Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:23793 comp.sys.apple2:308
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Accepting the Mac (was Re: More Macweek Rumors)
Message-ID: <1990Mar21.061125.13784@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 21 Mar 90 06:11:25 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@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 122

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

>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?

A significant portion of the Apple II user base (I know, I know).
People who want a machine that has all the spiffy coprocessors of the Amiga
but want the hands-on-ness of an Apple II or the GUI of a Mac.
People who want a machine that their kids use at school but will still be
competitive enough to last.
People who want to run small business software but still let their kids play
great games.
And people who want something as friendly as a Mac but don't need a true
Mac and would rather pay less for color.

> Who will write software for it?

Anybody who already has written software for the GS -- that's what it will
run. Apple's toolbox stategy makes that possible. Every application already
uses the toolbox routines which would now have the hardware support they
need to fly.

> Will anybody make money if this machine is built?

Apple, obviously. Especially because they will be taking away market share from
people who would have bought an A500 or PC Clone instead of a color Mac.

>To build such a machine would require a large investment on Apple's
>part.  Would this be the best use of their resources?

That's a darn good question. From the glimpses I've got of their resources
I'm convinced they could pull it off if they were convinced they could market
and sell it. The design I suggested has high-bandwidth direct slots on the
CPU, video, and sound systems, so the major upgrades can be done by third
parties and with minimal glue, saving everybody time, trouble, and money.

> 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?

Note: this thing doesn't have to take on the entire breadth of the PC and the
Amiga, to do that would be a death wish. But to address a specific portion of
their market better than they do, and a portion that the Mac does not for its
own reasons -- that's why I think it's viable.

I also don't think it would cost significantly more than a 286 clone because
the current GS is no indicator of how cheap Apple can make things. You can
choose to believe that or not but there is so much logic duplication on even
the 1 meg GS motherboard that it isn't funny how much they could save
by giving the chip set a full redesign. They do that for every mac anyway,
so what's the problem?

> 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? 

Apple's GUI. In color.

Software for the Ensoniq. Now that we have decent MIDI tools we need to
get the big name software support back to exploit them.

Appleworks, which does have competition but is powerful enough for a lot
of people who buy on budget and nothing else.

Vast library of educational software which is still in schools.

A built-in BASIC that is easy enough to use that ordinary people can and do
write day-to-day custom programs in it -- this doesn't replace real software
packages but does complement a fair number of them. how many people wrote
Basic programs to custom process their spreadsheet's DIF files? The convenience
of a built-in programming language that normal people can use is largely
underestimated, IMHO.

>Remember the technical merits of a machine are only a small part of its
>success or failure.

Agreed.

> Bolting on additional capabilities to a 15 year old product line does not
>make sense.

That's not what the GS did from the software's point of view. In hardware, yes,
but that's what I want them to fix. The GS system software is actually easier
to work with than the Mac's because less glitches have been able to accumulate
in it over time (no development until recently, you see, and by that time they
knew what they were doing).

> Other products already exist with these capabilities and ... cheaply.

True. I am putting a little faith in Apple's ability to take their cost-of-
manufacturing technology and produce some real low end winners. I see a market
which can accept both a proper GS and a low cost Mac.

> 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.

I'm not so sure. If they want to take back the low end they will have to
sacrifice some of their sacred profit margin but the volume can potentially
make up for it. Their low cost Mac will have to make the same sacrifices,
and they've had no problems committing to that.

> 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.  

You do the machine a severe injustice by assuming it has done its best and
failed. The new GS is nowhere near the improvement I want to see, and with
what they _have_ done I am convinced they just aren't market driven enough
to realize what they can accomplish.

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

Only if they let it rot to death for five years in favor of another machine.
I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu