Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!philip From: philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: 60 Minutes Message-ID: <22191@yunexus.YorkU.CA> Date: 1 Apr 91 10:43:18 GMT References: <8306@crash.cts.com> <22185@yunexus.YorkU.CA> Sender: news@yunexus.YorkU.CA Organization: York University, Toronto, Ont. Lines: 65 In article declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) writes: [quotes my "negative" views of MBA types] >Ah, we disagree. Especially in the automobile industry, people like >the glamour surrounding cars. If you're going by specs alone, a >$100,000 1991 Lotus Esprit Turbo isn't much faster than a $33,000 >300ZX Twin Turbo or Dodge Stealth. But some people still buy the >Lotus - and relish the marketing hype which will define them as "a >person of substance." This is nonsense. People who define themselves that way, or who judge people using this type of approach, are totally superficial. There's nothing wrong with liking cars. They are hardly the secret to a happy life. >Note that I don't necessarily disagree with you as to what the market >_should_ be like: I, too, should like to think that the era of the MBA >is at a close. However, I don't see that happening. I do. Have a look at the ratio of engineers to MBA types in Japan, and compare that figure to the corresponding one in either Canada or the US. It's frightening. Moreover, neither country( Canada/US) does particularly well in international science competitions at a high school level. MBA types are basically not going to generate anything innovative. You might ask yourself why the US has virtually lost the whole electronics' (and automotive) industry. >To bring this thread back to comp.sys.apple2... Remember that Apple, >too, now has to bean count with the rest of them. They sell stock, >they have large shareholders, and they have to show a profit, or their >stock drops dramatically, and the company is in trouble - it's a >viscous cycle. That's one reason I say that the MBA is still in >charge. This is the approach that it is irrelevant what you are marketing. You seem to be implying that people running a computer company could very well be doing a good job at selling peanuts, and vice versa. It's a very short term view of things. >> I find it rather humorous that there are plenty of C() compilers out there >> making people fortunes when few if any can compete with GNU C(). > >Yup. While gcc is a bit large to use with a 640K MS-DOS or 1-2 MB >IIgs system, Sun still sells their $10,000 compilers, which aren't as >good as gcc. NeXT is an exception; they use GNU software extensively. True. But at people who buy Sparc's do it for the available( expensive) software. NeXT is just beginning, and it isn't clear where it will end up. The future does not belong to proprietary companies. >> And, for the record, Apple has a great computer in the GS. It's quite >> unique, and they'd be foolish not to use it wisely. >The IIgs is rather unique, but I don't see Apple using it wisely. Why would you say that? Until a couple of years ago, it was a reasonably priced computer. It would not take much to bring it up to par. A bit faster and 1/2 the price. >-Declan Philip McDunnough NeXT/GS Mail-> philip@utstat.utoronto.ca