Re: _Infinite Loop_ by Michael S. Malone

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Dennis Doms wrote:
> 
> In article <374AA45A.4A09B17B@swbell.net>, Rubywand
> <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> 
> >     We got a machine hobbled by compromises to squeeze in old-II compatibility and
> >no hard disk. "Support" included zilch documentation, a partially-finished
> >GS-BASIC, a make-do OS, and nearly zero applications and utilities. Given the GS
> >package which Apple delivered, it had darn well better have been backwards
> >compatible.
> 
> It is important to consider the state of the rest of the industry when
> critiqueing Apple. The IIgs had no hard disk at introduction, but hard
> disks were not considered standard on many computers at the time due
> to the extreme cost (they were optional on Mac models; the base SE had
> two 3.5 drives). It did have high-capacity disk drives, and
> third-party hard drives were usable on it. Apple should have been
> aggressive at providing a hard drive solution, though, and never was.
>

     A hard disk was fairly standard equipment on PC's at the time. In fact,
this is where you see the beginnings of an interesting feature of peripheral
pricing. It goes like this: Your hard disk costs $300-$350. Whatever the size
available-- then it was 20MB; now it is closer to 20GB-- when you buy a PC, the
"big hard disk" (but, not the biggest) is going to cost about $300-$350.

     $350 is not exactly an "extreme" price, especially when some poor II buyer
is blowing $400 to get a second 3.5" 800k floppy! And, that quite a few Mac,
etc. users might not consider it standard equipment is beside the point. It
takes just one major platform with standard hard disk to pose a problem. That
platform was PC, the guys who ended up winning.


 
> Apple provided developer tools but not user languages for their
> products at this time.

     True; Apple never did supply a decent GS language. Apple users were,
chiefly, BASIC programmers. A good GS BASIC should have been ready when the
IIgs was released.



> 
> The IIgs was not critically hobbled as introduced. The problem was the
> lack of aggressive support for the user base after the introduction.
> ("Gee, we've got your money, what else do you want?")
>

     Definitely, much of the problem was third-rate support. It's one reason
Apple is Out of a big chunk of today's market-- many IIgs users from that time
have resolved never again to purchase anything from Apple. When these people
have anything to say about computer purchases, they automatically eliminate
Mac.

    _IF_ you had had active II series support from Apple, then, sure, you could
point to the advantages and logic of old-II compatibility and point to the
IIgs-Plus released in 1988-- you know, the one with the 256-color video and
hard disk ready to compete with VGA+AdLib PC's in 1989.

     You could praise Apple for acting wisely in backing downward compatibility
and recall the 1988 $800 motherboard + case top (with hard disk) swap offer to
current GS owners as proof of Apple, Inc's II series commitment.

     Except, there was never a IIgs-Plus. However much one may love old-II
compatibility, the cost was a machine which, in 1989, could not be upgraded
with Slot plug-ins to match the competition.


 
> >     Had the GS arrived as a pure 4MHz '816 machine with 256-color video and 20MB
> >hard disk, hardly anyone would have missed old-II compatibility. Agreed, at first,
> >the machine would probably not attract the 'average home buyer'. But, within a
> >year, new games, productivity wares, and utilities would have attracted hordes of
> >new users.
> 
> If integrated compatibility wasn't the issue, then the IIgs could have
> been skipped for a Mac with an Apple II card (the eventual LC
> solution). That wasn't very popular, either.
> 

     Apple knew about microprocessor loyalties and about the desirability of
downward compatibility. They knew moving II users to a 68xxx-based Mac would
meet with some resistance and that at least a promise of an old-II plug-in
would be necessary.

     Still, looking back to that time, moving II users to Mac was doable. There
is just one reason it could not work: Apple wouldn't let it work.

     In the mid and late 1980's Apple was counting upon selling Mac's at
inflated prices to businesses and educational institutions. The company knew
home users would never pay anything like the fat prices it could squeeze from
business buyers.

     Yes; Apple would, later, take a stab at selling II users on the idea of
lower-end (lower performance) Macs. Just as the idea flopped for IBM-- remember
the PC jr.?-- it got nowhere for Apple. Much more so than business/educational
buyers, home users look for high performance.

     Back in 1984--1986, Apple had to choose between going for large volume
sales at moderate profit or aiming for limited sales at high profits. Every
chance the company had, it chose the latter.

     Apple pursued the quickie high-profits course through the mid/late 1980's
into the 1990's. The results have been roller coaster profits, loss of the home
market, loss of the business market, loss of the educational market, and--
despite for years having the best GUI OS-- loss of any say about the Standard
OS.

     Suppose, (going with your idea of moving II users to Mac) Apple, in 1986,
had wheeled out a top of the line color Mac with Slots and optional 20 MB hard
disk + a promise to deliver an optional old-II plug-in. Apple calls their new
Mac the "Super II", prices it at $1995 ($400 more for installed 20MB hard
disk), and, very likely, the machine sells like hotcakes among II users.

     The cost, to Apple, would have been loss, at least for a time, of
fat-profit business sales-- business buyers would be snapping up the "Super II"
Mac at the 'bargain' $1995 price, too. What Apple would have had is a unified
user base including most II users, many new home buyers, many businesses, and,
soon, most educational institutions. Had Apple managed to deliver the Mac
"Super II" in 1985, the benefits would have been even greater.



> >     The one year delay was very costly. With the fancy new Atari and Amiga plus
> >dropping prices on PC clones, there were many defections. 1985 was the year the II
> >user base ceased to dominate home computing.
> 
> As  I recall, the IIgs was one of the hottest sellling computers Apple
> released, at least early in its life. (Apple itself acknowledged this
> at its developer conferences. At least, the first year or so.)
>

     Virtually any decent looking "New Apple II" was guaranteed to be a hot
seller for a few months. There was a lot of pent up demand among II users. Once
old-II owners acquired the new II, sales depended upon 'open' competition with
PC, Amiga, and Atari ST. So, Apple got an impressive up-tick in sales followed
by a slide.


 
> The II made plenty of money at this time. The problem was that II
> (versus Mac) revenue was not reinvested proportionately to the product
> line.
 ....

     Of course. But, when you suggest significant investment of revenues in the
II series you are talking about a fundamental shift in corporate strategy.
Apple was determined to chase quickie high profits no matter what.



Rubywand