Re: A Black Apple ][??

[shoppa@alph02.triumf.ca (Tim Shoppa)]

In article <5270vh$va@news.emi.com>, Edhel Iaur <drsmooth@relex.com> wrote:
>harold.h@genie.com (Harold Hislop) wrote:
>
>>Chris (lewandow@u.arizona.edu) said & asked:
>
>>That was a Bell & Howell variant of the Apple ][+. These were built by
>>Apple, but as you noted, in a black case (and with a Bell & Howell
>>sticker where the Apple one would have been)
>
>What bona-fide Apple did it pretend to be?  ][?  ][+?
>
>Apple has been historically, ah, "opposed" to other companies
>"muscling in on their terriory".  Why did Apple go for this deal?
>(Yes, I do believe they exist; I saw one once in school)

Because they were built by Apple, Apple still made a profit on
each one.  It's not as if another company "muscled in" on their
territory - Bell and Howell was selling Apples for Apple.  Bell and
Howell had the advantage that they were already *extremely* well
established in the audiovisual marketplace.

Tim. (shoppa@triumf.ca)