Re: Apple ///?

[ps10600@cedarnet.org]

In article <1APR199702301346@vax2.concordia.ca>,
  spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:
> >>     As things turned out, the Apple III was a miserable failure and
> >>so was the Apple Lisa. Despite that, the Apple II not only kept the
> >>company afloat, but highly profitable too (which came as a surprise
> >>to management at the Apple Computer). Oddly enough, Apple once again
> >>decided to try and replace the Apple II, this time with the Macintosh,
> >>but yet again their new computer didn't do to well and _again_ it was
> >>the Apple II that kept the company afloat and profitable. By the late
> >>80's the Mac was strong enough to stand on it's own though, so this
> >>3rd replacement had worked out. Ironically though, now that Apple has
> >>finally killed off the Apple II, it doesn't look like the company will
> >>have any future. :)

Yep..IBM killed off the PC Jr and Commodore killed off the Vic20..  Whats
your
point?

> >I wouldn't write 'em off quite so fast. 50000 Powerbook 3400s sold in a two
> >week stretch, double digit market share again, and other stuff says they're
> >on the way back. They're what, the third best selling brand these days?

Getting back on top takes time considering the 5300 fiasco.. Apple should
do
well with PowerBook sales this current quarter and may well as save their
ass
considering their supply problems with their desktop line.

>     I just read they laid off something like 4000-5000 workers a few weeks
> back. Come to think of it, each time I see something about Apple mentioned
> in the business section of the newspaper, it's more bad-news. I'm still
> watching to see what happens, but I'm wouldn't buy stock in the company. ;)

Apple needed to refocus on their bread and butter, The Mac divsion.  Apple
was
getting distracted by working on hundreds of projects that eventualy
failed to
bring to the bottom line.  Apple focused and reduced R&D to get their
finances
in order.  Same thing will eventually will happen to Microsoft in the
future.
Microsoft is spreading outside of their OS and app business to content
areas
and other markets not related to their core business.  This will be their
undoing!

>     With all the PC can do (preemptive multitasking, real music synthesis,
> complex games, more variety/expandability, etc.) which the Mac can't do or
> offer at the moment, along with the fact PC clones are cheaper, custom
> configurable and more available -- not to mention have a GUI more than
> comparable to the Finder -- how does Apple expect to survive? The PowerMac
> hasn't exactly made people stop dead in their tracks and jump back to
> Apple, nor has System 7.5.6 made much of a splash in the computer world.
> I may sound like I'm putting down the Mac, but there needs to be significant
> _advantages_ to make people think twice before rushing out and buying a
> generic PC clone. The argument about easy of use and plug'n'play doesn't
> cut it anymore, PC's have or are quickly catching up in that area, so what's
> left? I'm not much of a PC fan, but when it came time to choose between the
> two, I found more pluses on the PC side.

Have you talked to wintel 95 users lately.  Many are pissed that their DOS
games do not work properly.  Plug and pray is alive and well in Redmond.

As for your asertion that PC clones are cheaper is fallacy and shows that
you
have not been in the Mac picture for awhile.
180 mhz PowerMacs from Apple(6400/180), Motorola and APS can be had for
$1199
which includes CD rom, adequate memory and HD size.  You can purchase OEM
Motorola Mac OS motherboards with processors starting in the $500 range.

There are significant advantages for the Mac is their strength in
multimedia,
internet and digital video.  True plug n play.  Can't say the same for
wintel.

>
>     Apple has had a history of abandoning it's users in terms of support.
> I've seen it done with the Apple III, the Lisa and first hand as an
> Apple II owner (lately I've even seen repeating trends with the Mac).
> It's rather like patting a dog and getting your hand bit, your not going
> to try and pat the dog again so quickly. Still, this is only part of it,
> just a bad taste in my mouth and probably others out there. If Apple were
> selling technology I liked, I'd probably hold back my gripes and purchase
> from them again. Unfortunately the Mac has failed to catch my interest,
> and I'm turned off by the low-quality hardware they're now being made up
> of (at one time if you bought Apple hardware, you _knew_ it was quality,
> but today they're cutting back and throwing any junk at the users in hopes
> that they'll be computer "newbies" and not know any better). There is
> a whole list of reasons why I don't see a future for Apple, and there
> most likely won't be, unless things drastically change...

Apple gave Lisa users a price break on Mac Plus with HD's as I recall.
Apple's
quality has risen with the new PowerBook and Desktop line released in the
last
month.  And you think PC hardware is quality?
>
> >I'm still having trouble figuring how people think the II could still be
> >a state of the art platform in the late '90s, held back by '70s architecture.
> >Apple could do a PCI card like their Pentium DOS card, or offer Gus as a
> >free product, but only running on an up to date platform.
>
>     I'm talking about the Apple IIgs, it was different from the rest of
> the Apple II line. You won't get any argument from me about pushing the
> Apple IIe, IIc or IIc+ in the 90's, that would have been a mistake. They
> could however, have updated the IIgs, just as they did with the original
> Mac 128 (as someone else mentioned here a few months ago). Had they done
> that, I'll bet they wouldn't have lost most of the home and education
> market to PC clones. They had their foot in the door there, but yanked it
> out and came back later with Macs as a solution -- bad move (yes, the Mac
> is a fine computer, but an evolved IIgs would have been a better solution
> for home users and schools. Or at the very least, Apple could have held
> onto that market longer). What was even the point of the IIgs if they
> were just planning to kill it all along?

Apple eliminated some of the bumps to upgrade to the Mac from the Apple II
era.  Most of the peripherals such as printers and external drives worked
on
the Mac eliminating some cost.

The Apple IIGS and the II came to end of the life cycle.  It was not
feasible
to continue the II line with miniscule improvements.  Apple wanted to get
their Apple II k-12 customers on the Mac via the Mac LC to thwart any
wintel
penetration.  The Mac is the ultimate k12 computer than the II is today.
Apple did provide a II card for the LC so schools could preserve their
Apple
II software library and investment.

Apple did support the Apple II technology as long as they could.  Do
manufactures of 8086, 286 and 386 PC's still support those line?


> >>the advanced features of the machine. By purposely crippling the product,
> >>this shows just what kind of company Apple Computer is (things didn't change
> >>years later when the Apple IIgs was introduced, it too had things purposely
> >>crippled or left out so to force you to buy them as extras). As for software,
> >>little was really written, other than business applications and productivity
> >>software.

Made no sense for the consumers to invest in a GS system because of the
end of
the life cycle.  Apple knew it and that why they made sure that their
peripherals were cross platformed compatible with the Mac.

>     Apple is not some kindhearted, caring company. In fact they don't
> even seem capable of making levelheaded business decisions (putting
> so much effort into killing a successful product is not a way to be
> profitable). I disagree with people who blindly bash the Macintosh
> because Apple choose it over the Apple II (I like to judge a machine
> for the machine itself, not the company) but by the same token, I
> no more like it when Apple blindly praise Apple and pretend what
> they did in the past didn't happen (or try and find logic in it).

What ever...Apple's K-12 customers were telling Apple to make a line of
low
cost Mac line for them.  The bulk of the Apple II installed base were to
the
education/k12 market.  Apple has done well responding to their needs and
still
is today with their recent roll out of the PowerMac 5500 and 6500 line.

Apple's K-12 customers indicated to Apple that they need to move on with
the
Mac and away from the Apple II.

> Mitchell Spector
> spec@vax2.concordia.ca

Peter Sinclair-Day

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet