Re: Replacing the 6502 with a faster chip

[Dan Foster <usenet@evilphb.org>]

In article <p96dnQSW6I7vb7XcRVn-uQ@comcast.com>, Bill Garber <willy46pa@comcast> wrote:
>
> I know you would, but consider how valuable they might be if
> I never make any more and only 50 of them existed.  :o()

I have the highest respect for Bill (and quite a few others here), so
*please* don't take this the wrong way, for offense is honestly not
intended.

It is true that if supplies were intentionally limited, the value would
definitely skyrocket over time. It's your basic free market equation.

I would like to gently point out that most folks who buys or uses Apple
II series of computers do so as a labor of love, and not for the
monetary value of things.

Let's face it... the rest of the world considers anything based on the
6502 (or derivatives) as being either 'crap' or 'not a real computer'.
We know otherwise, of course. We still think it still makes magic, and
can be infinitely extended.

To limit quantities with the implicit purpose of driving up value would
be to deprive the community of a very useful resource.

It would be a shame to reduce the Apple II to pure dollar signs.

You don't see people here talking about how much their hardware is
worth. They talk lovingly about how well their Apple IIs were built, and
how it's easy to get them revived even after some healthy amount of
damage... and contrast that to modern computers that don't hold up
anywhere near as well.

Recouping expenses, time/labor, and turn a profit is certainly
understandable and laudable, but the idea of intentionally limiting
sales for the sole purpose of driving up monetary value is, well... a
little harder to understand. :)

Ultimately, I'll stand by whatever Bill elects to do, especially in
light of health concerns. I just hope whatever Bill elects to do is done
for the right reasons, is all.

-Dan