are listening? jim -- Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6115 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086