Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!concertina!fiddler From: fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Mac pricing and the future of the Mac Message-ID: <95131@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: 21 Mar 89 18:34:06 GMT References: <12101@reed.UUCP> <1082@lts.UUCP> <11317@ut-emx.UUCP> <1084@lts.UUCP> <11346@ut-emx.UUCP> Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM Distribution: usa Lines: 68 In article <11346@ut-emx.UUCP>, mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: > > To this day, I have difficulty understanding why the Mac 128 was not released > with at least a high-speed hard disk interface. Steve Jobs. At one time he was convinced that the Mac needed no more than 70 characters/line in its display. He figured this out by examining some number of typewritten documents...most of which had the margins set to give 70 characters or less. I was very nearly roasted by him when I passed him one day in the hallway and mentioned that 70 might not be enough for some reasonable applications. (I was saved when he got sidetracked into trying to find out where the leak had originated...) He was entranced with the visual design of the Cuisinart. Literally. He was very hot on the notion of the Mac as an appliance: just plug it into the wall and go. And the "high-speed" serial ports were a Good Thing, SCSI ports and the like were unecessary. And on and on. > > When they stabilize with > > an architecture, or maybe design an expandable architecture, I'll jump > > on the bandwagon. > > > 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 Apple ][ what?!!!! I spent nearly five years in the Apple// division (whatever the name at any given time). The Apple//gs is an overpriced slug. Grossly overpriced. And it needn't have turned out that way, but that's the way things are today. Your example is a very bad one. It reeks. I hope the Mac doesn't follow the Apple//'s trail, much as I enjoyed using my //s for several years. > 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. Apple (and most other manufacturers) use a fixed (by each given company) formula for pricing their equipment. Typically based on their cost per unit *at the time they begin producing machines for introduction*. Price schedules for peripherals are different than CPUs, mostly because more of the peripheral's internals are made by outside suppliers. You can bet the prices are going to be higher. (Take a look at the prices of DEC or HP peripherals some time...) Usually the price declines over time, but not at the rate at which the actual production cost declines. Not nearly. Roughly, the original Mac cost about 25% of what the selling price was. Apple had to pay for production, R&D, rent, office supplies, salaries, marketing, sales, marketing,... At one point, shortly after Mr. Sculley joined Apple (one of the best things to ever happen to the company, imo), twice as much money was being spent on marketing the Apple// as was spent actually making them. Apple's support is pathetic. Apple's warranties are insulting. Good luck in getting Apple to change their ways. Me, I'm going to push for commercial space flight in my lifetime.