Re: New Apple II (was Apple's next move ...)

[rubywand@aol.com (RUBYWAND)]

In article <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960517105455.9071B-100000@ns1.net-gate.com>,
Forrest <forrest@ns1.net-gate.com> writes:

>
>.... Apple has no commitment to the Apple II series.  This is after all 
>the company that discontinued all the peripherals at the same time that 
>they discontinued the line.  Some companies would have at least sold the 
>manufacturing rights to another company, but not Apple.
>
>     Which brings up the question of people who look at Apple's behavior 
>toward the Apple II and its user base and decide not to buy M@cintosh 
>equipment -- not because the products aren't attractive, but because the 
>company is utterly contemptible.
>
>     This is certainly an identifiable market segment.  But I doubt very 
>much it's large enough to attract Apple's attention, let alone change 
>twelve years of corporate philosophy.
>
> >Apple should aim for II compatibility because many II users
> >demand it.
>
>     Should, yes.  Will...that's something else again. ....


     The IIe pretty well demonstrated an end to Apple's "II series
commitment". By 1983 it was time for something like the IIgs; instead, we
got a II+ makeover.

     Beginning with Apple III and Mac, Apple's strategy has been to target
relatively small high-profit markets. It has produced some notable
successes as well as dangerous failures.

     Fortunately for the company, it's 'II series insurance' was still
paid up in 1986. When the quickie profits strategy flashed, Apple was able
to get a critical boost from IIgs.

     An interesting feature of the IIgs turn-around is that actual
revenues were probably less important than the surge of renewed confidence
in Apple's future. Basically, it was okay to buy a Mac because Apple was
not going to crater thanks to support of its II user base!


     The rationale for demonstrating a "renewed commitment to the II
series" in 1996 has nothing to do with II user devotion to Apple or the
company's fond regard for II users. The rationale is survival.

     Apple's new Consumate Enlightened One is free to hold press
conferences and explain how reduced product lines and tighter efficiency
will lead to prosperity. 'Industry observers' are free to print reports
about "take charge leadership". If the result is to buy a few months
before the roof caves in, good.

     No single big name PC manufacturer can expect to make any real
headway battling no-name 'grud' clone makers. Their profit margins are too
small; development-production cycles are too rapid; ongoing price drops
border on the insane. (In fact, a good argument can be made that _not_
buying a PC is one of the best investments around. You can 'earn' 5-10%
per week!)

     Check sales reports for the top five PC manufacturers. They show a
bloody battle for a steadily shrinking piece of the pie. Apple is simply
the first big name maker to face a permanent exit.

     Producing a new non-PC "Apple II" just for the current II user base
probably would not make sense to Apple. On the other hand, producing any
non-PC which does not attract II user support would be a silly blunder.

     The new, high-performance, integrated IIGSX makes sense for Apple
because it wins II user backing _and_ promises to cash in on the "Apple
II" myth among non-II home computer shoppers looking for a fun,
user-friendly alternative to PC.  

     Price is very important. If Apple can deliver IIGSX at something like
$1500, it can expect to win a nice chunk of the home market.


Rubywand