Re: New Apple II (was Apple's next move ...)

[jdwong@nlsgi2.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jim Wong)]

rubywand@aol.com (RUBYWAND) writes:

>     Producing a new non-PC "Apple II" just for the current II user base
>probably would not make sense to Apple. On the other hand, producing any
>non-PC which does not attract II user support would be a silly blunder.

>     The new, high-performance, integrated IIGSX makes sense for Apple
>because it wins II user backing _and_ promises to cash in on the "Apple
>II" myth among non-II home computer shoppers looking for a fun,
>user-friendly alternative to PC.  

>     Price is very important. If Apple can deliver IIGSX at something like
>$1500, it can expect to win a nice chunk of the home market.

This seems a bit unlikely.

The backing of Apple II users is almost completely insignificant;
almost all of them have bought Macs or moved on to PC's, vowing never
to buy another Apple product.  Ditching the Macintosh is not going to
endear the company to the former group, and there's probably no
recovering the latter.

Furthermore, there is no Apple II mystique.  People who don't already
own Apple II's view them as "those clunky old machines they're still
using at the grammar school".  I don't think this image is going to
win very many people over.

Don't get me wrong; I love my Apple II's.  All five of them.  But the
idea that the Apple II platform is, though some freak alignment of the
stars, more viable than Macintosh is completely ludicrous.

(Note: I said "more viable", not "better").

-- 
Jim Wong (jd-wong@uiuc.edu)

-- 
Jim Wong (jd-wong@uiuc.edu)