scotth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Henderson) (04/16/91)
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS, U.S.A., 1991 APR 15 -- U. of I. Apple II Resource and Development Team throws wrench in "The Apple Trade-Up Program" at the University of Illinois. After Apple Computer started their own Trade-Up program at the University of Illinois, the U. of I. Apple II Resource and Development Team (A2R&D) responded with a Trade-Up deal of their own. Apple's trade up plan is giving owners of Apple and other forms of computers an opportunity to trade in their current systems for a credit voucher towards a new Macintosh Computer. The A2R&D's program would give owners trading in their machines more CASH than Apple is giving in the form of credit. "I see this as a great opportunity to purchase a Macintosh SE for half of the price that Apple was selling these new," said Scott Henderson, cofounder of the Apple II Resource and Development Team. "However, our initial attempts to purchase these computers was met with heavy resistance." One of the members was able to purchase a Mac SE before the staff at Apple got wind of what was going on. When one other member tried to buy an SE, Apple met the A2R&D's price. After this, the situation got a little ugly. Greg Sellers, an employee of the local Apple Dealer came downstairs from the equipment evaluation room. Mr. Sellers, one of seven Apple Trade Up Program members, came down with a threat that "the campus security had been contacted and would soon arrive." Members of the A2R&D were then asked to leave the building. "Apple Computer must be making A LOT of money on these trade ins," said Derek Taubert, also a cofounder of the A2R&D, "otherwise, they wouldn't care if we offered to purchase these machines. We may ultimately be making a statement that their decison not to support the Apple II community may actually hurt them." All total, the U. of I. Resource and Development Team counted approximately 7 Apple Computer owners who wanted to trade their equipment. The A2R&D was able to purchase one machine and was able to get Apple to raise their offer on an evaluation of another machine. "Our purpose is to help Apple owners receive compensation closer to what their machines are worth today," said Scott Henderson, "but, at the same time, we're also trying to get a good deal for ourselves." The Apple Trade-Up program will continue at the University of Illinois until Thursday, April 18. The A2R&D encourages any other interested individuals to join them in their effort to help prospective Apple users to get a more equittable settlement on their machines before they "Trade-Up." -- = R. Scott Henderson = "Some people claim that there's a = = University of Illinois = woman to blame, but I know it's = = scotth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu = my own damned fault. = = Apple II Forever! = -Jimmy Buffet =
paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) (04/16/91)
scotth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Henderson) writes: >CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS, U.S.A., 1991 APR 15 -- U. of I. Apple II Resource and >Development Team throws wrench in "The Apple Trade-Up Program" at the >University of Illinois. Anyone who cares what Apple is trying to do with their Look & Feel lawsuits should forbear from purchasing any more Apple equipment. Selling what you have and dropping software development of Apple-specific programs would be excellent steps. /pbp -- Paul Pomes UUCP: {att,iuvax,uunet}!uiucuxc!paul Internet, BITNET: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu US Mail: UofIllinois, CSO, 1304 W Springfield Ave, Urbana, IL 61801-2910
dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Derek A. Taubert) (04/16/91)
In article <1991Apr16.012944.24966@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Paul-Pomes@uiuc.edu writes: >Anyone who cares what Apple is trying to do with their Look & Feel lawsuits >should forbear from purchasing any more Apple equipment. Selling what you >have and dropping software development of Apple-specific programs would be >excellent steps. > One question - why? Dropping software development would be the WORST thing any machine user could do, especially if they have had several years of programming experience. Forget that I said that, just answer me why. -- + Derek Taubert --> derek@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu + Author of : GScii + + dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu + {MUCH more to come...} + + "Well, ...lettuce is a transformation of a dead cougar that suffered a + + relapse on a lion's toe. And he swallowed the lion and something happened. + + The ...see, the ...Gloria and Tommy, they're two heads and they're not + + whales. But they escaped with herds of vomit, and things like that." +
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (04/16/91)
paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes: >Anyone who cares what Apple is trying to do with their Look & Feel lawsuits >should forbear from purchasing any more Apple equipment. Selling what you >have and dropping software development of Apple-specific programs would be >excellent steps. Blech. You too? Hurting the Apple II is hurting the Apple II, not Apple. Hurting the MAC is hurting Apple. Offering people real money (and more than Apple!) for their old machines is a winner of an idea as far as I'm concerned!! I just wish I could pick up a ROM 3 for $250... Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (04/16/91)
>>Anyone who cares what Apple is trying to do with their Look & Feel lawsuits >>should forbear from purchasing any more Apple equipment. Selling what you >>have and dropping software development of Apple-specific programs would be >>excellent steps. >> > >One question - why? Dropping software development would be the WORST thing >any machine user could do, especially if they have had several years of >programming experience. Small word time. Apple is suing Microsoft because MS Windows "looks" like Apple software. Some people think this is bad, because it might mean that any programmer with a GUI would have to send a royalty check to Apple. (More fundamentally, it encourages meaningless differentiation of interfaces, making it more difficult for users to switch from platform to platform.) The people who think Apple's suit is bad would like to HURT Apple. Not buying Apple's products and not developing software for Apple products would be one way of doing that. (Being a Mac developer myself, I would have to note that Apple has done more to discourage small software developers than the FSF will ever be able to do.) -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
rimovsky@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Tony Rimovsky) (04/16/91)
And suddenly I come home, and my roommate has this Macintosh in our room. (Incidently, that brings to total to 2 IIgs's, 1 IBM (hard drive), Mac SE, and an occasional Apple IIe) We were up late last night. Possibly TOO late. But as we sat there and looked at the Mac SE next to one of the IIgs's on the desk, we came to realize truly how ridiculus the MacSE looks. He put it best: It looks like a lunch box. We are contemplating putting eyes on the monitor and a smiley face on the front. It seems to fit. Until it gets set up as a file server though, we do have a nifty alarm clock.....
dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Derek A. Taubert) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr16.123324.21596@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: >Small word time. > >Apple is suing Microsoft because MS Windows "looks" like Apple software. >Some people think this is bad, because it might mean that any programmer >with a GUI would have to send a royalty check to Apple. I'm fully aware of that, thank you. > >(More fundamentally, it encourages meaningless differentiation of interfaces, >making it more difficult for users to switch from platform to platform.) > So I suppose this means that people are finally admitting that the mac-based point-and-click interface isn't so bad after all. Seems to me that in the past few years, software was making an attempt to stay away from this, and now they're sorry because the mac went over so well. My point is that the meaningless differentation has always existed. >The people who think Apple's suit is bad would like to HURT Apple. Not buying >Apple's products and not developing software for Apple products would >be one way of doing that. This would be one way of hurting the wrong department, yes. I think a hit-man planted in the slew of apple lawyers would do a better job. -- + Derek Taubert --> derek@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu + Author of : GScii+ + + dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu + and other neat stuff to come + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Access to computers - and anything which might teach you something about + + the way the world works - should be unlimited and total. Always yield to + + the Hands-On Imperative! +
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr16.123324.21596@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: [various quotes] [stuff re the Apple Microsoft lawsuit] [gives reason why, in his opinion Apple suing MS] >The people who think Apple's suit is bad would like to HURT Apple. Not buying >Apple's products and not developing software for Apple products would >be one way of doing that. I do not want to hurt Apple, and I personally feel that this lawsuit is unacceptable( as are many other "look and feel" ones). Please consider that most R&D in the computer industry is basically the "D". Scientists and mathematicians have been working on many of the problems which commercial vendors then go on to refine in an attempt to market the items. In one case, people are interested in pushing forth Man's understanding of Nature, while on the other side CEO's and bean counters are looking at margins. Apple has lost a lot of goodwill over this lawsuit. Just my 2cents' worth( canadian which is less than 2centsUS). Philip McDunnough philip@utstat.utoronto.ca [my opinions,etc...]
