NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/hardware-part1/1537

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 8.0 KB

Path: slip162.ucs.orst.edu!user
From: me@3.3.3 (fff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Apple troubles benefit Amiga?
Date: 17 Jan 1996 19:55:28 GMT
Organization: me
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: slip153.ucs.orst.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Dave Haynie) wrote:

> In <[e-mail]>, John Covington <[e-mail]> writes:
> >Wells Fargo Bank wrote:
>
> >> I understand that they are considering aiming at the higher-end Mac market
> >> and leaving the entry level machines to stream-line their company again.
> >> The low-end machines are less profitable, but this could be Amigas ace
> >> in the hole.  I don't believe this problem with Apple will be long term,
> >> but if it lasts for 4 to 6 months, it could benefit the Amiga.
>
> Well, Apple's problems have been on-going for years, I don't think
> they're going way in the next 4-6 months. Dropping the low end might
> eventually be feasible if there's a thriving Mac clone market to
> support that low end. Right now, there isn't. And without the volume
> on the low end to drive up the installed base and home sales, software
> companies will be less and less willing to regard the Mac as a general
> purpose system. But Apple doesn't seem to want a niche machine, and
> their vast size makes that impossible anyway.
>
> >Then you don't really understand the problems at Apple, do you?  What
> >Apple is saying is that it is conceding the battle for market share
> >because it can't compete.
>
> Apple was never in a position to compete with commodity systems, and
> they've waffled on the only solution -- becoming a commodity
> themselves. A common PowerPC hardware platform could have happened two
> or three years ago, if Apple had been willing to play the game as an
> equal partner with IBM and Motorola, rather than balk at
> standardizing. The parts that go into PClones are made in the 10's of
> millions. Apple's lucky to get 1-2 million quantity their custom
> parts, assuming they can use them in every model. That was one of
> Commodore's primary technical problems, and had C= not been killed by
> suicidal management, systems would have switched to the PC model
> (commodity parts) on the high end, the game machine model (system on a
> chip, as much as possible) on the low end, by 1994 at the latest.
>
> >The reason Apple introduced low cost competitive machines in the
> >*First place* was to bolster sales, market share, and profits
> >because the *higher-end* Apple business was *already* lagging badly.
>
> Sure. And that's because Apple lost their edge. At one time, they were
> the only GUI in town, the only DTP in town, and people would pay
> whatever that cost. That's the formula for a typical niche
> machine. Unfortunately, in the personal computer market, any strong
> enough niche eventually gets absorbed. Apple couldn't be "of the body"
> themselves and they refused to create an opposing multivendor force.
>
> Also, just look at the dynamics of the markets. Apple, like Commodore,
> is trying to develop world-class hardware and software for a very
> small market, relative to the PCs. Compaq may do well in hardware,
> they sell roughtly as many computers as Apple in a given year. But
> virtually none of that budget goes to software development. Microsoft
> certainly makes a living on software, but they do that by selling
> millions and millions of copies of lots of different programs. These
> days, Windows is practically a give-away, an enabler that lets MS sell
> you hundreds of dollars worth of other stuff. Apple can't be 'em, they
> can't join 'em, and they can't make something significantly different
> anymore (in fact, while they once led the personal computer world in
> software innovation, they're lagging badly on things like their answer
> to a modern OS, Copland).
>
> >I definitely believe the problems at Apple are positively
> >long-term--if, that is, the company can remain in business long
> >enough to reach the "long-term" definition--which I very much doubt.
>
> It's certainly hard to imagine Apple going under. But hell, it was
> hard to imagine Commodore going under, even though intellectually I
> saw the handwriting on the wall as early as 1991.
>
> >Having lived through the Commodore collapse, I am here to tell you
> >that the parallels between the demise of the two companies (Apple &
> >Commodore) are staggering in their simularities.
>
> They do seem to be following that C= path. And while I can't imagine
> they beat potential success down with a stick everytime it rears its
> pretty head, like C= management did (Sun deal nixed, Epson deal nixed,
> don't get me started!), Apple hasn't made the licensing and mutual
> benefit agreements that could have made bigtime differences in the big
> picture, and thus the long term. Hell, they could have OWNED the
> desktop software OS, if MacOS for Windows had shown up in a fancy
> shrinkwrap back in the latter 80s. They could be building MacOS
> installed base now, with lots of clone companies sick of years of
> Intel domination, had they made MacOS licensing a simple thing any
> garage shop could get into. When they were strong, everything had to
> be proprietary, and that hurt them.
>
> Nowadays, they're real close to the point where they'd have trouble
> building a full fledged clone market if they GAVE MacOS away. Which
> really isn't a bad idea -- if they gave away MacOS System 7 for CHRP
> machines, once System 8 was available, they might just get some MacOS
> converts. I tend to think most folks looking at CHRP machines (as
> distinct from "Macs") as people trying to get into something more
> sophisticated, which means a departure from MacOS, Windows, and any
> other glorified relics of 70s microcomputing. Or maybe that's just
> me.
>
> >Of course, Mac Lovers don't understand this since they are thinking
> >the very same things we did in '92--namely, that'll never happen to
> >"our" company.  It did, and it will.
>
> Everyone thinks they're invincible. But remember, IBM once ruled the
> computer world, so much so that anti-trust suits were
> filed. Televisions used to be exclusively made in the USA. There used
> to be maybe 10 fairly well established personal/home computing OSs,
> and 100s of media companies. Things do change, Evolution is real --
> just ask T-Rex. Or Mehdi Ali. What doesn't adapt to a changing
> environment will die out, every time.
>

[flame on, but on low burner]
   I agree with most of the points you made about Apple. I don't agree
with your comments about Apple's lack of innovation. Apple has been
working on system level technologies like QuckDraw GX, QuckDraw 3D,
QuickTime VR, MP, OpenTransport, OpenDoc, and others to be incorporated
into Copland. These extensions currently take gobs of memory and CPU
cycles because Apple hasn't revised it's system in 5 years. This is how
Apple operates, take Drag and Drop. This used to be an extention in 7.1
and is now part of the current system. This allowed developers to make D+D
savva applications well before 7.5 was released. Apple has other
innovations like FireWire and a more advanced bus waiting around the
corner. As innovations go, Apple is one of the best. As far as selling
your work, Apple is the worst. It isn't how innovative that makes or
breaks companies. Take MicroSoft, the most non-innovative company on the
planet (didn't even invent DOS).

[flame off]
   On PPCP and future OSs I think that there are several innovative OSs
streaming in like Linux and BeBox. The nice thing about PPCP is that you
will be able to run your OS of choice. This means that OSs can dominate
niche markets without the need to dominate all markets. Solaris for
servers, Amiga for sound. Mac for publishing, BeBox for Graphics. OS/2 for
terminals, WinNT for windoze compatability. No "one" has to win.
Personally I think I'll stick with Copland, given what I do.