Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!jessica.stanford.edu!aaron
From: aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ?
Message-ID: <1990Aug17.223202.3256@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 17 Aug 90 22:32:02 GMT
References: <3965@crash.cts.com> <1990Aug17.135606.7668@eng.umd.edu> <1990Aug17.163840.3414@portia.Stanford.EDU> <3874@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: Aaron Wallace
Organization: Academic Information Resources
Lines: 74

In article <3874@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes:
>In article <1990Aug17.163840.3414@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes:
>>In article <1990Aug17.135606.7668@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:

(Assertion that Apple can be compared only to IBM, and my arguments against
this, omitted )

>	Ok, then, let's try this:
>
>	Apple designs their own machine.  An original machine, not
>based on the hardware or ROMs of another company.  The clone makers
>started with existing technology that had been made "free game" for
>companys to work with, namely the Phoenix BIOS.  Said clone makers
>thus lack the R&D costs of Apple, having come in much further along
>the design trail.  Thus IBM is the closest analogue to Apple in R&D
>costs, having designed their PC architecture from the same ground
>level as Apple.

This was true about 4-5 years ago, but nowadays IBM's R+D tends to trail
others.  Witness that there are a slew of 33 MHz 386 and 25 and 33 MHz
486s out there, yet IBM makes no such animal.  Okay, a fast 386 can be
based on slower ones (although IBM wasn't the first with one of those, 
either), but designing a 486 motherboard requires doing some original
R+D or modifying a non-IBM design.  The current leading-edge video standard
for PCs is Super VGA, another non-IBM invention (although arguably based
on VGA).  Then there's the IDE and EISA interfaces, both non-IBM...

>	Apple designs the OS for their machines.  Microsoft does this
>for the DOS machines (although, arguably, you can buy another OS).
>Microsoft and IBM are more closely aligned than Microsoft and any
>other clone maker, thus IBM is the closest analogue to Apple in OS
>development and packaging.

Okay, IBM and MS have a codevelopment agreement for DOS, but IBM's input
has been minimal.  To say that IBM is a major factor in the design of
DOS is inaccurate.  And IBM had nothing to do with Windows...  Oh, and
recent press asserts that IBM will turn its DOS stuff over to MS completely.

>	IBM has a larger voice than any clone maker when it comes to
>determining the future of PC hardware.  Thus, IBM is the closest
>analogue to Apple in "control of hardware."

Not at all true.  This honor goes to Compaq.  Note that very few makers
adopted MCA despite IBM's pushing it.  Also, IBM has been among the last to
release 386 and 486 machines.  They had nothing to do with SVGA, while their
8514A standard has met with minimal success.  IBM's machines in general
are the most "nonstandard" in terms of design.  While most programs are
guaranteed to run on IBMs, they'll also run on Compaqs and leading clones with
the same level of confidence.

>	Unlike most of the other clone makers, IBM sells it's
>computers agressively through all channels: magazine, TV, newspaper,
>educational outlets, retail outlets, volume business sales, and mail
>order.  Apple pursues similar sales strategy.  Most of the clone
>makers have limited advertising, and rely -heaviliy- on mail order,
>choosing not to have the overhead of sales agents.  Thus, IBM is
>closest to Apple in sales and marketing.

Perhaps, although Compaq and a number of 2nd tier makers advertise aggressively
as well.  Zenith's educational program here is stronger than IBM's, for
example.  And Compaq, Zenith, HP, and others also do a lot of volume business
sales business...

>	I think these reasons are sufficient to show why, when
>comparing pricing between PCs and Macs, one must use IBM's own
>machines for the fairest comparison.
>
Fair?  Only to justfy Apple's or IBM's prices...
>
>	Shall we take it to alt.religion.computers?  

I thought I was there already (smileys...)

Aaron Wallace