Re: Apple II suicide--a sermon...

[sheldon@netcom.com (Sheldon Simms)]

In article <R68dw08.rocketusa@delphi.com> Rocket Press...a Litmag <rocketusa@delphi.com> writes:
>Why did Apple abandon the II anyway?

Before I start, I have 4 Apple II's and expect I will have them for the
rest of my life. I am a big fan of Apple II computers.
 
>I was leafing through some propaganda from the mid-80s
>that came with a IIc that I bought used recently.  The
>brochure claimed that the IIe was the most widely used
>computer in the world and that it had the most software
>titles, about 10,000.  It also said that with a device

This was all true in the early 80's except that Apple
already knew that the Apple II was doomed. Any representation
that the Apple II would retain it's position was "marketing
hyperbole", or wishful lies, and Apple knew it.
 
>Anyway, this brochure must've been written around the time
>of the "Big Lie," a.k.a. "Apple II Forever."  It made it

Personally I think "Apple II Forever" has been taken way too
seriously by a lot of Apple II users. It was a marketing slogan
and could not be taken seriously. After all forever is long long
time and no company is going to consent to pouring resources
into a product without any hope of return.
 
>around the time of the last IIgses, like the Mac Plus.  I
>own a IIgs, as well as others.  Anyway, I work on these
>Macs and say:  My IIgs (no speed enhancement) can run as
>fast as this!  In fact, in many ways, the IIgs is better
>than these early-90s Macs.  The monitor is not part of the

The Mac Plus is an early 1986 Mac, but anyway the subjective
speed of the machine has a lot to do with what programs are
being run, etc. It is true that the 8Mhz 68000 Macs aren't
a whole lot faster than the Apple IIgs in any case. But
early Macs had architectural advantages over the Apple IIgs that
helped it in the long term.

>but a Mac joystick is practically non-existent.  The Mac
>belief is that a computer is only for higher-brow
>activities.  Apple Comp must've been ashamed of the Apple
>II and its Woz arcade history.

This isn't true anymore but it was for a long time. When the Mac was
first designed, Apple realized that it could not compete with IBM based
only on it's sales of computers to the home and school markets. The Mac
was definitely part of a concerted effort to break into the corporate
market, especially after the demise of the Lisa. In my opinion Apple
was correct in their decision to go after the business market and in 
heir feeling that the Apple II line was not up to the task in the long term.
 
>But, working with both types of 16 bit Apples, I cannot
>see why, if properly supported, the Apple II (Apple II
>LS?) couldn't have progressed as far, if not further
>because of a larger audience, than the present Mac.
>Perhaps I don't understand the technical reason--which
>is???

This is the end of everything I have said. The real reason the Apple II
was dumped by Apple is the technical problems. The 6502 processor used
in the Apple II line was designed in 1975 and by the early to mid 80's
it was getting old. Apple had two choices: 1) They could try to find
or finance improved versions of the 6502, like the 65816, which eventually
appeared regardless or 2) look to the future and switch to a more modern
processor family with a more secure future. At the time that Apple
adopted the 68000 for the Lisa and Mac, it was considered the most
advanced microprocessor and since it was made by a huge company like
Motorala, Apple could feel confident about it's future. Apple's switch
to the Lisa and then Mac was a business decision that I think was well
made. And once the Mac finally took off and Apple no longer needed to
sell Apple II's for profitability, the Apple II line was allowed to 
languish, since maintaining parallel design and support for both lines
would have been too expensive. As a business decision I think Apple did
the right thing. In fact it was basically no different than the much
more recent switch to PowerPC technology. The main difference is that
with the PowerPC, backward compatibility was much more important.
Back in 83 or 84, it was still feasible to  release a totally new
architecture, barely. Now there is no way any totally new architecture
could survive in the PC market, no matter who was backing it.

Now having backed Apple's actions wrt the Apple II, let me say that
I fail to understand why so many Apple II users, (or ex-Apple II
users as the case may be) think that the Apple II is finished because
Apple no longer builds them, etc. The Apple II can never die as long
as there are people who like to use it. You don't need Apple Computer
Inc. to help you make "Apple II Forever" a reality. It can be
true as long as you want it to. And in fact Apple II really is forever
because no matter what kind of computer is the newest and best 100
years from now, I think there's no doubt that someone will be running
an Apple II emulator on it just for fun, and other people will be hacking
on their antique Apple II's passed down from grandpa, just for fun.

-Sheldon

-- 
 W. Sheldon Simms III
 sheldon@netcom.com
 Newt's Friend -- Phil Gramm for President (No, Newt's NOT going to run!)