Re: Wozniak vs Jobs

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Jeff Lemke <lemke@terra.cira.colostate.edu> wrote:

>In the mainstream business market, where the lion's share of money in
>computing was to be made in the '80's, the IBM PC's explosive lead was
>virtually unbeatable, even by 1983 when the IIe and the overpriced Lisa
>had been released.  I can't speak to the comparison of the
>sophistication of IBM PC's in accounting versus the Macs in desktop
>publishing, because I'm not a business accountant, and because it's
>really comparing apples and oranges (no fruit puns intended).

IBM PC really did break into business overnight because of its name,
but that did not guarantee the IBM PC a 95% market share.

Before the IBM PC, it was Apple that sold 95% of the computers and
that was the Apple II series to schools.  When IBM PC hit coporate
market, those Apple II did not disappear.  Both Apple and IBM were
shocked, but not in the way you think.  Apple retained a 60%-50%
market share, with IBM cornering business and Apple in education.
IBM PC made virtually NO inroads into schools at this time.

What changed this roughly 50-50 head to head competition between
IBM architecture and Apple?  Two things really.  First, the clones.
IBM did not make today's Wintel, Compaq did.  When Compaq
cloned the IBM PC (and later came out with the FIRST 386 ahead
of IBM), many cloners followed.  IBM actually lost market share to
the cloners, but DOS and later Windows' market share grew.  The
second reason that Apple lost its 50% share was because it cut
off its existing user base.  Have you noticed IBM PC evolving into
Pentium II?  The Pentium II is a 32-bit chip, but don't tell me that
you think the 8088 based 4.77Mhz IBM PC was a 32-bit chip?  The
key is that PC users were always assured that when the 286 came
out, it would run 8088 software.  Then when the 386 came out, it
would run 286 software.  When the Pentium came out, Win 95
powered Pentiums would run Win 3.1 and DOS software originally
bought for 386 computers.  See the unbroken chain of upgrades?
No customer alienation.  In contrast, Apple (led by Steve Jobs
who wanted to do something apart from Steve Wozniak) had two
options.  Steve Jobs was pushing for Macintosh, a revolutionary
computer, but one that could not run Apple II software.  It made
the existing user base unhappy.  The second prototype computer
was an ARM based Apple II.  The ARM was a 32-bit RISC CPU
running at 6Mhz and was actually more powerful than the 68000
unit in the Macintosh.  The difference was that the ARM powered
unit could use existing A2 software.  This would have made the
existing customers happy.  Steve Jobs' Apple vetoed the ARM
based II and went for the incompatible Macintosh.  That's how
Apple lost the 50%.  Remember....the ARM was a more powerful
CPU...it could have easily implemented the "Mac" GUI but still
kept the user base happy by running existing A2 software.  The
sole reason Apple went with incompatibility was Steve Jobs'
ego...he wanted something to call his own, separate from Steve
Wozniak.

When the Macintosh did not sell well and the A2 continued to
provide most of Apple's revenues in the early 80s, Apple had to
fire Steve Jobs.  With Steve Jobs gone, they finally came out
with the Apple IIGS.  Now the Apple IIGS' 65C816 outperformed
the 286 at the equivalent Mhz.  It could do 8 MIPS at 16Mhz,
which was many more MIPS that the 286 at the equivalent
Mhz.  Other than the MIPS difference, they were very similar
actually.  Both used a segmented memory addressing scheme
in a 24 bit address space with a memory range of 16MB.  The
stock Apple IIGS can actually work as fast as the 8Mhz
IBM AT (I have such an AT and a Turbo XT too).  This
processor was still a far cry from the ARM unit they passed
over.

By this time, Apple decided that Macintosh was Apple's
future.  Now heres the irony: they finally come out with an
Apple IIGS and it has better graphics and sound than the
IBM clones of the day (which were doing EGA and not yet
SoundBlaster).  Its speed was not spectacular, but comparable
to an IBM AT revision 2 (8Mhz 286).  By releasing the IIGS,
Apple convinces many Apple II users that this was Apple's
future.  BUT, there is virtually no A2 development after this.
There was no Apple IIGS to Macintosh transition.

Now while the 286 evolved into the Pentium II in stages,
during the same years, the Apple IIGS remained unchanged.
Remember, these are similar computers.  Apple COULD
have updated the A2, but it did not.  In fact, they could have
put in that ARM chip, which has since evolved into the
StrongARM RISC processor at 200 to 300Mhz!

One more time -- some might say, wait a minute, this
RISC based Apple IIGS Plus would be just like a Mac,
right?  Yes...the point is the Mac could have easily been
built while being A2 compatible and building on the existing
user base.  Why didn't they pursue the ARM A2?  Steve
Jobs decided long ago he would follow his ego and that
"the next big thing" must be completely separate from
the old.

During these years of waddling, the schools switched from
Apple to Wintel.  Since they had to give up their software
and hardware investment if they switch to Mac, they went
to the PC because PC makers always made sure their NEW
computers could run the hardware and software in the recent
past (the previous 5 years at the very least).

Again, the ward off the obvious rebuttal -- A2 users are
NOT advocating selling an 8-bit Apple II+ in 1998.  What
we are saying is that NEW 32-bit units must be made, but
those NEW units could have been designed to run OLD
software as well as NEW.  That would let you keep your
existing user base.  The Mac and the Apple IIGS could
have been ONE product...SHOULD have been.  That
would have happened had Steve Jobs not cancelled the
ARM based A2...

Apples bungling combined with the advent of IBM clones
were what relegated Apple to today's 3% market share.
Wintel used the business base to penetrate and expand
into schools, eating away at Apple's 50%.  Meanwhile,
Apple's trying to force Apple II users to drop everything
and buy new computers and new software libraries (not
even Microsoft is so brazen...half the software I run under
Win 95 is Win 3.1...I would have stopped using MS stuff
if they made Win 95 non-Win 3.1 compatible and
expected me to buy a new software library just to use it)
made many schools switch to Wintel.

Apple's past bungling aside, 3% market share is not as
bad as you think.  If it looks bad, you are looking at MacOS
versus Microsoft OS.  It is Microsoft OS that holds 97%
of the market.  However, if you look at Apple the computer
maker, things are different.  Apple is no worse off than
any other PC maker.  Gateway 2000 has a 3% market
share, but we don't view it as "practically dead," right?
Since terminating the Mac clones, MacOS market share
has slipped from 10% to 3%.  Less new computers sold
are using MacOS.  BUT...APPLE sold MORE computers
this year.

Apple learned some lessons.  When the 68k architecture
was nearing an impasse, Apple knew it had to make the
jump to the PPC.  This time, they MADE the NEW PMacs
able to run 68k software.  There was NO user alienation
this time.  Smarter.

The future -- Apple's logical strategy would be to go forward
with Rhapsody in both PPC and Intel versions.  They could
make low end units using the Pentium processor and high
end versions using the powerful but more expensive G3.
Sadly, with Steve Jobs back, this will not likely happen.
Like he wanted the A2 and Mac worlds separate, however
illogical, he now wants any Mac OS nowhere near an Intel
box.

Can you imagine a Macintosh with an Intel inside?  It would
not be Wintel, but Mactel....change the "c" to a "t" and
what do you get?  Mattel....harharhar!  ;-)