Apple II suicide--a sermon...

[Rocket Press...a Litmag <rocketusa@delphi.com>]

Why did Apple abandon the II anyway?
 
I know that this is a question that could require a whole
book as a response, so I don't expect anyone to answer it.
 
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
called the Rana 8086/2 the IIe could run 5,000 more PC
programs.  The Rana must be similar to the PC Transporter
I've heard so much about.
 
Anyway, this brochure must've been written around the time
of the "Big Lie," a.k.a. "Apple II Forever."  It made it
seem like the IIe and IIc were machines for the future,
with promises of hardrives, mice, and other equipment few
IIe's and c's are equipped with today, in the few homes
where they still are used.  I know much hardware was made
for these machines, but mostly by outside companies.
 
It was around this time in Apple history that the Mac 128
was in the works.  I wonder why Apple went in the
direction of the Mac when the propaganda said that Apple
II was winning the war over IBM?  The headline stated:
 
        "Why you should buy an
        Apple II-something
        instead of an IBM PC-anything."
 
I work as a journalist, where the machine of choice is the
Mac.  I am newer so I get stuck with the older machines
(the editor-in-chief gets the latest Power Mac), made
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
unit.  And that black and white little Mac screen sucks.
I would assume sound and graphics on the IIgs are as good,
thus the "g" and "s".
 
Also, the Mac was conceived to be a higher-brow, more
boring machine than the Apple II.  I think Apple lost the
war with IBM because they forgot who their customers were.
 People do like games.  And I don't know of 10,000
programs for the Mac.  It's hard finding an Apple II
joystick sold in stores (I've seen some in Radio Shack),
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.
 
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???
 
It seems the II series had the right mix of work-and-play.
 And the story of Apple (as opposed to IBM, which was a
corporate monster before the integrated circuit) was a
true underdog story, with a wiz named Woz making these
beauties out of his garage.  I'd hate to think the Apple
II's run is gone.  And the Mac will soon be a glorified
PC.  The Apple II series might have competed better.
According to this propaganda I found, only suicide could
stop Apple's rule of the PC.  I guess suicide happened.
It was best said when I was looking to buy a computer a
few years back, and the choices were a Mac-something and a
386.  The salesman said:  Nobody likes to admit it, but
what you're really buying the machine for, as much as
anything, is it's games.  And the Apple II was a good
gaming machine, still can give NES and Sega a peck or two
in this electronic cockfight.  The Mac is not.  What's the
use of a joystick for it?
 
Were those fool at Apple Comp really so pretentious that
they had to believe that the only way to compete with IBM
was to build a boring machine that was "serious" and "too
good" to play Robotron on?
 
DARREN
(This sermon was brought to you by one who hopes somehow,
by magic maybe, Apple Comp will reconsider and come out
with a low-cost modern Apple II to regain a high
percentage of the marketshare.)
)