Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!sunny1.che.clarkson.edu!kweeder From: kweeder@sunny1.che.clarkson.edu (Jim Kweeder) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: The Death of Apple Computer Summary: Whose has the holes? Keywords: Apple, Mac, Prices, Rip-off Message-ID: <1361@sunny1.che.clarkson.edu> Date: 16 Sep 88 15:04:04 GMT References: <1356@sunny3.che.clarkson.edu> <78@bridge2.3Com.Com> Reply-To: kweeder@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Jim Kweeder) Distribution: na Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY Lines: 97 In article <78@bridge2.3com.com) ngg@bridge2.3com.com (Norman Goodger) writes: ====================================== Now I DO get to pick on Norman!!!!!! ====================================== >Jim's arguement is so full of holes, its no wonder we have a drought. [Meekly] Well, most of the Apple get's greedier... arguments are full of holes. You've got all the facts? Gee, why don't you give the rest of us the straight word? >He starts off with a real lame arguement that everyone that needs DRAM >should be making their own, without even considering the MAJOR expense >of such a move. Making chips is no easy task, it can cost millions. The If you need lots of DRAM to stay in business and your supplier whips the rug out from under you, what would you do? How about not being able to ship computers, software (A/UX), and introduce new products due to a lack of DRAM? Besides, I didn't say *everyone* and making computers costs millions (If you want to dance, you've got to pay the band. . . .). Besides, Apple agrees with me, they're building memory plants. >The idea that any company can accurately predict the market demand is real >funny. Apple to me is doing pretty good to keep up as they have, let alone >worry about underestimating the market... What's "accurate"? A backlog is nice, but lot's of people buying (read: commiting to) the competition's format because you don't have the goods is bad. >This goes right into the next >statements Jim makes about buying an 8088 PC based system for the amount >of the price increase, that makes no sense, if you can get comparable >computing power, then it would make sense, but comparing the Mac II, to >an ancient machine like that is pretty ludicrious. Oh, do you really NEED 32 bit power to word process or balance your check book? Maybe you should check into the nice products Cray Research has to offer :-). >Also the statement >that Apple and its stockholders should not make a "rosy profit picture" >while building new facilities makes no sense, proper planning indicates >the opposite, Apple should be able to do just that, while expanding, it >is just good business sense and logical... Proper planning????? Where've you been? Apple is building memory plants out of desperation. Now they're socking it to us for the bill. >He also makes the statement that " no wonder more Mac's are not adorning >the desktops of corporate Amercica" where you been Jim? Mac's have been >crusing thru the front doors of corporate America for more than a year >now. Granted the numbers do not match IBM, but its growing real fast. ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ Bingo, they don't match. They're not even close (I'm assuming that by IBM you mean IBM+Compaq+Tandy+....). Do you really think that a $1,000 price increase is the ticket to contiued growth? BTW, I said "mystery", not "wonder". >Also the idea of raising prices causing people to buy other equipment, >is a fair one, but usually companies are going to buy the equipment >that gets the job done, and keeps their training costs down. Price is >NOT always the deciding factor in which computer to purchase. Right, and I can get the job DONE with an 8088 machine (not fast, but done). For a few bucks more, I can get an 80286 machine and speed-up my work. Add a few grand, and I'll fix you up with 80386 20/25 MHz power, but you'll only want that if you do CPU intensive work. Now, for still more money, I can get you a Mac II which I think is a neat idea and is JUST the machine for doing graphics and desk-top-publishing, but wow, look at that price! You need real productivity gains to justify the cost. As for training, I instruct neophytes all the time in DOS and UNIX and occasionally for the Macintosh. I can safely say it doesn't take more or less time for any of these systems. >Lastly, Apple is not sitting on its hands, I am sure this was well thought >out. Wall St. likes it too. So was the decision to buy memory from a supplier :-). My point is that Apple is sitting on it hands while a opportunity stares them in the face. They've got the right product at the right time, but at the wrong price. I'm not saying a Mac II should cost $2,000 complete, but we're over 10 grand now. Except for desk-top-publishing, the Macintosh is a performance/dollar looser (your not going to sell me on it costs less to train Mac: do you really think it'll take less time to learn Word on the Mac than the AT?). Next year, Apple's position in the DTP business may not be nearly so good. Flame off, Jim Kweeder kweeder@sun.soe.clarkson.edu PS: I trust Apple will be around next year and doing fine. It's just that they could be doing much better. I keyed that subject line to attract attention :-).