🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7341@pdn.paradyne.com> alan@oz.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy) writes:
|
|<NEXT can only be saved if Steve Jobs replaces the 680X0
|<with RISC processor like the Sparc chip.  In all compute
|<intensive applications, the Sparcstation I beats the NEXT
|<timewise.  Worse, NEXT costs MORE than a Sparstation I.
|
|Well, he has lots of choices here.

Agreed.  But Sparc now has a huge software base that could
easily be modified to fit the I/O of the NEXT, which BADLY
needs software, if NEXT were to incorporate the SPARC chipset.

|<Too, the extra gadetry (like the DSP chip) on the NEXT is
|<unlikely to be used by engineers doing compute-intensive 
|<applications.  The DSP might help out in making
|<a realistic video game; otherwise, its deadweight.
|<What difference does it make if you can play Beethoven's
|<fifth on the NEXT?  
|
|Perhaps his target market is not engineers?  Whatever.  It's clear
|that his prices, machine capabilities and marketing strategy are not 
|in harmony.
|

Ain't that the truth.  What I don't understand about NEXT is what
kind of major market is it supposed to be aimed at.  Some dude
mentioned that the world has musicians as well as engineers.  Fine.
But musicians seem like too small of a market for the kind of
sales projection that Jobs made.  Then, Jobs points out that the NEXT
is great for word-processing.  So what?  IBM/MAC can do a more than
adequate job.  Why spend close to 10K for a NEXT?

Jobs initially aimed his machine at higher education.  Now, he's
shooting for business.  I'll tell you why.  In the higher education
market, his machine loses twice:  high price and low performance.
People who do reports, write short stories, etc. aren't going to
shell out that kind of money for just word processing.  That covers
liberal arts.  Look at the other principal field:  the technoids.
Why would an engineering dept. pay close to 10K for a NEXT when 
the dept. can get a Sparcstation I for close to that price and
for an order of magnitude performance in number-crunching.

So, Jobs was squeezed out of the higher education market.  The
one thing that Jobs didn't count on back in mid 1980 was the
rise of the RISC machines.  What hurt him was the very long
product development time of NEXT.  He expected that back in mid-1980
(when he conceived of NEXT) there would be nothing like RISC.

The graphics (assuming no RISC machines) and the powerful
680x0 (assuming no RISC machines) would have been great for
running some snazzy graphics-filled simulations of say, molecular
reactions.  The DSP chip (assuming no RISC machines) would have
been great for signal processing experiments in EE.

Now, against RISC, NEXT with its 680x0 looks flimsy.  Most
of the RISC computers have great graphics and better number
crunching.  As for DSP, I see no reason why a DSP peripheral
can't be attached to one of these RISC computers.  The conclusion
is that RISC has effectively locked NEXT out of a major market.

The other major market is controlled by IBM/MAC.  So, back to
my original question, what kind of major market is NEXT supposed
to be aimed at?  What makes NEXT better than the dominant machines
in those markets?

Note that when MAC appeared, it had significant software features that
were not present in other machines.  (features = easy-to-use user
interface, incredibly easy to use word processing, icon-driven menus
etc)  But NEXT doesn't have any significant software feature that are
not present in other machines.

|<I know.  Steve's going to upgrade the NEXT to a 68040.
|<Even then, the Sparc chip set is faster.
|
|How do you know that?  Have you benchmarked a 68040?

source: Businessweek