Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!merchant From: merchant@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Mac pricing and the future of the Mac Summary: My two cents. Sorry if I bore anyone... Keywords: Obscene profits, planned obsolescence, lengthy diatribe Message-ID: <12708@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> Date: 20 Mar 89 04:36:14 GMT References: <12101@reed.UUCP> Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU Reply-To: Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) Organization: U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, NY Lines: 112 In article <12101@reed.UUCP> wab@reed.UUCP (Bill Baker) writes: >Apple's policy on upgrades is also obscene, especially with regard to >the II line. An upgrade board shoudln't cost $2000, so why does it? >Because Apple wants to sell lots of IIx's. If they charge a lot for a >new machine then they have to charge a lot for the upgrade or else >people will just buy the old machine and upgrade it. And all you >folks who bought II's are screwed. I'm in the market for a IIcx, but >I may just bag it now that I see that it's going to cost me 2 grand or >more a pop just to keep up with the Jones's. I'm a professional in >the industry and I'll pay top dollar for a state of the art machine, >and thereby cover Apple's development costs and provide a hefty profit >to Big Red. But if Apple is going to keep reaming me for each logic >board swap, forget it. $2000 for essentially a 68030 and a PMMU? Keep in mind that they don't just whap a 68030 into Mac II motherboard and say "Voila!" There's quite a bit of re-engineering that needs to go on. Let's try not to blast Apple for making money. They're a business. They want to do that. Also, keep in mind that the money that gets put in goes into a number of things that keep Apple going. One big one is Research and Development. You, as a professional in the industry, should have an idea of the cost of programmers, of hardware engineers, of development, of prototypes, and of all these things. >The most disturbing trend I've seen in the Mac line is planned >obselesence. Why no PMMU in the MacII? Why code a 4meg memory >limitation in the SE ROM's? Apple must have been working on the IIx >at the same time as the II and seen the value of virtual memory. For >that matter, why limit the II to 8 meg? The memory fiasco with the >IBM PC line should have shown to everybody the stupidity of memory >limitations. How much memory can a 68000 address? A 68020? A 68030? >Why design in limitations...unless you want to later remove those >limitations for a hefty price. I'd bet that the PMMU wasn't put in initially because there was no need for it. The operating system didn't do anything with it. Hell, the operating system doesn't use it NOW, unless you use A/UX. I'm sure if they did, you'd be complaining about having to pay an extra $100 for something that you couldn't use. As for memory limitations, keep in mind that the operating system does have to live somewhere. Those nifty screen buffers and all have to be mapped to some physical address in memory. Besides, the more memory that Apple claims for it's own, the more space they will have to put in nifty things that will (a) make our Macintoshes better and (b) preserve compatibility. Now in some cases, I wonder about the amount they gobble, too (only an 8 meg ceiling in a II?) but watch for the next operating system upgrade to conceivably take care of this. At least, according to the rumour mill... >The Mac is now a business machine (which was Scully's stated goal) and >the pricing of the line reflects that. Apple didn't cut its prices >because home users stopped buying. No, it was when the big buyers >balked that Apple backed down...cutting prices on machines that they >knew were going to be obselete when they announced the SEx and IIcx. >In short, Apple doesn't care what we think; they care what >MegaMultinational thinks when it goes to buy machines. Definitely. MegaMultinational will buy more machines in one year than you will buy in your entire lifetime. So, because of this, their opinion matters more than yours. They're interested in purchasing technology that will make their workers more productive and will improve their bottom line. Thus, if the happy workers make more money than it costs for these machines, the businesses are happy. You, as a home user, are primarily interested in one thing: Price. You don't really have a bottom line, except for maybe personal fulfillment or keeping your checkbook balanced. I do the latter with a $20 calculator. Most people do. >Remember the Model T? Henry Ford only made a few bucks on each >T, but he sold millions of them. VW turned out cheap Bugs like >hotcakes and made a mint. The Mac was supposed to be the same kind of >deal. The Beast Jobs wanted to put a Mac in every home...and he was >right, John. Control the market and the profits will come, billions >more. Look at Bill Gates and DOS. Put a Plus with a SuperDrive on >the market for under $500 and they'll sell like Hula Hoops. Charge a >reasonable price for upgrades so that a user can buy into the Mac line >for a fair price and stay current with new development at a bearable >cost. In short, stop trying to screw every possible dollar out of the >Mac market and you'll eventually make a lot more money. Apple cannot possibly hope to compete in price wars. MS-DOS systems can give their stuff away because, essentially, there is NO Research and Development involved in a DOS based system. Zippy the CloneCo can put together a '386 clone that'll run DOS and Windows cheaper than Apple could put together a Macintosh. You'll notice that any company that actually does any development on DOS systems, such as AST and Compaq, charge almost as much as a Macintosh. All that a $500 Macintosh would do is (a) steal money from the other higher priced systems and (b) tax development efforts because they have to support it with nifty new operating system upgrades. ("Hey, I payed $500 for this machine! What do you mean I can't use Virtual Memory?!??!") One of the things that I like about Apple is that, while top dollar is payed for their machines, Apple turns that money around into developments that I can see and use. New versions of the operating system that give me real benefits, like Multitasking (or at least task switching). New machines, new conventions, new power. Now, that power doesn't always come cheap, granted. Sometimes I have to pay for it. On the other hand, compare it with DOS and you'll see what I mean. The latest feature of DOS is a "command shell" that replaces some of the more commonly used DOS commands with a graphics-looking interface ("It's got pull-down menus, just like a Macintosh!"). This is not what I call "Research and Development". This is what I call a two-week project. Quite honestly, if you're a programmer-type and you like a good machine for the home to hack around on, check out the Commodore Amiga. It does alot of the same stuff the Mac does and is generally cheaper. While, no, you don't have Excels, PageMakers, and the like, you do have some quite reasonable software. --- "I carry it with me..." Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP) (Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.EDU)