Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!frye
From: frye@cerl.uiuc.edu (G. David Frye)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2,uiuc.sys.apple2,uiuc.general
Subject: Re: A2R&D vs. Apple
Message-ID: <1991Apr17.055808.26958@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 91 05:58:08 GMT
References: <1991Apr16.030552.6353@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Apr16.123324.21596@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Apr16.173306.25759@utstat.uucp>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: UIUC Computer-based Education Research Lab
Lines: 39

I usually keep quiet during these discussions, but this time I can't resist.
It strikes me that people are attempting to make a complex issue look simple.

Apple is not suing the world for the use of GUI's.  It just happens that
a) they have the most popular one, and b) the largest independent software
developer subsequently produced one which is so similar as to be frightening.
When you're "number two", as Apple is in the world of personal computers, and
someone produces a tool to make the "number one" product look and feel just
like yours, the future of your product is in jeopardy.

[ Now, one can argue about whether or not Windows 3.0 is a Mac GUI ripoff.
Sure, it looks very similar, but you'd think that in six+ years Microsoft
could have produced something better than a product that is just as difficult
to program as the Mac, runs like a dog, eats RAM for lunch, and doesn't work
for a lot of complex i/o-related applications.  THIS they should fight over? ]

I get the impression from reading between the lines of some postings here that
quite a few people resent the philosophy of Apple, Inc.  That's the complex
issue I mentioned.  Apple has actively worked at being "different" from the
IBM world -- in user interface, in system design and performance, in marketing
strategy, in emphasis on certain types of applications, and most obviously in
pricing structure.  It's really not possible, nor fair, to take any of those
items and analyze it in isolation.  They're all elements of the more general
philosophy.  Unfortunately, the pricing structure has created such a hostile
environment that it doesn't seem possible to discuss the bigger question
rationally.
-----------------------------

Having said that, I'd like to applaud the people who stood up personally to
the absurd rebate program.  I wonder if the scheme was dreamt up locally by
dealers or was a corporate plan.  The prices were an insult, at best, and
most departments realized that there was no real value to the buyback offer.
I hope that someone at UI purchasing got burned.  I hope that the apparent
attempt to get around UI and State of Illinois surplus policy is noted and
prosecuted.

G. David Frye
(This seems like a good time to point out that the above opinion is strictly
personal and in no way reflects any official position of my department.)