🚀 go-pugleaf

>Keywords: The Usenet Twit Factor is rising :-(
>
In article <1084@lts.UUCP> amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) writes:
>WARNING: This article contains blunt language and may be offensive to
>family audiences.  It is also my final word on the subject, at least
>on this go-around.  Sigh.  Some of us have work to do.

I hesitate to lock horns with such a gargantuan intellect, but since Amanda
seems to singularly lack perspective, I must...


> Amanda lists her credentials

Golly!  Hmm, since we're comparing the dates of our programming references,
what's yours?  My loose-leaf version is March 1984.  Does this mean that if
I'm a few weeks senior to you, my viewpoint is more valid?  WONDERFUL!


>   The Macintosh was originally sold as a CONCEPT--with neither the
>   software or hardware being adequate to support that concept.
>
>Bullshit.  Nothing is sold as a concept (aside, perhaps, from real
>estate scams :-)).  The Mac was and is sold as a product.  There was
>and is a concept behind the product, and that concept *still* isn't
>fully realized, but that's a separate issue.

No, NOT bullshit, Amanda.  The TRUTH.  The Macintosh was marketed on its
concept.  I have dozens of magazine articles, ranging from the Wall Street
Journal to St. Mac, which make a great deal of the CONCEPT of the Macintosh.
I must emphasize this point, since the architecture itself was not usable--
certainly not by PC standards.  If Apple's own marketing figures are to be 
believed, at least 100,000 users were stuck with using MacWrite, MultiPlan,
Habadex, and MS-BASIC for at least nine months--and it actually took as long
as a year and a half to get some good software.


>   one was instantly forced into software
>   obsolescence.  Original 128K owners have payed up to $4495 to keep their
>   computer "current."  
>
>At this point, the 64K ROM->128K ROM upgrade has become and upgrade or
>die situation, but IF AND ONLY IF you need new software.  Even this has
>more to do with software companies than Apple.

No, not really--software companies will take advantage of the hardware plat-
form.  It's unrealistic not to expect them to do so.  In reality, the Macintosh
128 (we're talking memory, not ROM's) was a short-sighted concept: when Apple
should have been making computers, it was building toasters.  If the engineer-
ing articles in Byte in '84 and '85 are to be believed, the original Macintosh
was not what it could have been.

To this day, I have difficulty understanding why the Mac 128 was not released
with at least a high-speed hard disk interface.  Of course, if we give the
gripers on usenet credit, this might be an example of planned obsolescence--
release a limited computer, with lots of marketing (ala NeXT), fund R&D for
the next year or so on initial sales, then nuke it later on, replacing it
with a USEFUL computer.  If this is the case, wouldn't you agree that the
tradition of mistrusting Apple upgrades is somewhat justified?



>   I do, however, think that the Plus-era is perfectly usable for 99% of us--
>   I like mine, and have no interest in upgrading in the foreseeable future--
>
>Right.  So who cares if it's obsolete?  I'm serious here.  A lot of
>people (at least on Usenet) seem to think they have a right to have
>the best now, because when they bought their machine, it was the best
>then.  They don't think this way about their cars, or their stereos,
>or whatever; I don't see why the computer ought to be any different.

Just how many people are griping about the Plus being obsolete?  Not me.  And
not anyone I know.  Seems to me that the people griping loudest are those 
who spend thousands of dollars right before a machine introduction--such as
people who bought SE's in January, right before the SE/30 introduction.  The 
typical "industry" reply is to say that someone would be an idiot to buy a 
Macintosh in January, but a lot of computer users ARE idiots.  Do you think 
that these users should then be forced to take a loss on their SE investment, 
then pour an extra couple grand into buying a superior machine?  I don't. 

I DO think that a means should be made to meet these people halfway.  It 
might not be economical, but it keeps the customer happy.



>It sure doesn't seem that way to me.  The IIx, IIcx, and SE/30 seem quite
>well designed to me.  And I've been on a hardware design team.  And yes,
>it was a commercial one, not a class project :-).

I'm glad you're proud of your vitae, Amanda.



>   When they stabilize with
>   an architecture, or maybe design an expandable architecture, I'll jump
>   on the bandwagon.
>
>Like maybe the PC/XT/AT/PS2/clone "architecture"? :-).  Apple's done a
>good job balancing changing technology and product stability.  It's hard.

No, like the Apple II architecture--the basic 1978-era machine could be
expanded and modified to keep place with technology until the current day.
That's a far cry from the nine-month obsolescence period of current Mac's.
If you want a more sophisticated example, what about S-100 systems?


>The same boards work in a IIcx that work in a II or IIx (or even an SE/30
>if you buy an expansion chassis...). 

How about an SE?  Uh-huh...


> The same software runs on an
>SE/30 as on a Mac Plus.  It runs it better, granted, but that's part of
>the point of a growing product line.

Just how does it run it "better"?  What is your criteria?  Seems to me that
it runs it FASTER, but that's only due to brute-force clock speed.  Surely,
having been a member of a hardware design team, you can clarify your thoughts
better than THAT.



>   All of which I'm sure Apple more than takes care of in its 1000%
>   price mark-ups.
>
>More bullshit.  

You MUST be a college graduate...  


>Apple makes a lot of money.  Apple also (so far) has been
>willing to spend a lot of money on the future.  Apple is driving its own
>technology, something that costs a lot of money and involves a lot of
>risk.

My premiss is that Apple makes a lot more money than it spends on R&D.  When
one considers the tales of, for example, how the Mac 128 was priced, it's
very easy to cultivate a distrust of the company's pricing structures.  And
yes, Amanda, any child knows that there are substantial development costs--
but the issue here is whether, on a $2500 machine, the $200 hardware costs
exceed the development and marketing costs.  Which I believe to be the case.

By the way, Amanda, how does your "development" theory fit into the incredible
overpricing on Apple peripherals?  I mean, merely THAT is sufficient cause
to question the pricing of the CPU boxes.



>A PC clone manufacturer has to recoup the cost of hardware, and that's
>about it.  Apple has to do a lot more.  And they do it well.

That's a matter of opinion.  Unless, of course, you are adding relevant
insight into Apple's problems, and not merely drawing uncorrelated parallels
from your own experiences.



>What's AppleCare?

A protection racket.



>Apple's not perfect.  No computer company is.  I happen to think, for a
>lot of reasons, that Apple's the best we've got

Yes, they produce most usable equipment.  However, I think that Apple
also has a very large number of disgruntled customers.  As soon as a realistic
market competitor appears (if they dare run the gauntlet of Apple's lawyers), 
I think that's going to be the end of Apple Computer.  In today's market,
though, I'm not going to hold my breath.  

And now, to quote the USENET Power Poster's Guide:

No Flames! :-)


> people just don't understand the economics of the industry

Yep, it's hard to understand 35% annual growth rates, all right.


>Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation



Cheers,

Robert Dorsett
Internet: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mentat