Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!tm2f+ From: tm2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Terence David Murphy) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: IBM did it first Message-ID: Date: 5 May 88 14:25:43 GMT Organization: Carnegie Mellon Lines: 135 In-Reply-To: <7644@dhw68k.cts.com> In article <7644@dhw68k.cts.com>, Roger L. Long (bytebug) writes: >>that I feel are damaging to Apple's future: >>1) These lawsuits. see above > > ...or perhaps it will turn out to protect Apple's future. Apple has been in the position ever since the introduction of the Macintosh to have the name "Macintosh" synonymous with "ease of use" just as people tend to say Xerox more than photocopy and Kleenex more than facial tissue. With a product in this kind of situation, the Macintosh would already be in the mind of the consumer, thus avoiding what advertising typically is for these days. Example: hypothetical situation in the future: Your wife tells you to go down to the local computer store and buy a Macintosh (being used in the sense of an easy to use computer). Will this make it more likely for you to buy a Mac over something else with a similar interface? In this kind of situation, advertising can be used to expand upon the idea of a Macintosh in people's minds, not just trying to get in their minds in the first place. I personally feel the Macintosh's interface is substantially superior than Windows and other similar interfaces, why not let that be the deciding factor in the end? >>2) a low end computer is needed for competition with IBM clones. The other >>thing consumers look at besides the computer that exists today is the bottom >>line: price. > > Why? Whenever I select ANY product, one of the last things I look at > is price. Quality and ease-of-use and how long it's going to last and > whether it's going to be supported are far more important to me in > shopping for VCRs, TVs, toasters, *and* computers. Well I don't have the money to look at price last. As a matter of fact, that HAS to be my primary consideration, otherwise I would have bought a Mac II (on the basis of being supported). This tends to be more of the situation: According to a recent survey, people when purchasing cars tend to look at price first, then looks, etc. etc. But a low end machine would have several advantages to Apple's way of thinking: a) They want to make the computer for "the rest of us." Well, when people are going out and buying their first computer, they very rarely have the money to go out and buy a $3000 computer system. These people are very rarely represented on a board like this, but I don't see how you could deny it. Thus, they are considering price first. If they look at Macintosh, they'll see a bottom line SE (two drives and Imagewriter //) priced at around $2500, they'll see a bottom line PCompatible (which will fall apart in two years, from my experiences with several of the cheap clones, but these purchasers don't know that and thus it doesn't matter, i.e. it doesn't influence the sale) priced at $1300 (that's with a 20 meg HD and typical parallel printer). At half the price, the IBM clone will look a lot better. So they buy the IBM (since they can't afford the Mac because "Apple has no duty to satisfy a low-end customer"). Two years later, when the clone falls apart, they have the money to afford a $3000 system. But by now they are a) educated about the quality of the cheap clones and b) have all that software and information on IBM and wouldn't want to change. The solution: buy a 286-based high-quality clone and be entrenched in the IBM market for eternity. After using an Apple II for 5 years, we had so much information on it that when it died (bad experiences with lightning), we HAD to replace it because transfering the data would have been next to impossible. This is all how, when Apple doesn't satisfy the low-end customer, it loses sales to these people when they become high-end customers. b) Apple is much more concerned about the business market right now (always have been really). If we divide the business market into two divisions: one division being small businesses that might be looking into getting one computer for finances and other things and the other division being the already successful companies that already have computers (mostly IBMs), then I can see two possible markets to attack. If Apple attacks the already successful companies, their efforts are almost worthless (this is actually what they are doing). These companies are not going to replace all those IBMs and transfer all that data just to have Macintoshes. Very few companies have done this, and it's all based around money. The other market is severely affected by price. They typically only want one computer, don't have money to throw around, and thus wind up in the same situation as the first-time computer buyer consumer described above. They also typically come to the same conclusion: buy a cheap IBM clone. When these companies become big, successful companies, they already have IBMs and Apple has lost a lot of potential sales due to not satisfying the low-end consumer. [these situations are based on my experiences with several small businesses looking to purchase a computer and with large corporations that already have IBMs. The typical consumer situation is based on about 20 people that I have recommended the purchase of a computer to over the years. Thus you can hardly say I'm making it up] My suggestion for supplying printer drivers is based on price, which falls into the same situation as above. I could get a serial Okidata printer for about half the price of an Imagewriter //, but since Apple doesn't supply printer drivers, they are hard to find. People buying a first computer are not going to know about these things (and I doubt Apple dealers would mention it to them), thus they're looking at $500 for a printer instead of $250-$300. It all falls into the same situation. >>4) the current policy with charging for replacement fans for the SE. >>Hopefully, if I can get onto this board when I go home, you'll be seeing a >>proposal to Apple up here trying to explain how a policy like this can damage>>their future. > > You know, I bought a car a few years back. Undoubtedly, there have > been some changes made to that car model in the past couple years. > What do you think the dealer is going to tell me if I take my car in > and tell him I want the better radio put into my car at no cost? I would hardly consider changing the fan merely an improvement. Having worked with both the old and new ones now (I recently had mine upgraded), I would call it a defect in the original design. Example: about two years ago Toyota recalled the Tercels from a couple of years of manufacturering to replace the ignition system because it had shown to be defective and could become a very expensive thing to fix if it went out. They did this at no cost, and the fan seems like the exact same situation. Toyota knows how to handle situations like this and keep customer satisfaction, Apple just needs to learn things like this. > Again, free enterprise. You don't like your local Apple dealer because > he doesn't know anything? Vote with your feet and go find another. I'd like to go find another, but as I said, I've yet to find a SINGLE one! Now I'm sure they're out there, but the first experience with a dealer for a given product is most often the most significant one (When shoping for cars, you learn all about the given car at the first dealer you visit and your only concerns when you visit other dealers is price.) I would go out of my way for a knowledgable dealer, but they sure aren't helping. And I have seen their latest annual report. What I see is a company that has grown too fast that is going to get so obsessed with their success that when this isn't happening ten years from now they won't know why. I don't want to see that happen because I like their products, but I can't see it not happening. Right now the two biggest names in personal computers is IBM and Apple. IBM is (roughly) 10 times older than Apple. It also has the experience to be an incredibly stable company no matter what the current economic situation. If Apple wants to compete with them (which they do), they will have to be just as stable or they'll never be able to be keep their competitiveness through poorer economic situations. Terence Murphy Note: Since I'm leaving school in two days, I won't be reachable electronically and also won't be contributing to this discussion anymore (I can hear the cheers already). But don't stop on my account. address via US Mail: 2700 Evans Dale Cir Atlanta GA 30340 USA