Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!jarthur!spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Accepting the Mac (was Re: More Macweek Rumors)
Message-ID: <1990Mar20.041310.26675@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 90 04:13:10 GMT
References: <1848@crash.cts.com> <18491@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <1990Mar17.053255.22944@agate.berkeley.edu> <4429@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <1990Mar17.172902.9711@athena.mit.edu> <1990Mar18.231146.9843@eng.umd.edu> <1990Mar19.144411.1762@athena.mit.
Sender: news@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 17

tmyers@athena.mit.edu (Tracy S Myers) writes:

>  No amount of whining about the Apple II and what
>a nice machine it is will change the reality of the market.  

No, but whining about how Apple is throwing away their low end position by
not keeping the II competitive just might -- especially when I've practically
dropped an Amiga-killer in their lap. Only Apple has the technology to build
the computer described by my //f paper (available by Email from me) and to do
it inexpensively enough to compete with the Amiga and the PC clones because
their Low Cost Mac is looking to be too little, too late, even if it borrows
technology from the //f (a fine idea). The two machines will still have their
own markets and I see that as a market reality Apple must exploit if they want
to take back the low end.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu