Re: Commodore and Apple

[Eric Smith <eric@brouhaha.com>]

Jim Brain wrote (perhaps quoting Jim Butterfield?):
> I was amazed both at how reachable Woz still is, and how the fate of
> Commodore and Apple may have been different.  I don't remember the
> initial PET price and how it compared to the Apple II price, but I
> believe the PET was much higher-priced.

The PET was introduced at a substantially lower price than the Apple II,
as was the Radio Shack TRS-80.  The Apple II probably had a lower
manufacturing cost than the PET, even if you don't consider the integral
video monitor and cassette drive in the PET, but that was not reflected
in the retail pricing.

> I suspect the overriding
> factor was Chuck wanting to do his own PC, and having the MOS fab at
> his disposal to make customICs, where Apple had no such fab, and used
> more off-the-shelf componentsfor the initial units.

The PET did use only off-the-shelf components.  The only custom
electronic components in either the Apple II or the PET were the
masked ROMs.