Re: Apple ///?

[rubywand@swbell.net]

B.J. Major writes ...
> 
> In reply to:
> 
> >      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. :)
> 
> That last sentence "now that Apple has finally killed off the Apple //"; 
> I think you need to revisit history.  The decision to no longer support
> .... has nothing to do with the present state of affairs at Apple
> Computer.  Their present problems are caused by these things:
> 
> 1.  Insufficient and weak advertising--especially television.

     Lots of prospective buyers have seen Mac TV spots which do a decent 
job of explaining why Mac is a better PC than a PC. Moreover, the ads 
encounter virtually no competition. The problem is price. Vis-a-vis a 
166Mhz MMX or plain Pentium, Mac and Mac clones cost too much for most 
shoppers.


> 2.  Waiting much too long to license the Mac OS & hardware to Mac clone 
> makers.

     It is not clear that high-priced clones would have garnered notably 
more Mac users in the battle with cheapo PC's. Meanwhile, Apple was able 
to sell its genuine Macs at a high price with no competition from cloners.
 
    
> 3.  Until recently, expensively high prices for anything with the Apple
> name on it.

     Apple's prices are, still, too high.


> 4.  Bad management and bad CEOs (present one excluded) for the last
> several years

     Actually, Apple's management has been very good in most respects. It 
did, for several years, managed to show a profit, pay stock holders, and 
support numerous employees with a product which runs PC software no better 
than a PC selling for half as much.

     If the complaint is that Apple leadership has failed to be inspired 
or that it lacks 'an Idea', then, there is no argument. Making the best of 
a bad situation is only moderately impressive when your own basic lack of 
vision has created and/or continues to maintain the bad situation.   


> --enough to do it permanent damage from which it may not recover.

     The current leadership does not appear to be especially inclined to 
'take the bull by the horn' and make a genuine fight for the home market. 
Unless Apple can come up with something affordable, non-boring, and non-PC 
pretty soon, there is no question that it will be out of the 
computer-making business well before the turn of the century.

     
> 
> I don't happen to agree with Apple's decision to axe the // line
> (especially the //gs), but the Macintosh was gaining strong momentum and
> much more visible and in use as a standard platform than what we see
> now. To blame Apple's present problems on the decision to axe the
> // line is shortsighted at the least.
>

     Yes; when a company spends most of an 8-year period trying to demean, 
make invisable, and otherwise squash a product line, it only makes sense 
to axe it when success is achieved.

     Mac was a good idea. A compact, cute, closed-box computer with 
high-resolution graphics and mouse-friendly OS could be sold at a premium 
price. Going to the 68000 and rendering the new machine incompatible with 
the Apple II was a silly, needless, and, possibly, fatal error.

     It was, always, the II users (and Atari 800 and C-64 users) who had 
'the vision'. It is Atari, Commodore, and Apple which, in the end, have 
proved to be shortsighted. 


Rubywand