Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!dog.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!fadden
From: fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: October Issue of Workstation News
Summary: Apple market share type stuff
Message-ID: <28646@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 10 Oct 90 03:50:48 GMT
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 79

(this is intended to be a semi-intelligent discussion of Apple's market
share.  It's not an Apple flame and I don't want it to become one.  If
you're not interested, don't read it...)

This is one of those magazines that you can get free for a year if you
don't mind being put on every mailing list known to mankind.  An item of
interest to some readers is a discussion of RISC vs CISC.

Anyway, the application form has the following question:

1A. If [you are a workstation user], please indicate EACH type of workstation
your organization uses:

A. Apollo		H. Intergraph		O. Sun Microsystems
B. Computervision	I. MIPS			P. Tektronix
C. Control Data		J. NCR			Q. Texas Instruments
D. Data General		K. NeXT			R. Unisys
E. DEC			L. Silicon Graphics	Z. Other (please specify)
F. Hewlett-Packard	M. Solbourne
G. IBM RT/System 6000	N. Sony

Note that the Mac //fx, which has more power than many of the products
made by the above companies, has not earned Apple a spot on this list.
Instead, it was pushed down into the "other computers" list.

In addition, question

9. Which type(s) of network is used at your site?

does not include AppleTalk.

What exactly is going on here?  It appears that, to be considered a
workstation, a machine needs two components:
- power
- the ability to run a UNIX-like environment.

An interesting case in point is the NeXT.  It has a WIMP interface
like the Mac, yet is considered a workstation.  Another interesting
case is the Amiga.  It has enough power to at least be on the "other
computers" list, but it doesn't appear there.

I recall someone at Apple saying that they were moving primarily into
the high-end market, concentrating on Mac IIs.  But for some reason it
appears that the *perception* of the Mac has not changed.  Just as the
Amiga is still perceived as a game machine, the Mac isn't accepted as
a workstation.

I worked for Control Data over the summer (I used to say CDC, but that
sounded too much like the Center for Disease Control).  Most work was
done on the usual collection of PC-AT clones, but we had a Mac II for
generating diagrams and proposals.  It continues to be popular with
those who aren't computer literate or who just aren't "into" computers.

But could that same reputation be driving programmers away?

Reminds me of the "Real Programmer's Guide"... maybe the reputation of the
Mac as a computer "for the rest of us" suggests to heavy workstation users
that it's not for them?

How is all of this related to the Apple II?  Apple hasn't been accepted
into the workstation market with it's high end, IBM took away a large
share of the low end while Apple was looking the other way, and Amiga is
starting their usual end of the year push (full page ads in the campus
newspapers, etc).

If Apple posts a major loss, what limited support we do have could dry up.

They've already stopped selling them overseas, probably expecting the
hordes of prospective Apple II buyers to flock to the Macintosh.
I don't mean to start a panic or cry that the sky is falling; I'm just
trying to find out if other people have a different perception of where
(if anywhere) Apple is going.  Whether we like it or not, our future is
tied very closely to the Mac.

flames > /dev/null

-- 
fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden)
..!ucbvax!cory!fadden