Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Apple II Future Message-ID: <8812201013.aa23022@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> Date: 20 Dec 88 14:54:59 GMT References: Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 39 > ...On the other >hand, I can't see Apple making the IIGS *too* powerful, otherwise it would >be a viable alternative to a Macintosh. As it is, the GS offers some >nice features that the Plus and SE don't have, such as color and very >good sound... I thought the idea was to sell computers and make money? Inhibiting the IIgs because it might be viable as an alternative to the Mac is STATEGICALLY UNSOUND!!! (if I were as stockholder -- and I'm not -- I would be annoyed at the very idea). In the first place, the two machines really do appeal to DIFFERENT MARKETS (yes, there's some overlap, but that's inescapable). Also, both machines are firmly ESTABLISHED within their markets. The logic of saying the IIgs *might* threaten the Mac market is the equivalent of saying General Motors ought to quit upgrading Chevrolets because they threaten Cadillac sales, and the folks at Proctor & Gamble would positively crack up over the notion of spurning profits out of fear of product cannibalization. The interaction between the IIgs and Mac lines is something to be MANAGED (making those fat executive salaries the old-fashioned way) not avoided. If the IIgs really IS a viable alternative to the Mac, then either the Mac is over-priced, or the IIgs is undervalued (naturally, as a consumer, I'd prefer lowering the Mac's price to raising the IIgs's, but one of those two decisions would be the logical act). 'Course, I only teach (AND DO) this stuff for a living :-) [The Far Side shall return (I hope)] Murph Sewall Sewall@UCONNVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax} !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] -+- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) "Close enough for government work" - source unknown (naturally ;-)