Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!grian!alex
From: alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Reserve engineering stuff,.....
Message-ID: <1990Jun13.065704.26063@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us>
Date: 13 Jun 90 06:57:04 GMT
References: <1990Jun7.190751.10452@cs.utk.edu>   <1990Jun7.202044.7800@eng.umd.edu> <41723@apple.Apple.COM> <30664@cup.portal.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Workman & Associates
Lines: 108

"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."

Doesn't anyone in this industry remember the PAST?  Remember 1981, and
the IBM PC?  This is a done deal, folks!

I am constantly saddened at how "the Macintosh Way" clouds the minds of
otherwise highly competent individuals.  Guys, even Mr. Pepsi has
admitted in print that Apple is hurtin' big time, and things are going
to get worse before they get better.  It's been three years that the
mountain has strained to produce the Messiah--the CheapMac--and ONLY NOW
they realize they can sell the Plus for $800 to students!?  Only now Sculley
admits that IBM is performing some heavy heinie-abuse in the former
Apple ][ market!?

ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:

>Since large parts of the Mac OS are not in the ROM, your machine would
>be useless as a Mac clone unless your users had an Apple System file.
>Apple's licensing agreements say that you can't use their software on
>non-Apple hardware, so all your users are in violation of their agreements
>with Apple if they try to make your clone machine run Apple's System.

>Maybe Apple could make a case in
>court that your machine is only bought by people who are going to illegally
>use Apple software, and so should not be available.

Horse feathers.  Pfui.  And even if true, it too can be cloned.  It's
not that big a deal.

Funny, I haven't seen any large ugly Black Mariahs out front whenever I
use my Spectre GCR.  And Apple has known about this line of products for
years, without complaint.

Hmm, they haven't gone after Wallaby or the like either.  I think your
argument is specious.  Yes, I know that both products require Apple
ROMs, but I reject the idea that this is "just enough" hardware to
defend against lawsuits.  Further, one can purchase legal copies of the 
o.s., so Clarus gets his money.

People I trust, and who know the code intimately, are not scared of
cloning the ROMs.  And that's the only part that's protected.  The o.s.
is just a tad bit of work.

>One thing you could would be to clone the System file in addition to cloning
>the ROM.  Now your main problem is that you will probably be at least a year
>or more behind Apple in System file compatibility.  That might really hurt
>your market.  On the other hand, if you[r] machine cost a lot less, there might
>be a lot of people who don't mind being a year or two behind.

Like the (yes, really, Virginia) tens of thousands of GCR+aMAX+Wallaby
users?  Like the hundreds of thousands of Plus and earlier users who
have NEVER updated?  Or the many with 128s and Fat Macs with System 4.2?

Yes, System 7.011111111111 is a problem, but the spex are out now.  And
many many users are price-sensitive, not immediately system-sensitive.

Wake up and smell the caffeine.  How many suits does IBM have extant
against clone computer makers?  When was the last one settled?

I could lead a Mac `clean' cloning project to
market, with a first demonstration at ComDex Fall, with less than ten
million dollars--complete.  In fact, I'd be a good choice :-) because I
know utterly nothing about the Mac system internals.  I'd have three
teams: one to write the functional spec for ROM and system requirements,
one to write them, and one to interface the two.  There would be two key
support teams: the compatibility testers (who would only talk to the
interface group) and the lawyers.

This is nothing new; Phoenix took this approach on the first IBM clone
BIOS.  No one else has (I'm sure most very cheap clone BIOSes are just
reassembled, jumbled versions of the PHX and AMI ones) bothered.


The hardware itself would be nearly off-the-shelf: 1.44 Mbyte drive (hi,
Sony), 8-16 Mhz 680x0, ADB LogiMouse (I think they know how to make 'em
after this long supplying Apple), somebody's 20-40 Mbyte HD.  The
mainboard can be made by the lowest bidder and assembled in whoever's
FMF is idle.

One plus in this theoretical box over the Plus/SE/30 would be a larger screen.
Everyone from Amdek to Zenith can supply same.

For my midrange system, I would add a second 68000 for graphics, rather
than fiddling with an incompatible speedup chip (29K?  C'mon!).  Simply
offload the SAME code to the graphic CPU...

Expansion slot?  Dunno.  SE, probably, unless I built an ultra-low cost
version without.


Now, it would probably take three million to defend against the Apple suits,
but they would be in vain.  PHX and AMI are still in business.

Such an effort would not be for the faint of heart, but would result in
BETTER Macintoshes, just as the thousands of PC cloners have pushed IBM
along.

I doubt I'd have to spend a cent on advertising, due to the HUGE
editorial coverage such a project would garner!

	Alex

-- 
		Alex Pournelle, freelance thinker
		Also: Workman & Associates, Data recovery for PCs, Macs, others
		...elroy!grian!alex; BIX: alex; voice: (818) 791-7979
		fax: (818) 794-2297    bbs: 791-1013; 8N1 24/12/3