[no subject]

> 
> : And the decision to "kill off the Apple //" 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.
> 
> During the Apple ][ years, Apple showed exactly ONE (1) television ad
> per year.  This is likely not the problem.

It is a different world now.  Companies live and die by advertising.  Last
night during a one-hour prime time tv show, I saw three ads for IBM and
their computers.  Microsoft is hammering away at the public with "Where do
you want to go today?".  If Apple does not get in an aggressive position,
the public will believe the hype about the company not being significant
anymore and think it doesn't even exist.

> 
> : 2.  Waiting much too long to license the Mac OS & hardware to
> : Mac clone makers.
> 
> This wasn't a problem for the Apple II; in fact, Apple sued clone makers.

This is a moot point.  When you're the only game in town you can charge
anything you want and get away with it because the public needs it.  IBM
clones killed off this whole idea forever.

> 
> : 3.  Until recently, expensively high prices for anything with the Apple
> : name on it.
> 
> This wasn't a problem for the Apple II, despite the fact that the Apple
> II's were also expensive.

Same answer as above #2.

> 
> : 4.  Bad management and bad CEOs (present one excluded) for the last several
> : years--enough to do it permanent damage from which it may not recover.
> 
> Apple ALWAYS has had bad management.  Apple ///.  Lisa.  Mac part 1.
> 
> : 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.
> 
> No, accurate.  And it would be LONGsighted, anyway.

Let's say for argument's sake that the 8-bit // line was discontinued when
they did, but they left open further development of the //gs.  Just how
long do you think this could have gone on?  Computers are now pushing 64
bit CPUs and such; a machine with a dual 8/16 bit CPU as the //gs has would
not have lasted much longer.  It would have had to eventually get totally
revised, rebuilt, new CPU to replace the old, new OS, etc. etc.  So what
would be left of what you now know as the //gs?  Not much.

> 
> Tell me, precisely, what is the current vision of Apple?  I think it's
> to remain alive for the next three years, which, imho, is NOT a vision
> likely to buoy the company for any long-term sense of time.
> 
> And a stockholder (like me) is supposed to be bullish.  If I'm bullish,
> I'd hate to know what a bear thinks.

To ask the current vision of Apple you'll have to ask Apple.  If you are so
down on the company, I can't understand why you are a stockholder to begin
with. IMHO, Apple needs support right now and people like yourself aren't
willing to provide it.

--bj
Apple //--///--Macintosh user/supporter/collector