Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU (Nevin ":-]" Liber)]

In article <28OCT199612481191@vax2.concordia.ca>, spec@vax2.concordia.ca
(Mitchell Spector) wrote:

>     I wanted an enhanced Apple IIgs, not a Macintosh. The two are not the
> same, even though they may externally look and (to some extent) even feel
> and act the same.

There is no doubt that Apple could have made the technological decision to
go with improving the IIgs.  The question, which most advocates tend to
ignore, is:  are there sound *business* reasons for doing so?

There were three possibilities (well, actually more at the time, since
there were more platforms like the Apple III and the Lisa):

1.  Support Macintosh only.  Riskier short term; more likely to keep up
with technology long term, since 68K used by more than just Apple Computer.

2.  Support IIgs only.  Less risky short term; long term strategy very
questionable.

3.  Support Macintosh and IIgs.  Fragment markets (eg: developers would
rather have one market with a 40% share than two markets with a 25% share
each, assuming sales of platforms stay 
virtually even); non-committal message to customers about where the company
is heading, higher R&D costs, higher support costs, etc.

Now, the above analysis is obviously simplistic (a real analysis has to
take into account the competition's response as well).  If you have a
better case, please make it, and compare it with the actual course taken in
the following three areas:  benefits, drawbacks and risks.
-- 
        Nevin ":-)" Liber       <mailto:nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU>    (520) 293-2799
                                <http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/nevin/>