Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: //gs screen resolutions... Message-ID: <9002201542.AA17251@apple.com> Date: 20 Feb 90 14:05:30 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: School of Business - U. of Connecticut Lines: 81 On Sat, 17 Feb 90 23:32:27 EST you said: >In-Reply-To: message from farrier@Apple.COM >Continually looking around and responding to your competition is something >that Apple has only really done until recently. Apple has always been known >for a company that dug it's head INTO the perverbial sand and come up with >something revolutionary, something that leads the pack against the >competition. Apple used to lead all segments of the computer market in terms Strange syntax! Apparently Apple has looked around with it's head in the sand (not recommended) and come up with something revolutionary while not paying attention to the competition... Somehow I don't think that's what you meant to say. >of ease of use, graphics, speed and power.. and obviously Apple hasn't been Apple has been known for "user friendly" (even DOS 3.3 is friendlier than MS-DOS), but RARELY known for either speed or power. The original Macintosh was woefully underpowered. Even the Mac II is underpowered (expecially as a UNIX box). The 68030 Macintoshes have finally reached something resembling the state-of-the art from that point of view. Perhaps the Apple ][+ wasn't underpowered for its day, and the //e was at least comparable to the original IBM-PC, but by the time the IIgs arrived, lack of speed-power was (and has continued to be) its major drawback. >doing this recently and has been sitting in the back seat responding to other >companies and their new machines. Apple used to be a "moving target", >something which is not as readily obvious today. Until this year, everyone else has continued to try and clone (in one way or another) Apple's interface technology. Just last week, the Wall Street Journal referred to Windows 3.0 (not out yet) as a threat to Macintosh. In the past 18 months or so, Apple has introduced more new technology than "Big Blue" although the Wall Street Journal (same front page article on 8 February) says that Apple's innovative momentum is slowing. That may be so, but the Macintosh System 7.0 and "32-bit clean" software standard which can migrate unaltered to Apple's A/Ux (UNIX) environment impresses me as forward looking. >When people say "we should of had System 5.0 three years ago", they are sorry If Apple has slipped (and sales figures suggest some problems), it's been at the "low end" (hardly where one expects "revolutionary" innovation). Apple hasn't aggressively pursued the home and education market. System 5.0 (even 6.0 and the ROM 04 IIgs) are evolutionary. Given the nature of the market, evolving the hardware and innovating marketing probably is "where it's at" (at the home-education end). >to see Apple loosing it's position as industry leader and that perverbial "loosing" as in setting it free? >moving target. Many fantastic rumors strike home because some people honestly Apple's leadership has largely been in being ahead of its time. That's entertaining, but not always profitable. Being a "moving target" often confuses customers more than competitors (do you want to invest heavily in a system that's ggoing to be obsolete and unsupported before you even learn how to use it?). >seem Apple comming out again and becoming that moving target. For the most part >Apple Computer today, with it's current line up of products is a sitting >target. Apple seems to be moving along nicely at the "workstation" end of the market (especially if the Motorola 88000 workstation rumors are true). Where there's trouble it's at the technologically less dramatic "cash cow" end of the market. IBM got where they are by continually selling old customers new, more powerful computers (for the most part upward compatible -- both JCL and applications code developed on an IBM 360 in the '60's will still run with no more than minor modification on a 3090-600E supercomputer). So far, Apple has been less successful at doing that -- there are a LARGE number of //e, //c, and even ][+ owners out there who haven't bought a IIgs (and they haven't all switched to Amiga or MS-DOS) who *might* upgrade to a IIgs if it ever becomes the general purpose home computer it's capable of being. /s Murph [Internet] or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP] + Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)