Re: What if...

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Gabriel Morales writes ...
>
 ....
>
> Rubywand wrote:
> 
> >  One big difference between a new user-designed computer and modestly
> > revolutionary machines like iMac is that there would be no concerns
> > about limiting performance to preserve some higher priced product line.
> 
> But before you state:
> 
> > It might begin as a new Apple II-- much improved over the 
> > current IIgs but still not a super-threat to PC.
> 
> But it would be nowhere near the iMac if it were not a threat to the PC.
>

     How a new II machine's performance compares with iMac performance is not
an issue. The competition is PC. If you beat PC, you beat everyone else.

     The iMac's success highlights PC weaknesses. It's failure to win more
than a small piece of the market illustrates the weakness of any pseudo PC
offering pre-limited performance.

     From the start, everyone knew iMac was not Apple's best. And, most
potential buyers figured out that iMac would _never_ be allowed to become
Apple's best. The market for a 'different' machine which isn't going anywhere
is pretty much limited to users who like gumdrop colors and do not care much
about performance.

     The main point of the statements you reference is that you can not beat
PC with a lower-performance pseudo PC. To beat PC you must offer users a
completely different path _and_ the promise of no performance limits.

     Naturally, you need to offer good performance, too. How good is going to
vary from user to user depending upon the values assigned to simplicity of
operation, being in control of your computer, and factors like novelty and
the fun of 'being different'.

     Your user base starts with, mainly, II users. As the software base grows
and hardware is enhanced, you begin to attract more newbies. Eventually,
performance surpasses PC and your user base mushrooms.


 
> > Even Apple has become comfortable with
> > its role as a pseudo-PC manufacturer.
> 
>         I don't believe this. Yes, Apple obviously can't just decide to
> completely ditch the Mac for another platform (unlike it did with the
> Apple II...),

     Not so sure about that. Yes; some risk would be involved; but, should
Apple Mac sales hit the skids again, the relative risk would be smaller and
there's no telling what the company might try. (Which, by the way, helps to
explain Microsoft's 'generosity' in helping to bail out Apple a couple years
ago.)

     Besides, Apple would not need to totally scrap it's investments in Mac.
A name change would help-- let's call it the "Phenom"; but, a lower-priced
high-performance integrated platform could be a kind of super-iMac. What
would matter most (aside from price and performance) to potential buyers is
that the new Phenom clearly be Apple's top-of-the-line product.


> but have you been following all the hardware changes in
> recent Macs (G4, Airport, Firewire/USB, ect...)? And what about Mac OS
> X?- This is the biggest change in Mac OS history.
 ....

     Everything becomes much clearer once you scope out that Apple is happy
with the current market situation and not interested in challenging PC
dominance.

     Since, obviously, Apple is dedicated to avoiding major risks, it is not
going to dominate personal computing any time in the foreseeable future. This
alone greatly limits the importance of Apple OS changes.

     The company's design innovations are interesting; but, they will not
significantly impact PC. If some idea works really well, PC makers will
incorporate it.

     The only thing PC makers can not do is radically upgrade their platform.
So far, no one with the necessary power has tried. Should Microsoft decide to
get into producing platform hardware, all bets are off. 



Rubywand