🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <57900011@sfu_cmpt> mcdonald@sfu_cmpt.cs.sfu writes:
>
>Unfortunately, Apple seems to be ignoring long term gains (i.e. domination
>of the micro market) for higher profits in the short term.  This is silly,
>as if you hit IBM over the head three or four thousand times with a blunt,
>heavy object, they will wake up to the fact that something is amiss, and
>respond to it in their typical clumsy, lumbering fashion--which they have
>started to do already.  Apple still has an opportunity to corner the market,
>but not for much longer.  Who knows, five years from now i might (shudder)
>end up buying an IBM system.

An friend of mine had an intesting counter to this argument.  There were
three companies with 6502 machines: Apple with their Apple //, Commodore
with the C64 and Atari with the 800.  Commodore and Atari got into a price
cutting war with each other so that now you can get either for about $80.
Apple went right on their way selling machines for > $1000.  Who is doing
well now?  I'll give you a hint, it's not Atari and it's not Commodore.

As far as IBM is concerned in will be 3 to 4 years before they are where
Apple is today, i.e. a windowed multi-tasking OS with lots of applications
that are native to it.  And Apple has several advantages.  First is time.
3 to 4 years is a long time in this bussiness (the IBM PC was introduced
only 5 years ago).  Second is they don't have several products competing
with each other.  IBM will have DOS and OS/2, leading to mass confusion 
among it's customers.  

Apple may loose some cusotmers in the low end of the market, but it is
in very good shape to compete at the high end.  I'm putting my money on Apple.

Jerry Whitnell                           It's a damn poor mind that can only
Communication Solutions, Inc.            think of one way to spell a word.
						-- Andrew Jackson
>
>Ken McDonald
>{...!ubc-vision!sfu-cmpt!mcdonald}