Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Matt, please listen! (Really: we're being too impatient, folks)
Message-ID: <1990Mar13.032723.19429@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 13 Mar 90 03:27:23 GMT
References: <7137@goofy.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 98

lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes:

>Apple does encourage freedom of expression among employees.  The key words 
>here are "among employees".  We are not free to divulge confidential 
>information to outsiders.  People have been (and will be) 
>reprimanded/fired for doing this.  

You're right, I forgot about what that has to do with it.

>Criticizing company policy in public may not be the same as releasing 
>confidential information, but in my opinion it is not the right thing to 
>do either.  It doesn't really help to complain in public; one is more 
>likely to get things accomplished by complaining in private to the 
>appropriate people.  

True; but it does make the customers feel better when they think that at
least DTS is 'on their side' about the policies. This is only a problem
because confidence in Apple about the future of the II is at an all-time
low. If we had no doubts about Apple's intent to make the II a competitive
and popular machine again then we wouldn't have resorted to DTS for words of
committment to it.

>Also, any public statement by an Apple employee is inevitably taken as an 
>official statement from Apple.  You can put a disclaimer on every line and 
>people will simply not notice. 

True. Sad, but true.

[ some of my stuff snipped ]
>I've been reading this newsgroup for a while, and it seems to me that the 
>only statement that would satisfy people is one that talks about 
>unaanounced products.  No one believes the statements the Apple executives 
>make, so I don't see how having Apple II DTS making the same statements 
>would be any more satisfying. 

First of all, Apple's executives have made such washed-out sounding statements
that I find it hard to accept that _they_ believe what they are saying... The
credibility just isn't there any more. DTS at least gives us tech help and in
our misguided efforts we've expected them to speak for the management.

It's just that we've been trying to get somebody -- ANYBODY -- at Apple to
tell us something genuine. The rumors are there but we're their only audience.
The PC market in general regards the II as a joke and Apple doesn't seem to
think they need to give us any solid promises... all of which are unannounced
products. I see your point, but all I can say is they'd better become
announced products soon...

[ how easy it is to flame folks on the net, very true ]

>By now, people should know the names of Apple's top executives (John 
>Sculley & Mike Spindler).  Apple's address is no secret either (20525 
>Mariani,  Cupertino, CA 95014).  People have proposed letter-writing 
>campaigns more than once here, but I haven't seen any evidence that these 
>ideas have gotten off the ground.

The II Infinitum campaign started on America Online and spread to here and
GEnie and (i think) CIS. The user groups are also getting in on it, as my
Tri-City Apple Users Group newsletter just showed up with a II Infinitum
section in it.

>You have all the names and addresses you need, it's just a matter of 
>spending the time to write the letter.

I spent plenty of time writing mine... I wrote the Apple //f product proposal
(plus two revisions), the second version of which was mailed to Mr. Sculley
with a cover letter outlining optimal marketing positions for 8, 16, and 32
bit machines that Apple makes. I got a personal response from Ed Birss today
saying that it's been forwarded to his engineering staff.

I also wrote "Reality vs. Apple Computer" which outlines our concerns from the
perspective of the customer base. It has only been distributed electronically
so far, both as a post here and as a download in Forumlink Forum News on
America Online.

I'd write more but it's finals week here at Caltech and I'm waiting for the
summit report from Barney Stone. Rumors so far sound like Apple is concerned
but hasn't yet figured out what to do about it. These sorts of things take
time, guys: we get used to day-to-day response on the net and we forget that
Apple is much bigger now, and like our own country, size means necessary
delays in order to make sure that things get done right before they get done
at all. You also have to consider the paper shuffling time: Mr. Birss wrote
me a week after Mr. Sculley received my proposal; it took Apple internal mail
two days to get it to the post office and five days later I received it via
our own campus mail which probably wasted a day of that.

I think we should give Apple Management a chance to figure out what to do. 
hey've spent so much of their time trying to horn in on IBM's business empire
that the low end and the representatives have been left to run amuck.

I think they understand. But you aren't going to see Sculley making a snap
decision and a press release within a few days. I think Apple is still
recovering from the shakeup and it is not unlike a hangover. They need to
stabilize before they can trust themselves to make broad policy changes and I
say we give them some ideas so that when they feel up to it they will already
know what we want them to do.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu