Re: The apple 2, the PC, and the clones

[Jalapeno <jalapeno1@mac.com>]

In article <3D31EB06.6090704@noneofyourbusiness.com>,
 Exegete <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote:

> Supertimer wrote:
> 
> > Ruud Dingemans <rtech@home.nl> wrote:

> >>Yes, Apple could've put more technology/development in. But that would 
> >>also mean keeping the price up, and competing with yourself, given the 
> >>Mac. It would probably have been better/easier to integrate the GS into 
> >>the Mac thru emulation, like the IIe card did, so that people could 
> >>upgrade easier.
> >>
> > 
> > It was the IIGS concept that was the right idea.  Wrap your
> > computer around graphics and sound.  nVidia and Creative
> > are doing it today.  
> 
> 
> Oh, really? Which computers do they sell?
> 

It doesn't matter. Apple Computer was sued by Apple Corps in 1989 for 
violating a 1981 agreement not to market audio/video products with 
recording or playback capabilities, just so they could continue to use 
the name "Apple". The Ensoniq "on board" was a doomed concept that 
probably shouldn't have made it past the legal department at Apple in 
the first place. 

Personally, I would have changed the name of the company rather than 
sign an agreement that lacked any kind of forethought. In 1981 Apple 
wasn't exactly a household name (and in 2002 most non-Apple II users 
don't even know there was an Apple computer made before the Macintosh). 

This whole discussion is moot. The vast majority of IIgs' were sold to 
schools. Most schools used them as fast IIe's anyway. The IIgs' 
capabilities are due to the creativity of the Apple II division 
engineers, not the direction of the company. When viewed as a 
transitional machine for moving educational clients to the Macintosh the 
development/fate/history of the IIgs makes more sense. The IIe card for 
the LC series was Apple's next try at migrating the schools to the Mac.