Re: What if...

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Supertimer writes ...
> 
> Phoenyx <quazar@dcnet2000.com> wrote:
> 
> >It was a shame that Apple Inc. never saw the possibilities of a
> >dual platform market strategy. Even then people knew that one
> >computer does not fit all. The Apple II systems had a perfect
> >place in the computer world. They made excellent first time
> >computers for both home users and educational institutions.
> 
> And small businesses actually.  Apple IIs were used in
> some business network situations and also as POS
> machines.  InCider used to make it a point by doing
> feature articles about businesses that used Apple IIs.
> Apple IIs were also widely used in research because
> it was simple to tap into the slots with custom hardware.
> 
 ....
> 
> As for dual platform strategy, I still believe Apple could,
> if they wanted, TODAY bring back a IIGS in an appliance
> computer form and make it work.  Something like the
> GeoBook but cheaper and bundled with AppleWorks GS
> and Spectrum SIS with an integrated 20Mhz (or 14Mhz)
> 65C816 and 4MB of memory.  Make it in a palmtop or a
> laptop case and sell it for $99 or so and they will come.
>

     Something like this was Tiger's objective with the Tiger LC.
Unfortunately, whoever designed the 'LC made enough errors to doom the
machine and it was yanked from the stores.

     Apple could release a low cost palmtop version of the IIgs. But, then,
they could release a low cost palmtop Mac just as easily.


     In any case, "dual platform", "triple platform", ... strategies have
little relevance to Apple's activities. When you review Apple's product
releases over the years what you discover is that it has spun out assorted
platforms like gumdrops. The company has no long-term strategy except to
score hits upon niche markets.

     The iMac is a good example. The machine is good enough and cheap enough
and easy enough to use to attract a lot of buyers. At the same time, it is
not good enough to win control of the home market; and, it _can_ _not_ be
allowed to become a really first rate computer without threatening Apple's
higher priced models.

 
> No one has yet made the Commodore 64 of 2000.
 ....

     True. Perhaps a user-developed 'new GS' will become such a machine. A
palmtop IIgs from Apple would not get the job done.

     Remember, the C-64 was not marketed as a 'make do' machine for kiddies.
It offered some graphics and other features which the Apple II (and IBM PC)
lacked and was the main II series competition for years.

     A big difference between 2000 and 1980 is the existence of an
established Standard Platform-- i.e. the PC-- backed by an established OS.
Any current manufacturer of significance is unlikely to produce a genuine,
high performance low cost anti-PC because it would be creating killer
competition for its own current products.

     Another risk factor for a would-be manufacturer of 'C-64 2000' is that a
2000's replay of the C-64 phenomenon can not work with a machine which is
even moderately PC compatible. At the same time, you can not get by with just
'okay' hardware. The revolution can not work with a machine which offers no
clear performance advantages.


> There IS an untapped market.

     Definitely. The market is millions of first-time computer shoppers and
current PC users who want a fresh start with a new high-performance 'put
together' non-PC. They want to blow off any concerns with plug-in Video cards
and plug-in Sound cards and drivers and interrupts and to forget about
Windows. Most important, they want to be in control of their computers.

     Take such a machine, include full documentation, bundle in a net
browser, word processor, advanced BASIC, plus a few games and you have your
"Commodore 64 of 2000".



Rubywand