Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!tecot
From: tecot@Apple.COM (Ed Tecot)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Modest proposal
Message-ID: <20036@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 6 Nov 88 01:08:56 GMT
References: <430049@hpcea.CE.HP.COM> <430050@hpcea.CE.HP.COM>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 36

In article <430050@hpcea.CE.HP.COM> twakeman@hpcea.CE.HP.COM (Teriann Wakeman) writes:
>I keep getting the feeling that there are really two Apple Computer companies,
>One composed of people oriented people who want to help make the world a
>better place. People who are concerned about disabled people, or the computer
>gender gap in schools. I also see a IBMish company concerned with maximizing
>profits at all costs who as they grow cast off the hackers and individual
>change agents who made Apple what it is as Apple's main source of income
>becomes business. Oh well, there are two sides to each coin, and I am
>sure that there are way more then two sides to Apple.Apple, Please,
>in your rush to become a fortune whatever with the largest cash reserve,
>don't lose sight of your humanist side. It's humanist attitudes and actions
>that make a really great company great.

Actually, we are one Apple that wants to help make the world a better place.
As idealists, we want to change the world, one person at a time.  As
egocentric realists, we feel that our very existence is essential to make
those changes.  A large cash reserve is one way to ensure our existence in
the future.  It allows us to pump even more money into research and development
to produce Macs that do more at a lower cost.  In 1984, I was shopping for
a new car.  One automobile I was considering was a Nissan 200SX, for $9500.
That same car, with minor styling changes, is now $14,000.  By comparison,
the original Macintosh cost $2499 in 1984.  A Mac Plus is now $1799.  If
Nissan had followed our lead, you could get a 300ZX for $7200.  Of course,
I am neglecting the fact that the automobile industry is much more mature;
that technical advances are much less significant nowadays compared to
semiconductors and software.  But the essence is the same.  You are complaining
because you see a toy you can't afford.  I can sympathize with you, there's
a house in San Francisco I'd like to have but never will because 1) it's not
for sale, and 2) it's probably worth about 1.5 million dollars.  However, I
don't see where a company interested in changing the world can come off
mortgaging its very existence just so some technology junkies can have
their toys.  Personally, I'd rather take that money and put it to a good use
instead, such as donations to the Children's Discovery Museum in San Jose,
or donations to schools and worthwhile charities, wouldn't you?

						_emt