Re: Apple's ways

[Roy Miller <millers@inebraska.com>]

william strutts wrote:

> "Supertimer" <supertimer@aol.com> wrote in message
> 20010901232537.22347.00000589@mb-ba.aol.com">news:20010901232537.22347.00000589@mb-ba.aol.com...
>
> > But how do you go after the Windows market?  By building better
> > PCs.  Faster, sleeker, more powerful PCs.  The Mac clone makers
> > did this and in fact, the overall number of MacOS users increased
> > meaning that it was gaining market share from Windows.  The fact
> > that these powerful Mac clones hurt Apple was simply because
> > Apple refused to change from its usual business practices.  Instead
> > of producing more powerful and feature rich Macs to justify the
> > premium prices it was charging, Apple continued to be, well, Apple.
> > It didn't put the effort into making better Macs.  If Apple made
> > better Macs and the clones made better Macs, you would have
> > a healthy cycle of improvements that would raise the MacOS
> > platform to the level where it could have the same leverage as the
> > Windows platform.
> >
> Exactly what I was saying earlier. Apple didn't want to expend
> the effort it would take to compete against the clone makers.
> They have the ability to make superior machines as they have
> shown since the beginning of Apple but like any company without
> any competitors , they aren't innovative or fast to market with
> the latest gizmo. Hence that was the downfall of IBM in its own
> PC market when it lost the crown to Compaq. It failed to recognize
> the significance of the 386 processor and proceeded to make
> incompatible 286 machines with microchannel that no one else wanted.

You have contradicted yourself here, twice!

1) The PS/2 line, from the very beginning included a 386. (While it is
true that Compaq had the first 386 PC, it wasn't because IBM failed to
recognize the significance of the 386, rather, it has to do with your
second self contradiction)

2) IBM's PS/2 line wasn't software incompatible, but the reason it was
hardware incompatible was exactly because it was cutting edge
innovation. Read the consumer computer mags of the day, the 3.5" drive
was made standard, by IBM, VGA standard by IBM, microchannel, while not
a market success, was a recognition that the 16 bit ISA bus was doomed,
and LONG before PCI IBM had a fast, clear, 32 bit bus that wasn't a
kludge (like EISA, or VESA).

Apple had cutting edge innovation and slipped from 25% of the market to
less than 5%. IBM, to save it's slipping market share, introduced truly
cutting edge innovation, and continued to slide. Both lost out to
companies that sold PCs that cost much less, and produced similar
results. (Apple had 25% of the market with the II and the III, Lisa and
Mac were efforts to regain that market share. Both failed, as did the
IIgs. IBM had achieved huge market share with the PC and sustained with
the XT and the AT Compaq started as a niche (luggable) and grew based on
slight edge over IBM [12 vs 10 mhz], high reliability [IBM trademark],
and lower price.)

Roy

>
> --
> --
> William R. Strutts - wrstrutts1@nospam.home.com - Whatever!
>
> C'est moi!  http://www.facelink.com/wrstrutts
>
> Just hacking away...
>
> Remove nospam to reply.