Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!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
Message-ID: <11374@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 22 Mar 89 00:33:56 GMT
References: <12101@reed.UUCP> <1082@lts.UUCP> <11317@ut-emx.UUCP> <1084@lts.UUCP> <11346@ut-emx.UUCP> <95131@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: csdq122@ut-emx.UUCP
Reply-To: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Flames "R" Us, Inc.
Lines: 74

In article <95131@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
>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.  

The detractors will please note that I have thus far avoided taking jabs
at Jobs... :-)


>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.

My interest in the Apple II lasted until about 1982.  I still maintain that
a machine that retains some level of expandability--and few can doubt that
the II NEEDED to be expanded--for such a long time is something to be ad-
mired.  Agreed that the //GS is an overpriced slug.  Right now, though, I 
think the II series should be nuked--but considering the attitudes of some
so-called "educators" I know, that would be a very bad market mistake for
Apple.


>> 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)
>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...)

Well, I can also look at it like this: a year and a half ago, I bought a
ST-251N hard disk.  Slapped on a power supply, stuck it in a case, installed
a system cable, and had a 40-meg disk--for about $500.  At that time, Apple
was selling their slower 40-meg disk for $2000 (it may have been more; I 
can only remember the Consortium cost). 

The point here that strikes me is that at the time, an IBM user could toss 40 
megs into HIS computer for less than I built *mine*.  Inability to compete on 
the basis of storage has always struck me as a weak point on the Mac.




>At one point, shortly after Mr. Sculley joined Apple (one of the best
>things to ever happen to the company, imo), 

I agree entirely.  I also see evidence that Apple's scrambling to try to create
a more unified machine--there's a lot of leftover garbage from the Apple II
days.  However, that does not help the poor sods who buy overpriced equipment
on the eve of them becoming obsolete.  



>Good luck in getting Apple to change their ways.   Me, I'm going to
>push for commercial space flight in my lifetime.

This is just my annual tirade against Apple.  I like to fool myself into think-
ing it makes a difference.  It's good practice, at least. :-)  There seem to
be an amazing number of ninnies reading the net these days, though...:-)



Cheers,

Robert Dorsett
Internet: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mentat