Re: OS For IIGS

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford) writes...

>Mitchell Spector (spec@vax2.concordia.ca) wrote:
>
>:     I wouldn't call it an unlikely event, more like a highly probable
>: event. It is no longer a matter of "if", just "when"; and with the
>: way things are going with Steve Jobs back in control, I figure they
>: won't even make it through to the end of next year.
>
>I take it you're talking about ending licensing. I can't figure out why
>people don't understand why this happened. It made good business sense to
>get rid of leech companies siphoning away sales from Apple while paying
>a pittance in license fees and expecting Apple to continue R&D with its
>dwindling revenue.

    That is only one of many reasons. Others including excessive pricing,
cutting corners on parts and manufacturing (Today's Macintosh is nothing
like the Mac's or Apple II's of a decade ago in terms of quality parts),
a blemished past and present in terms of support, the manufacturing of a
non-mainstream system that uses proprietary parts (which potentially is
okay since the Amiga was like that, but at least the Amiga offered
technology other platforms did not). I could go on and on.

>All the statistics show that the cloners weren't expanding
>the market share any.

    Apple II clones expanded the II market, PC clones expanded the PC
market, why would it not be any different for the Macintosh? Think of
what clones do for a minute. There is _competition_, and when there
is competition, innovation and advancements soon follow as each company
tries to out do the other. When only one company makes something they
have no competition and evolution of the system suffers. Look at the
Apple IIgs, Apple was the *sole* manufacturer of the machine for its
entire lifespan, yet it never evolved. In comparison, the Apple IIc
was being cloned by Laser and the development of the Apple IIc Plus
was a direct result of the Laser 128EX/2. Look at the PC market now,
there is innovation and change going on all over the place, every day,
and it is all due to competition. Imagine if IBM were still the sole
maker of the PC today, how far do you think it would have evolved?

    I only see two fairly major steps in the history of the Macintosh:
the first being the introduction of the Macintosh II line in 1987 that
brought color, slots and the move towards being modular. The next one
occurred in 1994, with the introduction of PowerPC RISC based Macs,
though despite the hype, didn't do much to catch the attention of
most computer using people out there. Sooner or later clones would
have forced Apple into competition and they'd have to work hard at
giving people reason to buy the _Apple_ Macintosh (the only reason
they've had for the longest time is "It is not a PC").

>: As a provider of software to the research market, we face the same
>: decision as The Math Works. The fraction of sales to the Macintosh
>: market is declining fast. Soon, it will no longer make business sense
>: for us to continue developing for the Macintosh.
>
>Just another pantywuss vendor buying into the hype.

    Whatever you may think he is, there are countless more like him
and his company doing the same. Even if they are just being scared
off by hype, the result will be the same in the end...less software.
After watching every single Apple II software and hardware developer 
disappear one by one, I'd hate to have to go through it again as a 
Mac user.

>: Macintosh machines are very reliable, and remain useful for much longer
>: than equivalent Windows machines, so we expect that our customers will
>: continue to use Macintosh systems for a long time. However, since most
>: software sales are for new computers, older Macintosh systems do not
>: constitute a significant market.
>
>Interesting observation. And true too, I'm using a box that debuted in '93.

    Yep, I couldn't help but notice my 5x86-133 (486 compatible) lasted
only about 10 months before I decided to upgrade to a Pentium. My Apple
II Plus lasted me a good 4 years and my Apple IIgs will have served me
a full _10 years_ as of next month which is not bad at all.

    The only thing is, that 486 box I retired is probably faster and
more capable than the 40 MHz Quadra 840AV your still using. :)

>: Our customers need high-performance machines. The clone makers provided
>: an alternative to Apple in that niche. It appears that when Apple ended
>: the clone market, Apple also convinced our customers that they should
>: find an alternative to the Macintosh.
>
>Only short sighted imbeciles swallowed this buncha bullpuckey. I for one
>think all revenue from Mac systems should go to the company who does the
>R&D on them.

    Well I for one don't like the idea of Apple having a monopoly on the
Macintosh once again, there is no advantage to this. What happens if you
don't like what Apple is selling, what alternatives do you have except
an alternative to the Macintosh itself, as mentioned above. As an example
closer to home, look at video cards for the Apple IIgs, there was only
ever one sold. Is it any wonder the Second Sight was such a piece of junk 
and was never supported or updated? OTOH, look at what competition did for
accelerator boards and SCSI controllers. I never did like the Apple HS
SCSI or AE TransWarp GS, luckly other companies knew they could do better
products and did, and in the end I got a RamFAST and ZipGS.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca