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

[Forrest <forrest@ns1.net-gate.com>]

On 13 May 1996, RUBYWAND wrote:

 >You may believe that II compatibility is, in the final
 >analysis, more bother than it's worth-- a silly, unnecessary
 >anachronism. Many users may agree. Evidently, many others
 >disagree.

     It's not a matter of bother, it's a matter of corporate psychology 
and numbers.  Apple had no interest in supporting Apple II compatibility 
on the Macintosh even when 99% of their business and installed base was 
Apple II oriented.  Apple's only gesture to date in that direction has 
been the Apple II card for the LC, and that was some four years and N 
million M@cintoshes ago.

 >(1) II compatibility preserves the value of hard-won II programming
 >and development skills.
 >(2) II compatibility preserves the value of ongoing ambitious
 >software development projects.
 >(3) II compatibility is a useful bridge in the smooth transition
 >from old to new.

     Certainly.  But Apple didn't care about any of that in 1984, didn't 
care in 1986 (there was a really idiotic statement by Gassee on this 
subject in _The Third Apple_), and doesn't care now.

 >(4) Schools and similar institutional users have a large investment
 >in current II wares. They do not ordinarily buy computers at swap
 >meets and thrift shops; and, so, they will place a high value upon
 >downward compatibility in a new machine.

     This is true but isn't stopping them from buying incompatible 
platforms, as the share percentage analyses that pop up from time to time 
demonstrate.

 >(5) It is easier to find good work area space for one computer than
 >for two.

     Which is why a disgusting number of Apple IIs are being thrown away 
(that plus regulations regarding disposal of old equipment -- designed to 
prevent purchase of equipment for resale to insiders).

 >(6) II compatibility is strong evidence of Apple commitment to the
 >Apple II series.

     Apple has no commitment to the Apple II series.  This is after all 
the company that discontinued all the peripherals at the same time that 
they discontinued the line.  Some companies would have at least sold the 
manufacturing rights to another company, but not Apple.

     Which brings up the question of people who look at Apple's behavior 
toward the Apple II and its user base and decide not to buy M@cintosh 
equipment -- not because the products aren't attractive, but because the 
company is utterly contemptible.

     This is certainly an identifiable market segment.  But I doubt very 
much it's large enough to attract Apple's attention, let alone change 
twelve years of corporate philosophy.

 >Apple should aim for II compatibility because many II users
 >demand it.

     Should, yes.  Will...that's something else again.

     You should check out Kawaski's mailing list, it gives insight into 
Apple-think.

     (Notice that the Apple II line was cancelled in 1993?  Thus 1994 was 
"1984", ten years late.  They should've run a commercial during the Super 
Bowl.  "The thugs and wreckers have been cast out!  Apple has created a 
garden of pure ideology where we can be free of conflicting truths!  Let 
each and every cell rejoice!"  And the lady with the sledgehammer would 
be up on the screen, reading the lines to the assembly.)