Re: Wozniak vs Jobs

[Jeff Lemke <lemke@terra.cira.colostate.edu>]

Supertimer wrote:
> 
> Jeff Lemke <lemke@terra.cira.colostate.edu> wrote:
> 
> >>Thus the Apple II could not evolve into an ARM based 32 bit platform, it had
> to
> >>be replaced by something completely new. Had someone been in charge who
> >>understood basic sales and marketing Apple would have the 95% market share
> >>today, no question. Penetrate and exand, penetrate and expand. Ask Bill Gates
> >>or IBM (Still ten times bigger than Microsoft) or Dell or SUN.
> >>
> >>It is only Apple that has this flawed approach to finding customers and
> serving
> >>them. What we need is Apple's technical inovation and Gates businessinovation
> >>combined.
> >>
> >>Charlie Springer
> >
> >I think we need to go back in computer history quite a ways to see why
> >Apple would never have 95% market share, almost regardless of what it
> >did later.
> >
> >And then Apple tried the Lisa, but it was way too expensive and a bit
> >sluggish in performance.  And that was it for Apple in business, except
> >for desktop publishing.  They did find a niche there with their Macs,
> >but it really was a small niche.  It was just enough to save them, I
> >think.
> >
> >Jeff Lemke
> 
> They tried everything EXCEPT to build on their existing market like
> with the ARM based Apple II.  What do you think businesses were
> using as computers before the IBM PC?  Granted, not many of
> them were using computers at all, but the Apple IIe was also one
> of the business units of the day (I have some old science journals
> from the era and the Apple II was in there....right next to the ugly
> looking Toyota imports and Datsuns).
> 
> Instead of vigorously upgrading to IIe to crush the IBM PC, Apple
> (Steve Jobs) was convinced that first the III then Lisa and then
> Macintosh....a "next big thing"...was the only way to "break into"
> something they were already in!
> 
> Can you imagine what would have happened if two years ago,
> Microsoft decided "to hell with backward compatibility, Microsoft
> Windows 95 will have NO compatibility with DOS or Win 3.1"?


Many businesses were using computers other than the Apple before the ICM
PC, like TRS-80's (Models 1, 2, and 16), and a few others, and some had
Apple II's and III's.

At any rate, the Apple-anything would never have crushed the IBM PC. 
Never.  There were public perception problems in business that Apple
could never have overcome:  they weren't IBM, and Apple's PR nightmare
with the Apple III.  There were just too many business people who would
not be swayed until IBM came out with something which they felt they
could rely on.

One thing IBM did right was get the PC out on the market as fast as they
possibly could.  They sniffed opportunity, and they wisely pounced on
it.  Another thing IBM really did right was to go right away with a
16-bit processor.  Between that and it's open architecture (and it's
business clout), the introduction of the PC in 1981 changed the industry
much quicker than it would have changed otherwise.  It was a watershed
event.

Since the days of 8-bit processors were numbered, the "original" big 3
microcomputer makers, Tandy, Apple, and Commodore, all had new 16-bit
platforms on the drawing boards fairly quickly afterward, when it became
apparent where things were going, and how quickly they were going
there.  Apple put out their 68000 Lisa in 1983 and Mac in 1984, Tandy
dropped their Z-80 Model 2, 3, and 4 computers and concentrated in 1984
with the  8088 and 80186-based Models 1000, 1200, and 2000 MS-DOS
machines, and Commodore released the Amiga 1000 in 1985, which also was
a 68000 machine if I remember right.  Users of the older 8-bit Z-80
Tandy computers also felt abandoned.  (I have less knowledge of the
history of Commodore computers, and I'm not sure how that transition
went.)

My question is, how much is it worth to maintain complete backward
software compatibility when a computer maker decides to begin making
computers with newer, more powerful processors in them?  How much is it
worth it to their clientele, both established customers and potential
customers, for the new 16-bit computers (and the even later 32-bit ones
for that matter) to be able to run every last piece of 8-bit software
going back to 1977?  Is it possible that something might be sacrificed
in the new chip design just so absolute backward compatibility can
always be maintained?  I really don't know - I'm just posing the
question.

And regarding future sales of those new machines, wouldn't it eventually
follow that the number of computer buyers who would think that backward
compatibility with 8-bit software was important would become less and
less anyway as time goes on, even if the computer makers had pledged
absolute support to all their original customers from the 1977-1983
period?  At some point, even those older users would want to move on.

Jeff