Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!pro-houston.cts.com!jabernathy
From: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Apple's committment to the // line
Message-ID: <8910142319.AA12106@trout.nosc.mil>
Date: 14 Oct 89 19:16:11 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 57

Network Comment: to #1286 by sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com

Hi, Steve :-)

> Why would ANYONE continue to develop for an obsolete machine.

Now there's another one of those widely held misconceptions, that the Apple II
technology is only good these days for running Mr. Coffees. Wrongo. What's
flawed is Apple's marketing philosophy ... they've always had this California
boutique attitude that says if it isn't the haute-est thing on the block and
can't be sold for an obscene profit, it isn't worth supporting.

In fact, the 6502 family of processors are a more efficient design than those
used in the Macintosh for everything except desktop publishing. The 65- chips
were designed as a low-cost, low-power, efficient, portable, and
forward-compatible line. The chips succeed marvelously; it is Apple that has
failed to deliver the promise. Why has Apple failed? Because it is run by
brilliant young people who want to create their own legend, not nurture
something done by someone else. Apple could use a healthy dose of good old
stodgy corporate management.

As to the promise of the 65- series machines. Take the IIe emulation chip on
the IIGS motherboard, put it in a box with a couple of slots, and you've got
an ideal candidate for a truly affordable, usable portable, albeit one with a
$500 price tag and a $200 margin. You can't buy many Ferraris on $200 profit
margins, can you? Can you? I think Apple would make more money if it abandoned
its boutique attitude and made a serious commitment to providing a truly
low-cost computer-as-appliance. As it is, Bill Mensch is getting ready to do
it, and he's going to have to make an end run involving compatibility
trade-offs. Apple could do it better; they just don't want to.

Other promise? There is a 32-bit chip design waiting in the wings. Again,
compatible with old 8-bit and 16-bit technology. But again, this is nurturing
instead of brainstorming, so the Apple whiz kids want no part of it.

This problem, the boutique attitude, has been evident to Apple's money people
for years. They hired John Sculley straight out of the old school hierarchy to
fix it, but instead he fell in love with Steve Jobs and Jobs converted him.
Apple is in a continual state of rebirth. Its young managers hire other young
managers with the same set of ideals, and the management setup is such that
they just restructure every time a strategic initiative comes to bloom .. so
no one has to accept blame for youthful mistakes .. and no one ever gains the
maturity to get past the same mistakes, over and over. Why do you think there
are 47 different Macintosh CPUs, no more than 2 of them especially well-suited
to an actual market niche? 47 sets of starry eyed young managers is why.

No, the Apple II is not obsolete, not even close. In my opinion, it has
finally reached the point that it might become a mature appliance, but don't
expect Apple to take the steps necessary to carry through with this, because
Apple doesn't understand maturity. Apple doesn't do maturity.

Joe Abernathy


UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy
ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil
INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com