A Tale of Two Apples

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

I have lost all faith in Apple Computers, Inc.

Back in the '80s, I was a staunch supporter of Apple computers. 
Machines
like the Apple IIGS were impressive and innovative compared to the what
the PC had to offer.  It was flashy and creative, not unlike the Amiga,
and the design was clearly superior to the Atari ST, which I also liked
over the PC.  Then Apple did something that made me lose confidence in
them.  Even though it had a loyal customer base, Apple backed a clearly
inferior design, the Mac Plus, over the GS.  Both computers ran their
software at about the same speed (you can't compare MHz between
different
processor families, benchmarks prove that a stock GS can match a Mac
Plus), greater horizontal resolution (640 wide vs. 512 wide), greater
color depth, 32 channel wavetable synthesis compared to the Mac Plus'
pitiful 3 voice beaper (the Mac Plus' chip also only had 256 BYTES of
sound RAM, thus requiring constant swapping even for the smallest
sounds), and because of Steve Jobs misguided insistance on "simplicity,"
the Mac Plus could only address 4MB of RAM (it would have stayed 128K
had Steve Jobs had his way) while the GS could do 8MB (or even 16MB
with a RamKeeper).  Despite overwhelming GS sales over the entire Mac
line during the first year of the GS, Apple axed GS advertisement and
poured money into the Mac.  They had the stupid idea of trying to force
the schools to buy new Mac computers, since they felt the schools would
not buy a computer capable of running IIe software often enough, since
current IIe's would already do.  They shot themselves in the foot.  The
GS continued to sell itself until '92.  Had Apple backed it, the GS
could have continued to improve.  After all, if a PowerMac could evolve
from an inferior design like the Mac Plus, imagine what a PowerGS could
be?  Clearly, such a design would be a superior evolution to that of
the PowerMac.  In the process, Apple alienated most of its user base
and had to build a new one from the ground up, thus losing market share
even in education, its historically strong area.

After the booting of Steve Jobs and the introduction of the PowerMac,
I gave Apple another chance.  The PowerPC processor was clearly a very
advanced design and it seemed to give Apple a chance to become the
leader of innovation again.  More good news was when Apple started
welcoming clone makers and licensed Power Computing and Radius to build
the first PowerMac clones.  By fostering competition in a free market,
PowerMacs were finally showing the innovation that I remember from the
Apple II days and this competition addressed flaws in Apple's design
raised by the PC folks.  The Umax line, for example, could emulate
dual Mac and PC and had parallel ports, PS2 ports, and IDE controllers,
as well as the standard Apple serial, SCSI, and ADB ports.  It also
has standard PCI slots that work in both Apple and PC modes, and you
can even install PC floppy drives.  That, coupled with a RISC processor
more powerful than Intel designs made PowerMac clones like the Umax
superior to the PC clone competition.  Similar innovations occured at
PowerComputing and Motorolla.  Motorolla, which had a stake in this
market because it makes the PowerPC processor, introduced the first
CHRP platform, beating out Apple.

Fast forward to present day.  Apple, directed by Steve Jobs, is axing
the licensing program.  It has just bought out PowerComputing and is
in the processes of killing Umax and Motorolla's PowerMac clone
division.  The reason?  Apparently, customers realized that the clones
were superior!  The clones were selling 1/4 of all MacOS machines this
year and Apple was unhappy about it.  That, coupled with Steve Jobs
historically innane attitude toward "protecting" his baby, the Mac,
led to this unfortunate incident.  Can anyone see what's wrong?  Can
anyone spell: central planning?  Whole countries have failed because
of it and yet Apple won't adopt a free market system.

This is bad business decision making, if I ever did see it.  By trying
to protect the Apple hardware, Apple has curtailed the success of
Macintosh OS!  Think about it, Microsoft makes money off of software.
If Apple wanted its hardware to be more competitive, they should have
innovated as much as the clones.  The worst part of it is that Apple
is going after Motorolla's MacOS clones.  Motorolla is Apple's closest
ally, after all, and Steve Jobs is burning all bridges, while snuggling
up with the likes of Bill Gates.

It seems that Mac OS fans will be perpetually stuck with the inferior
hardware that Apple itself sees fit to let them use.  Alliances will
also fall.  If I were IBM now, I would think twice before cooperating
with Apple.  Motorolla is in a catch-22, since it sells processors to
Apple, but I don't expect them to be happy.

I won't buy from Apple again, at least as long as Steve Jobs is around.
And you know what?  That fool only has _1 share_ in Apple, so of course
he does not care what happens to it.  Probably out for revenge as well
as being short sighted.  I will still support the GS market, but only
because the GS represents the days when Apple was still innovative and
forward looking.

[In response to Apple's anti-clone behavior, MacUser and Mac World
have merged.  Apple II folks know full well what this means, and it
happened to Amiga mags too.  Anyone remember InCider/A+?]

-Scott G.