Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!agate!linus!linus!mbunix!kf From: kf@mbunix.mitre.org (Fong) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Woz giveth, Scully taketh away Message-ID: <121776@linus.mitre.org> Date: 1 Oct 90 14:42:01 GMT References: <181@alchemy.UUCP> Sender: usenet@linus.mitre.org Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA Lines: 101 Although I think this ranting and raving is a little extreme, I agree with much of the negative sentiment from Apple II users towards Apple, and believe it is sincere and supportable by observation. Let me try to explain how this feeling came about and is supported by recent events: First: The Theory Apple II owners are rightfully concerned about their investment because there is a feeling that less products (software and hardware) are being produced for the Apple II. If this feeling is actually true, then there are less products developed because third-party companies believe that: a. there is not a growing market for their product relative to the cost of product development or b. the computer is physically not appropriately equipped (too slow, low resolution, not enough color, etc.). For both of these, it may actually be true (there is truly no market or the computer really is not equipped) or it may only be perceived to be true but is in actuality false. If the situation is a matter of perception, then Apple and Apple users need to 1. show third-parties that an education AND general-purpose home user market exists, and/or the computer is appropriately-equipped. But if the situation is actually true, then to solve it, Apple needs to 2. increase the market, 3. lower the cost of product development, and/or 4. improve the computer. Next: The Observations Now is the original feeling (about less product availability) true? I think, as consumers, we all agree that the answer is YES. What has Apple done about it? 1. Has Apple shown companies that the general-purpose home market exists or the computer is well-equipped? Not really. (The Apple II presence in the education market, although declining, is well known.) Have Apple users shown companies that a general-purpose home market exists? Somewhat but can do more. 2. Has Apple increased the market for Apple II third-party products? Has Apple increased the total number of Apple II users by using price incentives or other marketing techniques? Not as far as we can tell. We've had indications that Apple doesn't even bother to inform dealers about the II. 3. Has Apple lowered the cost of product development? Probably yes, through improvements to the operating system and availability of some new software development tools. But more can be done... 4. Has Apple improved the IIGS? Yes, but too little too late. Apple greatly improved the operating system (both speed and features), improved the ROM, and produced some new peripherals. I recognize that Apple is constrained from introducing a faster CPU Apple IIGS because it cannot be assured of volume production of faster CPU chips. I know that when Apple produces a computer, it has to have an assured supply to sell hundreds of thousands a year. (Whereas I doubt that more than 50,000 TransWarps have been sold over the past 3 years.) (A sidenote: the lack of volume production of a 68040 keeps Apple from announcing a 68040 Mac, but NEXT and HP, with have much lower volumes, have already announced but not shipped). Anyway, back to the topic: I realize that Apple concentrated on improving the operating system to try to get as much power as it can from the slower CPU chip. And they have, which is good. But its not enough. I agree with others who have said that Apple could certainly improve on some of the other bottlenecks in the system. And how does the IIe emulation card for the Mac affect product development for the II? This affects items 1 and 2. One assumption is that Apple is developing the IIe emulation card for the Mac in order to "encourage" schools to start buying Macs. With this card, schools don't have to give up the software investment they have already made. This gives the strong impression that Apple has given up on trying to sell IIs (or any future improved IIs) to schools. Which means the II market will not grow any larger, while the Mac market will. On the other hand, it can also mean that the IIe market may grow larger because now Mac owners can run IIe software. But outside of schools, how many will? (One argument others have is that the market demands such a card. This may be true but it also indicates that Apple didn't fulfill an earlier market demand for an improved education computer, which could've been an enhanced IIGS.) And how does the soon-to-be announced $999 Mac Classic or the $2000 color Mac affect product development for the II? This affects items 1 and 2. Unless the price for a full IIGS color system with monitor drops under $1000, it's an indication that Apple is steering all home users to buy the Mac. The market for the II will not grow any larger. (Again, the argument is that the market demands a low-cost Mac and Apple is simply fulfilling this demand. Fine. But the market was there for a lower-cost IIGS, too. Was that demand fulfilled?) Finally: The Conclusion It's very arguable from recent events that Apple is letting the Apple II die. Although Apple has taken some steps to improve the II, it truly seems they were much too little and a little too late. So when I want Apple to tell me what they've done recently for the II, I want to know have they tried to: 1. improve third-party perception of the Apple II and its markets? 2. increase the Apple II market? 3. lower the cost of Apple II product development? 4. improve the Apple II computer? Maybe Sculley can write a letter addressing these items instead. My .02 Kevin Fong, an observer MITRE Corporation Standard disclaimer