Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!mentat From: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Mac pricing and the future of the Mac Summary: More bullshit (tm). Message-ID: <11346@ut-emx.UUCP> Date: 21 Mar 89 02:16:00 GMT References: <12101@reed.UUCP> <1082@lts.UUCP> <11317@ut-emx.UUCP> <1084@lts.UUCP> Sender: csdq122@ut-emx.UUCP Reply-To: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Distribution: usa Lines: 192 >Keywords: The Usenet Twit Factor is rising :-( > In article <1084@lts.UUCP> amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) writes: >WARNING: This article contains blunt language and may be offensive to >family audiences. It is also my final word on the subject, at least >on this go-around. Sigh. Some of us have work to do. I hesitate to lock horns with such a gargantuan intellect, but since Amanda seems to singularly lack perspective, I must... > Amanda lists her credentials Golly! Hmm, since we're comparing the dates of our programming references, what's yours? My loose-leaf version is March 1984. Does this mean that if I'm a few weeks senior to you, my viewpoint is more valid? WONDERFUL! > The Macintosh was originally sold as a CONCEPT--with neither the > software or hardware being adequate to support that concept. > >Bullshit. Nothing is sold as a concept (aside, perhaps, from real >estate scams :-)). The Mac was and is sold as a product. There was >and is a concept behind the product, and that concept *still* isn't >fully realized, but that's a separate issue. No, NOT bullshit, Amanda. The TRUTH. The Macintosh was marketed on its concept. I have dozens of magazine articles, ranging from the Wall Street Journal to St. Mac, which make a great deal of the CONCEPT of the Macintosh. I must emphasize this point, since the architecture itself was not usable-- certainly not by PC standards. If Apple's own marketing figures are to be believed, at least 100,000 users were stuck with using MacWrite, MultiPlan, Habadex, and MS-BASIC for at least nine months--and it actually took as long as a year and a half to get some good software. > one was instantly forced into software > obsolescence. Original 128K owners have payed up to $4495 to keep their > computer "current." > >At this point, the 64K ROM->128K ROM upgrade has become and upgrade or >die situation, but IF AND ONLY IF you need new software. Even this has >more to do with software companies than Apple. No, not really--software companies will take advantage of the hardware plat- form. It's unrealistic not to expect them to do so. In reality, the Macintosh 128 (we're talking memory, not ROM's) was a short-sighted concept: when Apple should have been making computers, it was building toasters. If the engineer- ing articles in Byte in '84 and '85 are to be believed, the original Macintosh was not what it could have been. To this day, I have difficulty understanding why the Mac 128 was not released with at least a high-speed hard disk interface. Of course, if we give the gripers on usenet credit, this might be an example of planned obsolescence-- release a limited computer, with lots of marketing (ala NeXT), fund R&D for the next year or so on initial sales, then nuke it later on, replacing it with a USEFUL computer. If this is the case, wouldn't you agree that the tradition of mistrusting Apple upgrades is somewhat justified? > I do, however, think that the Plus-era is perfectly usable for 99% of us-- > I like mine, and have no interest in upgrading in the foreseeable future-- > >Right. So who cares if it's obsolete? I'm serious here. A lot of >people (at least on Usenet) seem to think they have a right to have >the best now, because when they bought their machine, it was the best >then. They don't think this way about their cars, or their stereos, >or whatever; I don't see why the computer ought to be any different. Just how many people are griping about the Plus being obsolete? Not me. And not anyone I know. Seems to me that the people griping loudest are those who spend thousands of dollars right before a machine introduction--such as people who bought SE's in January, right before the SE/30 introduction. The typical "industry" reply is to say that someone would be an idiot to buy a Macintosh in January, but a lot of computer users ARE idiots. Do you think that these users should then be forced to take a loss on their SE investment, then pour an extra couple grand into buying a superior machine? I don't. I DO think that a means should be made to meet these people halfway. It might not be economical, but it keeps the customer happy. >It sure doesn't seem that way to me. The IIx, IIcx, and SE/30 seem quite >well designed to me. And I've been on a hardware design team. And yes, >it was a commercial one, not a class project :-). I'm glad you're proud of your vitae, Amanda. > When they stabilize with > an architecture, or maybe design an expandable architecture, I'll jump > on the bandwagon. > >Like maybe the PC/XT/AT/PS2/clone "architecture"? :-). Apple's done a >good job balancing changing technology and product stability. It's hard. No, like the Apple II architecture--the basic 1978-era machine could be expanded and modified to keep place with technology until the current day. That's a far cry from the nine-month obsolescence period of current Mac's. If you want a more sophisticated example, what about S-100 systems? >The same boards work in a IIcx that work in a II or IIx (or even an SE/30 >if you buy an expansion chassis...). How about an SE? Uh-huh... > The same software runs on an >SE/30 as on a Mac Plus. It runs it better, granted, but that's part of >the point of a growing product line. Just how does it run it "better"? What is your criteria? Seems to me that it runs it FASTER, but that's only due to brute-force clock speed. Surely, having been a member of a hardware design team, you can clarify your thoughts better than THAT. > All of which I'm sure Apple more than takes care of in its 1000% > price mark-ups. > >More bullshit. You MUST be a college graduate... >Apple makes a lot of money. Apple also (so far) has been >willing to spend a lot of money on the future. Apple is driving its own >technology, something that costs a lot of money and involves a lot of >risk. My premiss is that Apple makes a lot more money than it spends on R&D. When one considers the tales of, for example, how the Mac 128 was priced, it's very easy to cultivate a distrust of the company's pricing structures. And yes, Amanda, any child knows that there are substantial development costs-- but the issue here is whether, on a $2500 machine, the $200 hardware costs exceed the development and marketing costs. Which I believe to be the case. By the way, Amanda, how does your "development" theory fit into the incredible overpricing on Apple peripherals? I mean, merely THAT is sufficient cause to question the pricing of the CPU boxes. >A PC clone manufacturer has to recoup the cost of hardware, and that's >about it. Apple has to do a lot more. And they do it well. That's a matter of opinion. Unless, of course, you are adding relevant insight into Apple's problems, and not merely drawing uncorrelated parallels from your own experiences. >What's AppleCare? A protection racket. >Apple's not perfect. No computer company is. I happen to think, for a >lot of reasons, that Apple's the best we've got Yes, they produce most usable equipment. However, I think that Apple also has a very large number of disgruntled customers. As soon as a realistic market competitor appears (if they dare run the gauntlet of Apple's lawyers), I think that's going to be the end of Apple Computer. In today's market, though, I'm not going to hold my breath. And now, to quote the USENET Power Poster's Guide: No Flames! :-) > people just don't understand the economics of the industry Yep, it's hard to understand 35% annual growth rates, all right. >Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation Cheers, Robert Dorsett Internet: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mentat