🚀 go-pugleaf

chyang@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Chung-Hsiung Yang) writes:
>In article <dalst6+-2709951700030001@ehdup-g-10.rmt.net.pitt.edu>,
>Luis A. Diaz <dalst6+@pitt.edu> wrote:
>>In article <44c8h7$i71@cheltenham.cs.arizona.edu>, kline@CS.Arizona.EDU
>>(Nick Kline) wrote:
>>
>>>Sure, apple is apparently suffering from not having enough components
>>>available, but with more buyers (ie gateway) it would only encourage
>>>more people to make mac components.
>>
>>Think about this for more than about 3 seconds...  There are X number of
>>components being made.  The demand RIGHT NOW, AT THIS INSTANT for these
>>components is much much greater than X.  Therefore there is already a
>>GREAT pressure on these companies to expand their manufacturing
>>capabilites so that they can MAKE MORE $.  
>
>	Well, no, that is not exactily the point.  Apple's shortage
>in component is really create by the way they run their business.  They
>would not allow anyone else to make their subsystems  without their consent
>because they want to keep much of the technologies proprietary.  Even if Apple

More likely, they just screwed up their market forecasting. Otherwise
they would have contracted some extra production for their components
and satisfied the demand for theor machines. There are probably either
technical or long-term financing problems that mean they don't do this.

They may still want to keep things proprietry, but this scenario still
doesn't make sense since you could build a Mac out of almost any hardware
as long as you wrote the device drivers for it. 

>wanted to allow clone makers to enter the game, they keep strict specifications
>on how things are supposed to be designed and requires manufactures to pay
>an substantial amount of royalties.  Now all this has been done  to 

I don't think it makes sense to build a clone Macintosh at this stage
unless you are building an *exact* clone. The market is too uncertain
and Apple's reputation too valuable to go for anything 'unusual'.
Also, assuming Apple is serious about CHRP then expending energy
(and market inertia) on premature cloning is a waste; the few clones
you see are mostly in niche markets and probably amount to little more
than testing the potential for a clone market.

>keep Apple's hardwre division alive.  One example is the SCSI controller, 
>on the surface it is an SCSI controller like all other, but Apple has 
>purposely built in some annoying incompatibilities so that the only
>way you could get the controllers and devices are from a handful of 
>tiny manufactures. 

Could you provide a reference for that please? [I'm trying to build a
list of Apple hardware oddities.]

>	Ideally, what people would really like to do is to buy SCSI
>controller from an company like Adaptec so that you could hook your
>PC SCSI-II disks or SUN-CD ROMS onto your Apple Macintosh.  But you

Since all Macintoshes come with SCSI controllers I doubt the market
is large enough to attract much attention. There are a couple of
add-on SCSI controllers available though.

I never had any trouble installing PC SCSI disks onto my Macintoshes
(needs third party driver software, or a hacked version of Apple's)
and I have used ex-workstation tape drives etc. with no problem.
[Well, I did have trouble fitting the 84MB 5.25" Seagate into the
Mac SE - but that isn't what you meant.]

>can't.  Adaptec for example has no motivation to build Apple-SCSI 
>controller.  I mean lets face it, Adaptec has made billions by making 
>PC SCSI controllers why would they want to tap into Apples 8% PC market
>and pay another 3/4% to Apple?  Hence you have your shortage in 
>Machintosh componenets.

Well, why not just drop one of those PCI SCSI controllers into a
PCI slot? Answer - you need to write a driver. Software is a much
more likely reason for Adaptec not to enter the market than weird
hardware. But their prices are still too high to be of interest. 

>>Obviously, when CHRP arrives, Gateway will be free to do whatever the hell
>>they want in terms of bundling components (as long as they meet the specs)
>>and in bundling OS's like MacOS.  Nobody is preventing them from entering
>>the MacClone world, they just cant do it at a time when it would hurt
>>apple far more than it would help.
>
>	I don't know much  about CHRP, but it looks like another IBM
>micro-channel debacle.  As long as Apple controls the specs the way they
>have in the past, their 
>market share will remain as is now.  Chung's law of electronics economics sez
>that the best way to expand the market is to allow free competition.
>This will allow a myriad of little eager companies to freely make 
>components and be as innovative as they can.  The key I guess is how much 
>will Apple want to control CHRP.  Would CHRP allow the type of free 
>competition as seen in teh PC world?  Would it generate enough interest
>and have enough potential to movitivate electronics manufacturers to get
>into the act?  Would people who are not Mac advocates even care?

CHRP's potential is as a common hardware design for PPC based machines.
Apple is a sufficiently large part of that potential market that
ignoring them would be plain stupid - but letting them rule the design
of boxes to run AIX, OS/2, or Windows NT would be equally stupid.

Regards,
        Julian.