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

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

"Bryan Villados" <news002@macgeek.org> wrote:

>So with all that... Why weren't there that many Apple II clones? There are
>other valid explanations out there; however the explanation I feel closer to
>home with was the fact that there was a need for cheaper IBM compatible PCs
>for business, and not cheaper Apple II computers. Cloning was necessary at
>the time to drop cost of the overall PC. The Apple II was never a serious
>business-class machine, and the Apple /// failed miserably with its hardware
>reliability, so IBM ate them up big-time! Therefore, my explanation is
>simply that cloning the IBM PC took a huge precedence over cloning the Apple
>II in the marketplace.

I think you are forgetting that the Apple II was a business class machine
before the IBM PC was ever designed.  In fact, the Apple II was used at
IBM before and during the design of the IBM PC.  The first spreadsheet
was designed and marketted for the Apple II.

No, the reason there are few Apple clones is a dynamic one.  At the
beginning, the legal foundations of copyrighted BIOS/ROM were not
challenged so cloners went about their work in a fashion later found
illegal by the courts.  There were many Apple II clones but later all
were found illegal.

By the time Compaq came around with their PC clones, it is true that
the Apple II was already fading due to Apple's desire to move on to
Macintosh.  That's why there was a lesser desire to clone the II but
that did NOT stop Video Technology from cloning the Apple II ROM
(BIOS in PC-speak) the right "cleanroom" way.  Following just the
method you outlined they produced the Laser 128 series of Apple II
compatibles.  These were challenged in court in several countries
but Apple lost in ALL the cases.

The top end Laser 128 had all the features of an Apple IIc Plus and
more.  The Apple IIc Plus was the finest 8-bit Apple II that Apple
ever produced and the Laser 128EX/2 was better.