Re: Apple's next move (was Apple II just won't die.)

[rubywand@aol.com (RUBYWAND)]

In article <sheldonDovHI7.JME@netcom.com>, sheldon@netcom.com (Sheldon
Simms) writes:

>
>I think it's very unrealistic ... As far as Apple is concerned, the Apple
>II is dead and buried. ....

    Based upon experience with the old Apple leadership-- the guys who
brought the company to its current state of impending collapse-- yes; a
big II push looks unlikely. Perhaps, however, the new C.E.O is not a total
klutz. 
  

>>    Today's home user would welcome a machine that ....
>>(3) is _not_ PC compatible
>
>no. The home user want to be able to run all that PC stuff, they don't
>want to have to deal with all the crap that along with a PC. They
>don't understand that PC compatible and PC crap are inextricably linked.
>

    Logical. One might even concede the point as far as initial shopper
reaction is concerned. This is where good marketing merges with necessity:

Necessity: The GS-X _can not_ afford to be PC compatible. To be PC
compatible is to be a PC and, thus, in direct competition with rapidly
evolving, cheap grud machines on _their_ battlefield (i.e. running PC
software).  And, what vendor is going to design GS-X specific wares if the
GS-X can run PC stuff? This is a no-win situation.

Marketing: The solution is to the emphasize differences: "Of course the
new Apple II Omega is not PC compatible! It is a user-friendly machine
that does away with the hassles and disappointments experienced by owners
of PC office machines." 

Show off a few neat-looking, neat-sounding applications and include
suggestions that 'Omega gets you out of the PC rat race and into Real,
fun, useful home computing. When you buy an 'Omega, you get everything you
need ...  Show a pretty girl, handsome guy and talk about meeting
interesting fellow users ...  Show a kid programming using the built-in
Applesoft ....   

In short, if Apple's marketing people could make the Apple II
'business-invisible', they should have no problem making the 'Omega look
like "Reality-2000" in home computing.     

>>(4) offers built-in user-friendly programmability
>
>I think users only care about this after they've already bought it
>and discovered how to write programs. Mr Joe Ignorant isn't going to
>consider built-in user-friendly programmability a plus if he doesn't
>know how to program.

    Joe and Jill may be ignorant; but, they are not stupid. The core
attraction of computing is enhancement of personal Power. Jill already
knows her friends never do any programming on their PC's; so, the promise
that she _can_ program her 'Omega is an attraction. Besides, Joe and Jill
need to be concerned about Buffy and Muffy! With the new 'Omega, children
need not grow up as computer-illiterate grunts.



>>A. II users are not likely to welcome a mixed Mac/II machine because
>>anything of the sort must represent less than optimal II performance.
.... >>If Apple feels compelled to toss a bone to Mac users, let it
>>be via an optional Mac plug-in card.
>
>Apple is going to be far more concerned with the tens of millions
>of mac users than the tens of thousands (?) of Apple II users.
>

    Tens of thousands may represent the current active base. (Considering
the absence of support, these are very tough, 'hard core' users-- a good
foundation for rebuilding.)  No one really knows how many former II users
would be ready to hop back into II computing given a decent incentive.

Mac users? I doubt that there are many users who care much whether their
Mac runs Mac stuff or PC wares. If such a thing as a hard core, loyal Mac
user base even exists, it is miniscule.

Remember, Apple spent millions to convince everyone that Mac is a
"business machine". Well, they succeeded!  Most Mac use is in at-work and
other institutional situations. Mac is out of the running as a home
computer. 
    

>>B. II users want Apple to commit to the 65Cxxx and back development of
>>bigger, faster uP's in the series. Some kind of RISC-based kluge that
can
>>execute 68xxx or x86xxx series code is certain to evoke mistrust.
>
>It'll never happen. It would take millions, if not billions, of
>dollars to produce 65xxx series CPU's that equal the performance
>of cheap RISC processors on the market today. And if it doesn't
>equal the performance of cheap RISC processors available today,
>it's not going to be a big seller. Even people who know zero about
>computers know how to say "How many megahertz?"
>

    Probably true. A RISC which looks like, say, a 50MHz 65C832 would be
just fine. Even so, in terms of getting II users 'on board', the promise
of supporting 65xxx development at WDC-- much as Intel is supported by
PC-- would be one more attraction.

Incidentally, the MHz (mega-flop, etc.) and benchmarks competition could
work solidly in favor of the new II. Today, most new PC buyers do not get
the fastest PC available. They start with the uncomfortable realization
that they are second-class. (And current fastest-PC owners know they will
soon be in the same boat.)  Especially since the numerous differences
between Apple II Omega and PC work to muddy comparisons, becoming an
'Omega owner means you are 1st class and likely to stay there for some
time to come.
  

>.... I do think a market exists for a modern Apple II compatible
computer. I think the >market would be among current and past Apple II
enthusiasts, hobbyests, and >people who just want something besides a PC.
.... most importantly, Apple is not >going to have anything to do with it.
.... Apple is done with the Apple II, forever. ....
>There will never be another Apple II compatible computer if you keep
>waiting for Apple.
>

    "Waiting", naturally, would be pretty dumb. "Watching" (suggesting,
hinting, nudging, ...) is another matter.



Rubywand