How to save Apple (was Re: Amelio's ouster)

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Geoff Kaiser writes ...
> 
> In response to some of the comments lately ....
>
> It's true that the IIgs had a built-in synth and the Mac doesn't; I 
> will concede that it'd be nice if it did have one built-in, but my 
> point is that in many cases it's not needed. (And by the way, most 
> average Windows users don't know what "wavetable synthesis is, either)
>

     Maybe most PC users do not know what "wavetable synthesis is, but, 
you can bet that most recent buyers will have an AW32 ($33) or AWE64 
($80) sound card plugged in. Still, isn't this an option for Power Mac 
users, too?


> ....
> My point was that when I hook up a SCSI drive to the Mac, I'm done. I
> never, ever have any drivers to install, no "Add Hardware Wizard" to
> consult, no having to tell the Mac that it needs to recognize the
> device. EVER. ....

     This sort of thing is one of the great advantages of having a 
machine config which is somewhat under the control of a major maker. 
 

> 
>>

Most PC users...are not interested in experimenting with machines
which cost 2-4 times as much as PC
<<
 
> 2-4 times as much? Yeah, whatever. That was partly true a long time 
> ago. You can get UMAX mac clones for as low as $877 (140 MHz) now. They 
> come loaded with ClarisWorks and all kinds of other stuff. Macs are not 
> just the high end anymore. PCs aren't exactly immune to being 
> expensive, either. All the Toshiba laptops ....
>

     Macs are still pretty expensive vs. PC's. Here is a listing for a PC 
system advertised by a local seller ...

200MHz PC (512kB pipeline burst cache; VX Pro Chipset Flash Bios): 16MB 
SD RAM, 2GB hard disk, 1.44MB floppy, 4MB 3D Video card, 14" .28 monitor, 
KB, mini-tower case + "free multi-media upgrade kit".

Price: $739

     Admittedly, the above leaves some unanswered questions such as kind 
of CPU IC, brand of video card, max monitor resolution, and contents of 
the free mm upgrade kit. Figuring that the seller's free-bee kit is the 
slowest one listed-- a 12x CD-ROM kit (normally $69)-- add $55 for the 
24x CD-ROM kit. Also, add $80 for an AWE64 sound card.

     You do not say what is included in the low-cost Mac clone system. 
Anyway, we have a 200MHz, 16MB PC system with 2GB hard drive, 4MB 3D 
card, floppy, 24x CD-ROM, AWE64 sound, and 14" monitor, all at a price of 
$874 vs. a 140MHz Mac clone system at $877.

     Seriously, is it any wonder that it is so difficult to find Mac 
listings in Computer Shopper? Is there, really, any doubt about why Mac 
is getting wiped?


     Apple has two big problems with Mac. First it is offering features 
most shoppers do not care about. Yet, these features increase cost. 
Second, most shoppers doubt that Mac is a real PC.

     Well, then, could Apple survive as the maker of genuine, clone-type 
PC's? (How about the "Candy Apple" PC?!) Perhaps. Compaq manages to hold 
a niche and make a profit.

     The big problem here is that, in order to make Compaq-class profits, 
Apple would need to get Compaq-range prices for the new Apple PC's. As a 
consequence, Apple would end up battling Compaq and a few other 
semi-major makers for a relatively fixed, small, higher-priced part of 
the market. (This assumes that Apple would manage to be about as 
efficient at holding costs in line as Compaq.)

     Concerning costs, it is worth noting that PC manufacturing is not an 
enterprise which has especially favored large makers. Small shops can 
obtain the motherboards and other components at very low prices, slap 
together PC's, and sell them for less than big manufacturers which carry 
large staffs. 

     Of course, there are other problems for Apple in going to real-PC 
manufacturing. One big difficulty would be a major dip in industry and 
investor confidence in the company. Another would be relations with 
current dedicated Mac users. They would be likely to sour. Some users 
_might_ even hold a grudge and refuse to buy Apple PC's-- all just 
because their hefty investments in Mac hardware, their Mac skills, their 
user publications, etc. had all turned to mush.       

     Possibly the least attractive aspect of becoming a true PC maker is 
the loss of control over ones product. Any manufacturer can tack on a few 
bells and whistles; but, all of the major design choices are evolved by 
Intel plus a few smaller chip makers, hundreds of board makers, and 
Microsoft. That Apple might come up with innovations in motherboard 
design or OS or whatever will not much matter if the changes would result 
in incompatibility with the currently emerging standard.


     Apple's best bet is to break-off its losing campaign in the PC 
market. Basically, the company needs to open a new front, to re-start the 
multi-platform Computer Wars.

     One option is to go back to a non-PC pure Mac design. The obvious 
barrier here is that it would be viewed as a backward step vis-a-vis 
current Macs. Even if the NuMac were a better, cheaper computer, the 
thing everyone would notice is that it "gives up" PC compatibility.

     There are many other problems with the NuMac strategy, not the least 
of which is the presence of Mac clone makers. Assuming Apple retains 
reasonably high Mac-compatibility with current Mac's, it seems likely 
that the company would end up competing against PC-compatible Mac clones 
from the start. Possibly, Apple would be bound to permit cloning of NuMac 
itself.

     Then, there is the image problem.  Apple would have a difficult time 
convincing anyone that it had 'turned the corner' or that it was on the 
road to prosperity with another version of a series widely recognized as 
The Big Loser vs. PC. All in all, another Mac is _not_ the way to 
guarantee a successful beginning for the new war.

     Apple's best weapon in a reopened Computer War is the Apple II. It 
has been so long since the last II series machine that a new II can be 
nearly anything Apple wishes. Even so, retaining reasonably high downward 
compatibility, perhaps via a plug-in card, would not be terribly 
difficult.

     Assuming the new II is a good match for PC in terms of power and 
that it is reasonably priced, a new II would, instantly, be guaranteed 
support from a large number of current and former II owners. Being able 
to count on selling a couple hundred thousand units with little more than 
an announcement of its availability is worth a great deal.  

     Apple has maintained a firm hold on II series rights. It can permit 
cloning when and if it pleases. It can design, implement, and reap the 
profits from its own OS along with the first wave of peripherals.  

     One of the best features of a II-based strategy is image. The 'II 
Myth' has, if anything, continued to grow over the years. It is known as 
_the_ user-friendly, user-programmable machine (which, by the way, means 
Apple had better talk to Mike Westerfield about getting a new BASIC 
finished).

     Finally, industry analysts and investors are sure to remember that 
it was a new II, the GS, which last saved Apple and began an era of 
prosperity. Just a "New II" announcement would restore confidence and 
double Apple stock prices overnight.


Rubywand