home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ornl!sunova!linac!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!concertina.Eng.Sun.COM!fiddler
- From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
- Subject: Re: Farewell to the Mac? (not flame)
- Date: 19 Nov 1992 02:33:18 GMT
- Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
- Lines: 103
- Message-ID: <lglv7eINNbdj@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
- References: <1992Nov17.193022.44891@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <trimble.722112979@ph-meter.beckman.uiuc.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina
-
- In article <trimble.722112979@ph-meter.beckman.uiuc.edu> trimble@ph-meter.beckman.uiuc.edu (Chris Trimble) writes:
- >model03@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (John Deke) writes:
- >
- >> Do you think the Mac will be phased out?
-
- Of course. Only question is when, effectively two years after the new
- RISC machines' production ramps up, obviously-to-all-but-a-few-maniacs
- within another two years.
-
- > If Apple wants to win over its customers, they should offer an upgrade
- > path from the CISCs, which, unlike the IIcx/i -> Quadra upgrade would be
- > REASONABLY PRICED.
-
- From Apple's perspective, those upgrades *were* reasonably priced: if you
- can't save a few bucks by getting a used IIci and upgrading, you don't
- hit Quadra sales, and someone who already has a IIci gives Apple as much
- cash upgrading as if they'd bought a new Quadra (or more).
-
- Upgrades are a pain in the neck for a manufacturer, they'd much rather
- sell new machines (simpler, cheaper for them). The upgrades aren't dear
- enough, though, to kill all interest by current owners for the new
- machines. Close, though.
-
- > Furthermore, Apple does to the Mac owners what they've done to
- > Apple // owners about 5 times as often.
-
- What, leave them with an orphaned machine for, what, six or seven years
- now?
-
- The Apple //e came on the market much further down the development curve
- of it technology than did the Mac. There just wasn't as *much* development
- potential in the Apple // by the time the //e appeared. The //e was little
- more than a repackaged Apple][ with a few minor tweaks. (They *tried* to
- develop it more, but the Apple/// was crippled by marketing before it ever
- saw the light of day.)
-
- > Every 6 months Apple outdates the models of 6 months ago.
-
- Terrible how those machines just quit working as soon as a new model is
- announced. They slow down, their displays dim, ... ;}
-
- > Just look at the line right now! Why should
- > anyone buy a Quadra 700 with the 800 coming out in January? Why should
- > anyone buy a IIvx with the Centris (whatever) coming out in January?
- > This kind of anticipation game is what has kept me from buying a Mac for
- > so long.
-
- You keep waiting for the ultimate machine and you'll never get *anything*
- accomplished.
-
- Face it, this rate change will go on for a *long* time (from the buyers
- point of view).
-
- If a current machine can handle your needs, then get it. You'll get more
- work done.
-
- >> Is this good or not?
- >
- > No. It isn't. I think Apple should try to build a line that can stand
- > the test of time as well as your //e (and mine :) did. The //e was
- > completely useable up until about 2 or 3 years ago, which is still 8 or
- > maybe 9 years after it came on the market!
-
- A Mac Plus is still exactly as usable as it was the day the first one
- shipped (more so, there's more software and so on that will run on it
- that was developed and shipped since then!).
-
- The //e will still be usable 20 years from now...it just won't be usable
- for much, in comparison with the expectations of consumers.
-
- > Apple : build computers that are AHEAD of their time, like the ol' days.
-
- Listen carefully: Apple never (purposefully) marketed a computer that was
- leading edge in terms of hardware. The joke around engineering was that
- people on the leading edge tended to get cut. And you can't afford to have
- customers getting cut by beta testing ragged edge hardware. (Took me a
- long time to figure out why this approach was not a Bad Thing, too.)
-
- They needed to make and sell computers that had adequate performance, and
- which could be built and sold at adequate margins of profit for the company.
-
- This isn't all bad: it means that Apple could afford to develop things like
- the desktop metaphor of the Mac, or HyperCard, or some of the other nifty
- software things that make the Mac what it is.
-
- The current Mac is no more ahead (or behind) the times than it ever was, but
- the user interface, which *is* the "family jewels" has been refined and tweaked
- about as far as it's going to go.
-
- The PowerPC/RISC machines will come out, and likely will outperform the current
- high-end Macs about as much as the Mac did the Apple//e. The Macs will still
- work as well as ever, but interest in them will fade over time. Fine.
-
- And they (the PowerPC/RISC thingies) still won't be anymore "leading edge" then
- the Mac is now. But they'll probably sell just fine. And people will still
- complain about their RISC boxes being obsoleted every six months...
-
-
- --
- -------------------------------------------------------
- | Some things are too important not to give away |
- | to everybody else and have none left for yourself. |
- -------------------------------------------------------
-