Re: Wozniak vs Jobs

[regnirps@aol.com (Regnirps)]

shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford) wrote:
>>
The propaganda I'm sick of is this "Apple crippled the IIgs to keep it from
competing with Macs" crap. I swear, militant Apple II users must be the only
people around who can't grasp the concept of a product line with differing
price and performance levels. They sold Apple IIs on the low end of the price
and performance scale, and Macs higher up. Later they came out with low cost
Macs to cover the bottom end, and Apple IIs vanished. That's not so difficult
a concept if you ask me. I don't recall ever seeing a Classic II owner saying
"Apple left out color and crippled my '030 with a 16 bit bus so it won't
compete with the Quadra." Mac users get it.
>>

Very good. You have identified, perhaps unknowingly, the clasic Apple marketing
blunder that has always been dominated by the Steve Jobs personality quirk.
Namely, the idea that after you have been selling something, you do not use
your initial position (like say desktop publishing in the case of the Mac) as a
wedge for expanding into broader areas (like say corporate or financial or
CAD/CAM computing). Instead you have to invent "The Next Great Thing" or a "New
Insanely Great Thing" and start all over with a new group of users and a new
area to penetrate.

Thus the Apple II could not evolve into an ARM based 32 bit platform, it had to
be replaced by something completely new. Had someone been in charge who
understood basic sales and marketing Apple would have the 95% market share
today, no question. Penetrate and exand, penetrate and expand. Ask Bill Gates
or IBM (Still ten times bigger than Microsoft) or Dell or SUN.

It is only Apple that has this flawed approach to finding customers and serving
them. What we need is Apple's technical inovation and Gates business inovation
combined.

Charlie Springer

P.S. Anybody who tells you a 4 MHz 65816 outruns an 8 MHz 68000 (original Mac)
is out of their friggin mind.