marcc@yoyodyne.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Cooper) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr16.172151.6398@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Derek A. Taubert) writes: >> >>(More fundamentally, it encourages meaningless differentiation of interfaces, >>making it more difficult for users to switch from platform to platform.) > >So I suppose this means that people are finally admitting that the mac-based >point-and-click interface isn't so bad after all. Seems to me that in the >past few years, software was making an attempt to stay away from this, and >now they're sorry because the mac went over so well. My point is that the >meaningless differentation has always existed. There are some places where a GUI is exaclty the WRONG thing. But I won't get into interface wars. It's a religious issue. > >>The people who think Apple's suit is bad would like to HURT Apple. Not buying >>Apple's products and not developing software for Apple products would >>be one way of doing that. > >This would be one way of hurting the wrong department, yes. I think a >hit-man planted in the slew of apple lawyers would do a better job. While this solution is certainly enticing, and VERY effective in the short term, it's INNEFECTIVE in the long term. Despite geneticists efforts, laywers continue to reproduce. The best solution is probably to not buy Apple products and not support Apple products and TELL APPLE IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that you, and many of similar mmind, will continue to ignore them until they stop it. If Apple suddenly started getting letters that they missed a million dollar sale because of their legal policies, they might think.. > > >-- >+ Derek Taubert --> derek@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu + Author of : GScii+ + >+ dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu + and other neat stuff to come + >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >+ Access to computers - and anything which might teach you something about + >+ the way the world works - should be unlimited and total. Always yield to + >+ the Hands-On Imperative! +
frye@cerl.uiuc.edu (G. David Frye) (04/17/91)
I usually keep quiet during these discussions, but this time I can't resist. It strikes me that people are attempting to make a complex issue look simple. Apple is not suing the world for the use of GUI's. It just happens that a) they have the most popular one, and b) the largest independent software developer subsequently produced one which is so similar as to be frightening. When you're "number two", as Apple is in the world of personal computers, and someone produces a tool to make the "number one" product look and feel just like yours, the future of your product is in jeopardy. [ Now, one can argue about whether or not Windows 3.0 is a Mac GUI ripoff. Sure, it looks very similar, but you'd think that in six+ years Microsoft could have produced something better than a product that is just as difficult to program as the Mac, runs like a dog, eats RAM for lunch, and doesn't work for a lot of complex i/o-related applications. THIS they should fight over? ] I get the impression from reading between the lines of some postings here that quite a few people resent the philosophy of Apple, Inc. That's the complex issue I mentioned. Apple has actively worked at being "different" from the IBM world -- in user interface, in system design and performance, in marketing strategy, in emphasis on certain types of applications, and most obviously in pricing structure. It's really not possible, nor fair, to take any of those items and analyze it in isolation. They're all elements of the more general philosophy. Unfortunately, the pricing structure has created such a hostile environment that it doesn't seem possible to discuss the bigger question rationally. ----------------------------- Having said that, I'd like to applaud the people who stood up personally to the absurd rebate program. I wonder if the scheme was dreamt up locally by dealers or was a corporate plan. The prices were an insult, at best, and most departments realized that there was no real value to the buyback offer. I hope that someone at UI purchasing got burned. I hope that the apparent attempt to get around UI and State of Illinois surplus policy is noted and prosecuted. G. David Frye (This seems like a good time to point out that the above opinion is strictly personal and in no way reflects any official position of my department.)
stuckey@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Anthony J. Stuckey) (04/18/91)
frye@cerl.uiuc.edu (G. David Frye) writes: >Having said that, I'd like to applaud the people who stood up personally to >the absurd rebate program. I wonder if the scheme was dreamt up locally by >dealers or was a corporate plan. The prices were an insult, at best, and It was a corporate plan.. offered to "six universities in the midwest", and actively promoted by apple (to the point of dorm mail-box flyers). >most departments realized that there was no real value to the buyback offer. >I hope that someone at UI purchasing got burned. I hope that the apparent >attempt to get around UI and State of Illinois surplus policy is noted and >prosecuted. not likely. who'd tell the proper people?? -- Anthony J. Stuckey stuckey@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu