Re: Apple's ways

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

net@net.net (net) wrote:

>Supertimer:
>How is any of your ongoing biased cheerleading for AMD relevant to this
>Apple II newsgroup and the Apple II computer?

It is relevant to the discussion of Apple's ways if you consider that
Apple has never stood and faced the competition.  When the
IBM PC was introduced, the Apple II did NOT lose the majority
market share overnight as some will have you believe.  Even with
IBM capturing a large part of the expanding business market, the
overall PC numbers were still in Apple's favor.  It still had a more
than 60% hold in numbers sold relative to the PC and all the rest
of the computers of the day.  Apple had a successful product but
Jobs thought he had to scrap the old and start from scratch which
caused the abandonment of an established client base and this
was the real reason Apple lost the lead.

In the PC world, advances have always been accomplished with
transitions.  Apple will have you believe that such transition was
impossible and would have damaged its ability to compete.  I'm
saying that it was the scrapping of the established user base
caused by non-transition that damaged it.

AMD is relevant because it demonstrates that a smaller company
can grab the lead from a larger one.  Apple has always believed
that a smaller company cannot compete with a larger company
head on and succeed.  That's why it scuttled the Apple II and
went off on a tangent with the Macintosh.

I would argue that to talk about Apple's ways is directly relevant
to the Apple II because it was Apple's ways that resulted in the
scuttling of a successful platform and the senseless neglect
of successful products like the Apple IIGS.  And to talk about
Apple's ways today necessitates looking at the industry as a
whole and comparing it to the ways of other companies in the
industry.