Re: Woz's comments on Apple's handling of the II line etc.

[et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black)]

"Sean Fahey" (a2fan@hotmail.com) writes:
> "Charles" <spammeister12345@aol.com> wrote in message
> MPG.1bc2726747dffeba9896d0@news.verizon.net">news:MPG.1bc2726747dffeba9896d0@news.verizon.net...
> 
>> Guys, it's not a typo. He was referring to the period after the Mac and
>> after he left active participation in Apple in 1988.  Go read the
>> original website.  He is talking about 1989 thru 1992.
> 
> Here's a paste from Apple2History.org.... note the era in question predates
> the Apple //e.
> 
> http://www.apple2history.org/history/ah07.html
> 
> Apple executives also decided that with the introduction of the Apple III
> they wanted a clear separation between it and the Apple II in regard to
> marketing. They did not want any overlap between the two. The III would be
> an 80-column business machine and was predicted to have ninety percent of
> the market, while the Apple II would be a 40-column home and school machine
> and would have ten percent of the market. Apple's executives were confident
> that after the release of the Apple III, the Apple II would quickly lose its
> appeal. [4]
> Because of their desire for a strong and distinct product separation, the
> Apple II emulation mode designed into the Apple III was very limited. The
> engineers actually added hardware chips that prevented access to the III's
> more advanced features from Apple II emulation mode. Apple II emulation
> couldn't use 80 columns, and had access to only 48K memory and none of the
> better graphics modes. As a result, it wouldn't run some of the better Apple
> II business software, during a time when there wasn't much new business
> software for the Apple III.
> 
> 
And didn't they make the Apple II for everyone?  In the form of the Apple IIE.
Not quite the same thing, but close to it, and much more accessible than
the Apple II.

   Michael