Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!pro-pac.cts.COM!tsouth
From: tsouth@pro-pac.cts.COM (Todd South)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Thoughts on //gs Sales
Message-ID: <8807241256.AA23222@crash.cts.com>
Date: 24 Jul 88 10:34:43 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: pnet01!pro-simasd!pro-pac!tsouth@nosc.mil
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 134


In Article <1164@cod.NOSC.MIL> rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. rupp) writes:

> I wonder whether the many Apple II users who have gripped about the
> Apple II not being able to run UNIX, not having enough this or that,
> etc., have ever run a business.  The facts, as I see it, are these:

Yes, still do as a matter of fact. (At least this one does)

>     a.  Apple Computer, Inc. owes nothing to users except a reliable
>         product that does what they claim it will.  If some people
>         would like the GS to have been a better machine, that's tough.
>         Sure, it would be nice if the GS had a 10Mhz clock speed and
>         a faster windowing interface, but being "nice" does not equate
>         to an obligation on Apple's part.

Bill, that's the problem, you see.  They (Apple) seems to think along the
same line of thought that you do.  On the one hand, they actually have
a one billion dollar revenue producer which, despite all of the seeming
open and not-so-open attempts to kill, is still selling like hotcakes! It
has captured a large part of the dreams and pockets of a rather large
group of consumers.  There are almost more Apple ][ computers out in the
world as there are people in certain states.  The Apple ][ is not just a
box, it is an idealism that a whole bunch of people cling too.  In the
beginning of the company the key role which attracted an enormous amount
of people (IMHO) is their willingness to help, to make information a
free-flowing commodity.  Today?  That just isn;t happening, and there are
a growing number of people that are just sick and tired of the bullshit.
If (today) I started up a business and gave the exact-same-level of support
that Apple now provides in their various technical depts., documentation,
and general attitudes, my product would surely fold (unless I was a govt.
contractor of somekind :-).

>     b.  The Apple II line has been a huge success, but it has been
>         surpassed technically by the latest models both from Apple
>         as well as from other companies.  Even Henry Ford had to
>         replace the Model T eventually.  There is only so much
>         improvement that can be made in the Apple IIGS without
>         spending unwarranted amounts of resources that would be
>         better spent, in the long run, in Apple's most up-to-date
>         product line.  In other words, even if massive improvements
>         in the IIGS could be made, it would be silly for Apple to
>         allocate money to do so.  Apple's future, immediate future,
>         at any rate, lies with the Mac.

Why?  No really, I want a good reason why . . .  I really get tired of
hearing this OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.  Your theory (or opinion) is
not based in one single iota of fact.  There is nothing in any market
study I have been able to discovery which even points to this.

My opinion?  The reason that the future is in the Mac is because some
execs at Apple want it that way.  Don't come up with some stuff about
mips, power, resolution, or anything computer specific.  If Apple had
actually wanted to make a sound business solution (again, IMHO) they
wouldn't have wasted their earliest resourses on Star Wars parties and
the Apple III.  The Apple ][ family has proven time and time again that
even the minimum enhancements into a good system will promote sales.  I
can only imagine what would happen if the Apple ][ family actually
received an *equal* share of R&D, based on the actual computer specific
profits of the company.  Some day, I probably will own a Mac II (or a
future offspring of such).  For now, I like my //gs, and the things that
are unique to it.  I only wish that they were actually being expanded to
a point that would near the end of the technology incorporated into the
system.  The 65C816 was advertised as an 8Mhz chip when it was first
announced.  How would you feel if you were running something like a
Macintosh with a 2.5Mhz choke on it?

> When will Apple stop making Apple IIs?  As soon as they can, is my guess.
> That means as soon as the II line experiences a significant decline in
> sales.  I think that will not happen for a couple of years, but the end of
> the II line cannot be very many years away.

Read my lips, Bill.

APPLE ][ SALES WERE IN THE BBBB   III  L      L      III   OOO  N   N
                           B   B   I   L      L       I   O   O N   N
range last year! This is   B   B   I   L      L       I   O   O NN  N
not chicken feed we're     BBBB    I   L      L       I   O   O N N N
talking about!  This is a  B   B   I   L      L       I   O   O N  NN
serious source of revenue  B   B   I   L      L       I   O   O N   N
for any company, no matter BBBB   III  LLLLL  LLLLL  III   OOO  N   N

what they seem to want to attest to.  How can you seriously expect to run
a product line that is worth this much without ample support for the system?
>From what I see it appears that someone at Apple is taking note of this
and might just reverse the trend (as I see it), but there is still a long
way to go.  Ever notice anything about interviews with Apple people on
the subject of the Apple ][?  How come they always say things like, "Well,
we have something in the works for [insert your favorite gripe here], but
it is strictly confidential."?  In the latest InCider interview with Steve
Wozniack, he even goes as far to state that *quote* it was a shame that
both the Apple III and Mac used up a lot of the resources at Apple.  There
was a COMPLETE (emphasis mine) lack of attention to a product that still
had a lot of life and deserved a lot; instead the Apple ][ was forgotten.
It's just wrong to forget it when there are people who are using the
computer and love it. *unquote*

> For now, I imagine the top
> Apple people see the II as a continuing source of revenue which is better
> kept going.  But if the time ever comes when Apple announces *no* new
> improvements or related products for the IIs over a period of six months
> to a year, I would expect the end to be not far off.  I believe GM stopped
> development of the Corvair in 1966, but continued to make them till the
> end of the 1969 model year. That three year period between a halt in
> development and termination of production would probably be shorter for a
> microcomputer, say 18 months.

> It was nice while it lasted.

You seem to imply that you own an Apple ][.  Apparently, you might not be
satified with it.  But tell me, if you purchased something that was of
sentimental value, and it became antiquated, would you throw it away?
I wouldn't.  I also would like to put it to use, though.  Things in the
closet are no good to me.  Something that I can use, and also be inspired
by is a lot better overall!  Steve Wozniack and his little computer have
done just that.  The sad thing, as I see it, is that the dream is dying out
in favor of force marketting.  There has been a lot of (literally) begging
going on for a long time from people that have supported Apple from its
earliest beginnings.  I (We?) want the Apple ][ line to go on and flourish.
But for some reason there are the pesimist that keep hitting it down, and
holding it back.  I'll never understand it, to tell you the truth.

> Bill

Todd South


Disclaimer:     Since I own the computer and pay the bills, I speak for the
                management...:-)

--
UUCP: {nosc, cacilj, sdcsvax, hplabs!hp-sdd}
                        ...!crash!pnet01!pro-simasd!pro-pac!tsouth
ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-simasd!pro-pac!tsouth@nosc.MIL   
INET: tsouth@pro-pac.CTS.COM - BITNET: pro-pac.UUCP!tsouth@PSUVAX1