Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!mailrus!umich!caen.engin.umich.edu!apoy From: apoy@caen.engin.umich.edu (Alfred Lim Poy) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Grass-roots perspective on the II line Message-ID: <49335dbf.f08b@frosh.engin.umich.edu> Date: 15 Mar 90 03:45:00 GMT Organization: U of M Engineering, Ann Arbor, Mich. Lines: 60 With all of the ideas about future Apple II products flying around I thought maybe a different perspective should be looked at. The rumors of the ROM4 GS are encouraging. I've also read about the Apple IIf proposal and there are some good ideas in there. However, I question the necessity of this IIf to be the 'Amiga killer' that many would like to see. The history of the Apple II line goes back and takes its roots in the EDUCATIONAL field. Sure, IIs are great hacking machines, but the odds are that you first had exposure to the II in elementary or middle school. I got my II+ way back in '78 when our school district was purchasing their first classroom computers. Since then, the II has become the 'standard' for primary education. An article recently posted estimated the Apple II line share in schools to be about 60%, dwarfing IBM's 15%. Apple has always targeted the II line at the 'home' user market, meaning mostly families with children. This is where the strength of the II field is, in the EDUCATIONAL market. It has the name recognition and the standardization which has given Apple a monopoly in the market. This is why I question the need for this 'super GS' machine. Don't get me wrong, yes the GS needs more speed (7 MHz is a nice number), yes it could use better graphics, but just exactly how much more do you need to make the GS the 'decent' computer that it needs to be to sell in its market? I believe that Apple should produce a computer that is inexpensive, which people (families?) can purchase without it being a major financial setback. We've all complained about the price of Apple products. Sure, the big profit margin is part of it, but the amount of technology figures in there, too. This new GS should contain a balance of technology which will allow it to perform its functions in a respectable manner at reasonable cost. Things like blitter chips, built-in stereo, ultra-fast 20MHz processors, 640X400X265 graphics, built in scsi ports, and the like are all technically desireable things but the bottom line is cost. Every extra feature that you all to the machine also adds to its price tag. If a user isn't going to *NEED* this technology, its just another that you have to pay for "because its there", and that makes people think twice about just how well the machine really fits their needs. I would rather see equipment that could be added on when the user desires (this is the strong point of the II line, when you want it, you can add it) rather than forcing everyone to buy things they don't really need. For example, a built-in scsi port would be nice, but not everyone is going to need it ( besides, with this rumored new scsi card coming out anyway, why re-invent the wheel :-). It all boils down to the fact that Apple **needs** a 'low end' machine. Right, it may not match the performance of other competitively priced machines, but given Apple's mystic consumer loyalty (if you had a II+ or //e, did you even think twice before purchasing a GS?) they can easily regain their monopoly in the educational market (are real people really buying Amigas anyway? :-). If the survival of the Apple II line means getting consumers to purchase II's, and getting consumers to purchase II's requires low prices, and if low prices dictates having a 'basic' model computer, then I'm all for it !!!!! Thanks for your time. Al Poy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Al Poy | Internet: apoy@caen.engin.umich.edu College of Engineering | Bitnet : Al_Poy@umichub University of Michigan | "Rejection is one thing, but rejection | from a fool is cruel." - Morrissey ----------------------------------------------------------------