Re: Apple's ways

[Ralf Quint <Ralf_Quint@hot_mail.com>]

On 08 Aug 2001 01:55:28 GMT, supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:

>Ralf Quint <Ralf_Quint@hot_mail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>The iMacs are simply crappy hardware (ok ,the monitor is not bad for
>>it's size and the video chips is ok too), out into a fancy plastic box
>>to sell it with it's "trendy" look.
>>
>>When the Apple II came out, it was a high end, almost top notch
>>system, which was easliy expandable (even with non-Apple parts), this
>>was what kept the system alive for so long. And it had a very high end
>>price even for those days (i couldn't afford one for myself those
>>days).
>
>I think that neither deserves a bad rap except for the pricing of the
>iMac.  The iMac was designed to be the eMachine of the Apple
Same kind of crappy hardware, just in a facier case and a higher price
tag....
>world so you have to judge it against something like an eMachine.
>The only problem I have with it is that it isn't PRICED like an
>eMachine.  It was priced above the average PC (between the
>average and the premium models) and for those prices, it wasn't
>worth it.  Sell an iMac at the same price as an eMachine and I
>would not blink in selecting the iMac.
>
Well, the later is never going to happen. And you have not necessarily
to take eMachines as an example for bad PC hardware. Compaq's
Presario's and HP's Brio's and low-end Pavilions's are as bad as those
emachines, just a bit more expensive, but the people think they get
the high brand name quality of the high end models of these companies.
Exactly the same way Apple is trying to sell iMacs to "innocent"
customers, who imply they get the same quality as the high price
G4's....

>The Apple II, on the other hand, WAS a high end machine that
>was so good that Apple couldn't seem to get rid of it.  Apple II
>was unusual because the line didn't evolve like a product line
>normally does.  The good hardware that commanded such good
>sales and loyalty among users wasn't rewarded by reinvesting
>the profits from the line into R&D and marketing.  Rather, the
>success of the Apple II contradicted Apple's PLAN to place the
I never said anything bad about an Apple II.... ;-)))

>Mac front and center and that was because the Mac was Jobs'
>baby.  So in the end, the Apple II didn't change and the prices
>didn't drop until it was so old that all most people remember is
>an underpowered machine in the early 1990s, a 128k Apple IIe,
>the last model to die.  But to judge the Apple II by how it
>looked in 1990 is unfair.  Imagine if Intel gobbled up AMD but
I didn't do this...., your beating the wrong bush here....

>rather than kill it, seeing the brand loyalty of Athlon users
>continue to sell the 1.4Ghz Athlon and use the profits to add
>to Pentium rather than Athlon R&D and marketing.  A few years
>later, Pentiums are running at next gen speeds while Athlons
>are still poking along at 1.4Ghz.  Then Intel turns around and
>convinces everyone that see, the Athlon sucks.  The shocking
Well, let's see how the upcomming 50% price reduction of Intel's P4
together with the 845 chipset is effecting AMD's position in the
market...
And Apple will have a hard time performance wise if those GHz P4's
become mainstream in the PC market....

Ralf