Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!bionet!ames!uhccux!patten From: patten@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Brian Patten) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Low Cost Mac Redux Summary: Shades of the PC Jr. ? Keywords: Macintosh, IBM Message-ID: <6938@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Date: 14 Mar 90 01:37:36 GMT Reply-To: patten@uhccux.UUCP (Brian Patten) Organization: University of Hawaii Lines: 31 Could it be that the poor reviews I have heard about the test version of the lost cost Mac are causing Apple to rethink their strategy? (The "reviews" I heard were strictly rumor-mill reviews.) If Apple went ahead and tried to market a Cripple Mac (i.e. 68008 CPU (8 bit bus is dead guys), three SIMM slots, ...) would they be making the same mistake that IBM made with the PC Jr.? I don't think that marketing a low cost Mac with the same power and speed as the existing low end machines would be particularly wise (my opinion). Apple *needs* a low cost Mac. The need a machine the average user can afford They need to build product loyalty. But it's tough to build product loyality when the average user CAN'T AFFORD APPLE PRODUCTS! Come on Apple! Big Blue made a mistake with the PC Jr., don't repeat it. They tried to market a machine that anyone could afford, but they didn't give it any power. I think it was one of the biggest flops in recent computer history. There is a *huge* market out here for a low cost Mac, you'll still make a decent profit from the thing. You just need to make it worth our while. And perhaps in a few years I'll decide to buy one of your $10-20000 machines, but not right now. When I have a real job, or when I can get someone else to pay for it, perhaps then. Brian M. Patten University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- My opinion is strictly my own. It does not represent the opinion of my present employeer, past employeers, or future employeers. ----------------------------------------------------------------------