Re: Modern A2 successor

[Joseph Oswald <jaoswald@is08.fas.harvard.edu>]

Phoenyx <quazar@dcnet2000.com> writes:


> Well, it may not reclaim the old a2 market, but there are certainly
> a lot of folks who would love to get away from the Intel/MS systems
> without going to the high dollar Mac. These Wintel systems have

I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but the fact of the matter is
that any small-market item (meaning fewer than a million units per
year) like a new Apple II is going to have absolutely no economies of
scale, and therefore will likely be even higher cost (per performance)
than the Mac, which benefits to some extent from Motorola's embedded
PowerPC processors and IBM's Power line. Linux on Intel rides the same
wave as Windows. 

There is no shortage of old Apple II hardware for people who like to
use it, in addition to emulators for people who want to run software. 

Keep in mind that there were several companies that made
clones and expansion hardware for the old Apple II's, who could have
easily picked up the slack when Apple axed the II line. They didn't,
likely because there was no viable market 10 years ago. I don't really
see how the Apple II market has grown since then.

The only real prospect that I could see is to build robust Apple II
emulation on a Linux substrate, as an upgrade path for schools which
still use Apple IIgs software, plus *possibly* some optional network 
hardware to facilitate the transfer of data from the legacy system.
I don't think this is likely to make anyone enough money to make it
worth while, but it is probably the best chance.

> I must also point out that many current users and possibly many
> upcoming computer users are tired of the hardware wars. There are
...

Nobody holds a gun to anyone's head to make them upgrade. If you are
fanatical about stability, a Linux distribution or Solaris/Intel run
basically non-stop. If you are upgrading because you need
compatibility for the latest-and-...uhh...-greatest? Office release,
you won't get that in an Apple II compatible. If one needs to run IIgs
software faster, use an emulator, and if you need to run IIgs hardware
faster, you can't get faster plug-in cards anyway, unless you make
them yourself.

Most "middle class users" go to a superstore and ask for the one that
runs "Microsoft." If they add hardware, they add a USB scanner, color
printer, and digital camera so they can send vacation pictures to all
their family members. If they are cost sensitive, they get an
e-machines CPU for $400. That low cost is possible only because of massive
economies of scale.

The proposed alternative is a necessarily expensive machine that taps
a software market that has been moribund for the last 10 years, and
was basically incompatible with the PC world *then*, and has only
gotten *more* incompatible since, as the Windows world has moved
toward wherever it is going.
 
> If you tackle this project without the mindset of getting rich off
> it, you stand a better chance of succeeding. All that is required
> market wise it to break even on expenses. This includes external
> expenses like rent, utilities, payroll (if necessary later or as
> compensation for the developers) etc...

This project will cost anyone who attempts it as much money as they
are willing to lose, and will result in basically zero financial
gain. As you point out, though, Woz wasn't in it for the money.
Nevertheless, no Jobs and Markulla will show up to make it profitable.

--Joe