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

[rubywand@aol.com (RUBYWAND)]

In article <jdwong.832389693@nlsgi2>, jdwong@nlsgi2.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jim
Wong) writes:

>Subject:	Re: New Apple II (was Apple's next move ...)
>From:	jdwong@nlsgi2.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jim Wong)
>Date:	18 May 96 03:21:33 GMT
>
>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.
>
>No offense, but do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up your 
>assertions?
>

     Sure. Published sales figures = evidence. History = evidence.
Platform development realities and trends = evidence. Evidence is all over
the place.
 

>The backing of Apple II users is almost completely insignificant;

     This is an understandable misconception. A few hundred thousand users
spread around the world may not seem very impressive. Yet, every day,
millions are spent by advertisers to achieve just a pale imitation of the
kind of product loyalty exhibited by II users.

     II users are easily the most knowledgeable computer users. (How many
II users post Apple II questions on comp.sys.mac?)  This authority
combined with product loyalty is a goldmine. Each II user is a good
prospect for buying IIGSX _and_ , once a IIGSX owner, also a persuasive
'recruiter', as well.    


>almost all of them have bought Macs or moved on to PC's,

     To be precise, most have purchase PC's. A few purchased Mac's only to
discover that their pricey machines were, finally, only as good as the PC
software they could run. In both cases, quite a few have held on to their
II's and continue to use them.


> vowing never
>to buy another Apple product.

    True. But, 'vows' are cheap. A friend who dumped his IIgs back in 1989
amid vows and curses-- he even gave me his Apple mug!-- recently purchased
a used IIgs. PC continues to deliver good processing power to those
willing to buy a new machine every 2-3 years. It remains a user-unfriendly
computer and an ongoing source of aggravation and disappointment for many
purchasers.  


>.... 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.
>

     Lots of current PC users experienced hours of fun on those "clunky
old machines". The idea of a high-performance 90's version of that "old"
user-friendly Apple II would have great appeal.

     The existence of the Apple II mystique is well established. Many
non-users have heard about Apple's beginnings and about the machine which
built a corporate empire. In a sea of non-descript throw-away grey boxes,
an "Apple IIGSX" would attract many new II users. 


>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.
>

     As Mac has demonstrated, trying to compete with PC's in the running
of PC software is a no-win proposition. For Mac owners, it has been an
expensive experiment. Regrettably, the experiment appears to be
non-reversible.

     Apple II is not PC-compatible. Apple IIGSX running Apple IIGSX
software can battle PC running PC software and win. Mac may be doomed;
but, it has shown the proper way to challenge PC! In this, II users are,
indeed, fortunate.


Rubywand