Re: Wozniak vs Jobs

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

In article shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford) writes...

>Mitchell Spector (spec@vax2.concordia.ca) wrote:
>
>:     Consider the facts -- the Apple IIe and Apple IIgs selling then
>: were functionally *identical* to the originals released in 1983 and
>: 1986 (the Platinum IIe and ROM 3 were completely insignificant out-
>: side of the Apple II community--and then even within the community,
>: when you think about the extremely minor changes). Even a decade
>: ago, computers become obsolite after short time periods; perhaps
>: not mere months, but a few years were like a lifetime in computer
>: years. You _have_ to continually keep computers up to date as
>: technology is introduced (and enhance and maintain the existing
>: features) or the machine is on a path towards death.
>
>Obsolescence/replacement wasn't nearly so rapid earlier on as it is now.

    I thought I made admission to that fact above. Still, while
no one expected or demanded overnight break throughs in Apple II
technology back in the 80's (e.g. 24-bit color, triple digit
processing speeds, etc) they were expecting _some_ change. Heck,
ANY change would have been nice, because despite the fact obsolescence
occurred at a much slower pace, it still did occur. Lack of change
or advancement will ultimately equal death for a computer, even
back then.

    Maybe you feel there was no need to advance things any further,
that the II was fine as-is? You did mention Apple wanted the Apple II
as an inexpensive, low-end alternative to the Mac, and keeping it
down in features might have accomplished that. Bringing it up would
break that low/high balance, right? If that's true, then Apple
purposely kept the Apple II down (and gee, that is what they did).

>For instance, consider how long ProDOS 1.1.1 and Mac system 7.1 were current.

    I'm not talking about software, I'm talking hardware here (what
the software has to run on top of). Speaking of ProDOS, if you recall
ProDOS 16 remained current far too long before being replaced by GS/OS,
and that played a role in hurting the GS market too.

>And that is even more so with Apple hardware; my Quadra 840av, introduced
>in summer of '93, is just now reaching the point where software support
>is tailing off, and I consider that premature.

    Maybe because Macintosh users have lower standards? Never mind
even PC's, I used to find 68K Macs fairly slow compared to my IIgs
with a 15/64 ZipGS installed.

>And throw in the fact that Apple equipment holds its value far better than
>PC hardware too. The going price for a basic 840av is $400-500. Could you
>get that for a five year old PC?

    Nope--but you consider that a bad thing? It means I can pick up a
PC with equal or better performance to your 40 MHz 68040 for far less
(often even free!). I'm quite sure the 486DX4/133 I picked up last
year outperforms the 40 MHz 840av, yet I got it pretty much free because
my brother knew he couldn't get much selling it (and more or less donated
it to me). If I wanted a Mac, I would've had to settle for a much lower
powered system, or maybe even none at all because I couldn't afford
much at the time.

    It may be to your advantage if you want to re-sell your hardware,
but it is a disadvantage to people wanting to buy and own a computer.
Is it really a good thing used old Macs cost so much?

>:     Also, consider that all advertising was dropped for the Apple II
>: not long after the "Apple II Forever" hype began when the IIc was
>: introduced. It was incredibly rare to see the Apple II advertised
>: on television or in magazine adds around the time of the GS, and
>: by the late 80's and early 90's there was no exposure whatsoever
>: more or less. Finally, during all this time the price of the IIe
>: and GS had remained outrageously high (even next to expensive Macs)
>: and the company showed no signs of interest in supporting their
>: own product. All things considered, it is quite remarkable they
>: managed to sell a total of even 14 Apple II units.
>
>Up until recently, Apple's marketing has been asleep at the wheel. Up until
>the Think Different campaign and the Pentium II snail and burning dancing
>Intel idiot commericals, when was the last time you recall seeing an Apple
>ad for anything?

    Your right about that, I haven't seen many at all. Though the last
time I think I saw an Apple II ad was way back in 1988-89 (the last IIGS
TV ad, where they played "Heart & Soul" in the background while an
announcer talked). Incidentally, I didn't learn about the GS from
television or magazines ads, it was completely by accident when
I saw one on display in a shop. If I waited for Apple to tell me
about it, I never would have known it existed.

>:     Try doing the same for the PowerMacintosh: cut all advertising,
>: drop support, keep costs high and do absolutely nothing to upgrade
>: the machine (sell the same model, unchanged year after year) and
>: see how long it lasts. You can even pretend the PC compatible is
>: on equal footing in terms of market size and popularity for this.
>: The end result will still be the same. The Apple II did not die
>: because of lack of interest, it died because of Apple Computer.
>
>I contend that it "died" because it reached the end of its life cycle.

   Yep, when a company refuses to change a computer in the slightest
way after 6-7 years (the ROM 3 hardly counts for anything really,
except Apple clearing its excess stock of 1MBx1 DRAMs), refuses to
advertise or otherwise support a machine, it has reached the end of
its life cycle -- but artificially!

    Come on, do you seriously believe the IIgs had peaked in terms
of growth with the ROM 3 in 1989? It doesn't take much imagination
to build a better system than that, a grade school child could
literally dictate what new features _should_ have and _could_
have logically gone in back then.

>You could consider 68K Macs "dead" for the same reason. I suppose that the
>difference is that the Apple II crowd doesn't like the replacement for Apple
>IIs as much as the 68K crowd like theirs.

    Well a Macintosh is no more a replacement for the Apple II then
an IBM PC is to a Amiga user. The Macintosh didn't run the Apple
II software, it didn't use its hardware (there are expections, but
they're pretty insignificant) and it didn't at all feel or work the
same.

    I don't suppose you'd like it very much if Apple started making
their own PC clones (like Compaq or IBM), dropped the Mac and told
you to buy one of those as an upgrade path, would you? Ironically,
that make-believe example could turn into a reality. :)

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca