Re: Wozniak vs Jobs

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes...

>spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:
>>    Apple II users actually did have a transitional phase, or
>>at least the start of one; That of course was the Apple IIgs.
>>Owners of the Apple II, II+, IIe and even IIc could upgrade
>>to the new machine, while preserving their entire software
>>collection and a fair bit of their hardware as well (through
>>its built-in slots and ports). The GS gave you a near state-
>>of-the-art computer during that time period without having
>>to sacrifice _anything_ as an Apple II user.
>
>The Apple IIGS was not the same...don't get me wrong as
>I am a big GS fan, but did nothing to link the Apple II and the
>Mac.  It was an UPGRADE for the A2, but not a TRANSITION
>to the Mac.

   So what? Are you sure you would have WANTED the Macintosh as
a final solution when the transitional phase was complete? Why
must history be distorted in a way where the Macintosh was the
_only_ viable option for an evolutionary computer? The Apple II
evolved into the Apple IIgs, and the IIgs could have evolved to
a higher step, and so on. It is complete and utter NONSENSE to
claim the Apple IIgs was the Apple II fully peaked out in terms of
technlogical growth. The machine was in it's infancy stage when it 
was killed, anyone with common sense can see that!

>The problem is that when the GS came out, the Mac
>was already Apple's future according to Apple.

    Not quite. The Macintosh was still not selling that well
to support Apple by itself at that time (the Apple II was still
very much needed as a source of revenue. Wasn't it making over 
the billion dollar mark at one point?). The Mac was still not 
taken that seriously by the computer industry when the GS was 
under development and very likely still not when it came out. 
The Macintosh wasn't seen as holding a strong position in Apple's 
future until at least 1988-89 (by that time you had color, slots 
and expandability in the Mac line -- and a growing niche in DTP).

>>    That is what pisses me off about Apple, and if they
>>planned this all along, maybe they should have never come
>>out with the Apple IIgs in the first place (the other II's
>>never evolved, the GS was the first and only II to do new
>>things). It's the fact that they lead us down a road to
>>nowhere. If the Apple II were a ship voyage, it'd be like
>>promising to take the passengers across the ocean (which
>>is what they'd paid for) then stopping the ship and sinking
>>it half way. At which point telling the passengers "too bad
>>if you can't swim". The majority took salvation aboard
>>another passing ship rather than swim all the way back and
>>take another "voyage" with HMS Apple again. ;-)
>
>I agree.  Problem was that the IIGS was designed because
>Macintosh (the 68k model that was approved) did not provide
>a transition and did not sell well.  Once IIGS was produced,
>it was only sold half-heartedly to keep the A2 line alive long
>enough to nurture Macintosh.  This, of course, ended up
>alienating countless numbers in the user base...

    Had Apple integrated the Apple II line into the Macintosh
back in the late 80's (even early 90's) I'm sure I would have
jumped at that opinion. I remember being excited when there
was that rumour about a "Macintosh IIgs" years ago -- I was
even ready to buy such a machine if it came out.

    Thankfully that didn't happen, I'd hate to have spent any
more money on products that have their specifications and
features dictated by _one single company_ (I can't think of
any examples in history where monopolies have been advantagious
to the consumer). Buying Apple means having no choice essentially,
you put all your faith and trust in one company. A product like
the Apple IIgs is a *shining* example of what happens when one
company has control over a product and no direct competition. 

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca