Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!caen.engin.umich.edu!sol.engin.umich.edu!billkatt From: billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Mac pricing and the future of the Mac Message-ID: <4228fb1e.a590@mag.engin.umich.edu> Date: 21 Mar 89 18:26:00 GMT References: <12101@reed.UUCP> <1082@lts.UUCP> <11317@ut-emx.UUCP> <1084@lts.UUCP> <11346@ut-emx.UUCP> Sender: netnews@caen.engin.umich.edu Reply-To: billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) Distribution: usa Organization: Computer Aided Engineering Network (CAEN), University of Michigan Lines: 182 Sender: Followup-To: In article <11346@ut-emx.UUCP> mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: >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... You are truly an idiot. >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. STUCK with MacWrite and MultiPlan? MultiPlan was and is better than 1-2-3 version 2.0 and 1-2-3 is much newer. As for MacWrite, is had WYSIWYG and pictures containted in text in 1984. By comparasion, the IBM family just got WYSIWIG and pictures in text about a year ago with WordPerfect 5.0 (which still sucks). > > >> 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. That isn't the point. You can still run the software written before roughly 1987, which was perfectly good software. Only if you want to run new software do you NEED an upgrade. >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. If anybody who knows their ass from a hole in the ground is to be believed, then the IBM PC wasn't everything that it could have been in 1983. > >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? How many people did you know who had a hard drive in 1984? or 1983, which was when it was designed. > >> 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. Kind of the person who buys a stereo receiver just before the next year's model comes out with FMX and hi-blend. They get the shaft, so what is your point? >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. > >> 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? You can't run GS/OS on an Apple ][. Neither can you run AppleWorks. > >>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... How about 16-bit ISA "AT-bus" cards or MicroChannel cards in a PC, or Convertible, or even Compaq SLT/286. > >> 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. > Just what do you mean by clock speed? Processor, Co-processor, bus, ram-refresh, or monitor scan rate? I would than that you can clarify your thoughts better than THAT. > >>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. Apple doesn't get all $2500. Dealers put incredible mark-ups on the machines becuase they are not available mail-order. > >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. Who cares, Apple hard drives aren't worth buying, the tape backup sucks, and CD-ROM is dead. I refuse to comment on the LaserWriters because I really love the NTX and would pay full price, and any PostScript printer can replace an NT. Apple's products are very sturdy, though. We have LaserWriter Pluses here at U of M that have printed more than 25,000,000 pages. We have a closet full of NT's waiting to replace them, but the old ones won't break. > >>What's AppleCare? > >A protection racket. Agreed. Macs don't really break except through abuse anyway. One glaring exception is the flyback transformers on old 512's. Everybody makes mistakes. > >>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. I don't know anyone who is disgruntled with Apple, except price-wise. And I think you can blame most of that on dealers. +----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Bollinger | Internet: billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu | | 4297 Sulgrave Dr. +------+---------------------------------------------+ | Swartz Creek, Mi. 48473 | "My employer doesn't take my opinion any | +-----------------------------+ more seriously than you do." | | "You remember the IIe, it +---------------------------------------------+ | was the machine Apple made before they decided people didn't need | | machines with big screens, color, or slots." | | - Harry Anderson (from NBC's Night Court) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+