Re: Can't say I'm happy about -this-...

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

mford@socal.rr.com (Mike Ford) wrote:

>As I remember it, Apple killed the II series to sell macs. Forced

You remember correctly.

>migration is a trademark of Steve Jobs, recently applied to the non power
>PC macs, and soon to be done to the non G3 macs. Hopefully it will
>backfire with the same results again (adios Steve). Unfortunately the
>short term result is higher profits, due to lower support cost, and
>increased revenues.

But the Mac transitions have always been different because
they have been transitions taking place over many years.
Same thing the the PC world where migration from ISA to
PCI slots take place with a transition of a couple of years
where motherboards have both types of slots.

In contrast, there was never a bridge platform from the II
to the Mac from day one.  A Mac LC with IIe card SIX
YEARS AFTER THE FACT does not count (we, the
users, already defected to the PC by then).  Thus, many
users just defected in droves to the PC rather than be
forced to Macintosh by Apple.  I mean, if Apple wanted
this from me, they could do it to me again.  I'd rather go
the the PC world where I know each new computer will
be backward compatible with models of at least 5 years
prior.  That's the needed transition buffer.

Frankly, they could have handled the situation a lot better.
They could have started out with a compromise platform
that could run both II and Mac software (and don't even
anyone try to start with that II in a Mac pathetic excuse
for an Apple II solution...1/4Mhz, anyone?).  Basically,
instead of coming out with a Mac and a IIGS, the IIGS
should have been the first Mac.  Slowly phase out the II
side and ease users into Macdom.  By the way, that was
the initial plan for the IIGS (transition to pure GS side
later model GS side machines that never appeared thanks
to Apple's infanticide of the IIGS).  Does the plan sound
familiar?  It should.  That's what they did for the 68k Mac
to PowerMac transition.

So why was the first Mac not a transition model?
Because of Steve Jobs.  For one thing, he did not want
Woz to dominate the company, so he systematically
tried to erase the Apple II and make a clean break
with various computers (Lisa, III, and finally Mac).  He
could not very well be bothered with making a loyal
user base happy.  Besides, Apple miscalculated.  The
idea was a forced migration to new computers, new
peripherals, and new software would generate more
profits for the company than incremental upgrades.
You are right, in this case the drive for short term profit
dug Apple into a hole in terms of long term market
share preservation.  They lost a lot of loyal users.

Remember, the with the first PowerMac, Apple took
great pains to ensure that the old 68k stuff worked,
even though they knew that eventually they'd support
only the PPC side.  But the users were important
enough for a compromise initial model and a few
years before 68k support was dropped.  This allowed
the users a graceful migration/transition.  Not so with
the Apple II to Mac transition (or should I say non-
transition).  We were left hanging.  Steve Jobs did not
think us worthy enough the effort.