Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!mintaka!bloom-beacon!tmyers
From: tmyers@athena.mit.edu (Tracy S Myers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Accepting the Mac (was Re: More Macweek Rumors)
Message-ID: <1990Mar20.154421.23253@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 90 15:44:21 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 <1990Mar20.
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Reply-To: tmyers@athena.mit.edu (Tracy S Myers)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 52

In article <1990Mar20.041310.26675@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes:
>@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

Here we go again! I don't doubt that you have the plans for one 
whizbang machine.  But, that is quite irrelevent.  Who will buy this
machine?  Who will write software for it?  Will anybody make money
if this machine is built?

To build such a machine would require a large investment on Apple's
part.  Would this be the best use of their resources?  You comment 
that only Apple can build this Amiga and PC clone killer and they can
do it cheaper.  Cheaper than the Koreans and Taiwanese can crank out
'286 clones?  I doubt it.  What advantage would there be in buying this
machine, and paying more for it than a PC clone?  Will anybody write
software to take advantage of it? Why would anyone who does not currently
own a II series machine buy it?  Is there any software for the II that
does not already exist on another similarly priced platform? 

Remember the technical merits of a machine are only a small part of its
success or failure.  Bolting on additional capabilities to a 15 year
old product line does not make sense.  Other products already exist with
these capabilities and are availible cheaply.  It would make little
sense to enter a crowded market packed with competitors when the product
will have such a low profit margin. Apple could make much more money
by investing their resources elsewhere.  As I said before, the Apple
II product line is at the end of its useful life. It is naive to think
that Apple would or should make such a large investment in this product
line.  

X years from now people will be whining about Apple's
lack of investment in the Mac.