Re: Apple's ways

[Roy Miller <millers@inebraska.com>]

Supertimer wrote:

> net@net.net (net) wrote:
>
> >Supertimer:
> >How is any of your ongoing biased cheerleading for AMD relevant to this
> >Apple II newsgroup and the Apple II computer?
>
> It is relevant to the discussion of Apple's ways if you consider that
> Apple has never stood and faced the competition.  When the
> IBM PC was introduced, the Apple II did NOT lose the majority
> market share overnight as some will have you believe.  Even with
> IBM capturing a large part of the expanding business market, the
> overall PC numbers were still in Apple's favor.  It still had a more
> than 60% hold

What's a 60% hold? BTW, Apple NEVER had a 60% share of the micro market

> in numbers sold relative to the PC and all the rest
> of the computers of the day.  Apple had a successful product but
> Jobs thought he had to scrap the old and start from scratch

Apple push to have a replacement for the II started LONG before Jobs was
Chairman, and he never really ran the company until his return. He was
never trusted by the board with running the company because of his youth
and inexperience. Mike Scott ran it until the III disaster, and then
temporary leadership until Skulley came on board.

> which
> caused the abandonment of an established client base and this
> was the real reason Apple lost the lead.

By the time of Lisa's release, Apple had already lost out to IBM as the
market leader. No, that wasn't in 1981, by it was true by 1983. It's
interesting to reread old general computer mags of that day. In 1983
issues, CP/M machines are still advertised, by 1984, they had almost
disappeared

>
>
> In the PC world, advances have always been accomplished with
> transitions.  Apple will have you believe that such transition was
> impossible and would have damaged its ability to compete.  I'm
> saying that it was the scrapping of the established user base
> caused by non-transition that damaged it.

That's nonsense. Where was the "transition" to the PC? Assuming that by
"transition" you mean a slow gradual shift?  It was a total break with the
8 bit world of Apple, Atari, Commodore (remember the 8032 CBM?), TRS-80,
and CP/M. It was a revolution. It's hardware was not compatible with
anything, and neither was it's software. But in about a years time, it was
the leading PC, and in two years time it was the standard by which all
other machines were measured. That's why Apple made such a hugh change with
the Mac. If the SuperII (early //e) had been pushed out the door in 1981,
it might have held off the PC, but it wouldn't and couldn't have beaten an
AT with EGA. And while the //gs could have, it didn't, and couldn't have
existed in 1984 because there wasn't a stable 65816 in 1984, nor a Mac like
interface, nor the sound and graphics. Apple did what it did, when it did,
so that it could avoid what happened to Atari, Commodore, and Radio Shack.
Those were three very big lines, and all three of those 8 bit lines died,
while the ST and Amiga lines tried to do what the Mac did, they started too
late. RadioShack and Commodore also took the "me too" approach. None of
these exist today. But Apple does. And it does it on the Mac line. Not the
II line. IF they had created a II with a 68000 and a 16 bit bus, and so on
and so forth, then perhaps the II would still be alive, BUT it would not
have been the transition that you were talking about either.

Roy

>
>
> AMD

I like AMD. But you seem to be obsessed with them.

> is relevant because it demonstrates that a smaller company
> can grab the lead from a larger one.  Apple has always believed
> that a smaller company cannot compete with a larger company
> head on and succeed.  That's why it scuttled the Apple II and
> went off on a tangent with the Macintosh.

Strange. Neither line competed head to head with IBM. The III did....

>
>
> I would argue that to talk about Apple's ways is directly relevant
> to the Apple II because it was Apple's ways that resulted in the
> scuttling of a successful platform and the senseless neglect
> of successful products like the Apple IIGS.  And to talk about
> Apple's ways today necessitates looking at the industry as a
> whole and comparing it to the ways of other companies in the
> industry.

Like HP and Compaq, who today had to merge in order to survive?

Roy