[why did I let him sucker me into this...]
In article <CDKwr7....@news.iastate.edu> barr...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett)
writes:
>I attended a short demo given by an Apple rep recently, and I was fairly
>impressed with what he had to say.
[well-stated rehash of Apple rep's demo deleted]
> He said that communications
>is what Apple is gearing all of their long-term plans around.
First of all, Marc, let me congratulate you on the general tone of
your message. You didn't yell, and you didn't call anybody names.
We can hope this is the start of a trend.
Second, let me point out that this guy is a sales rep, i.e., you were
supposed to be impressed. He layed out a vision of the future and
told you (sold you) Apple's role in it, and you swallowed it whole.
That's ok, just keep that in mind.
Apple does have something Commodore lacks: someone who can sell not
only their machines, but who can sell their future too.
> I think this vision of the future for computers is a correct one. It
>probably surprises no one that I use computers almost 100% for
communications,
>and I think this is true for MANY people.
Some purists among us would argue that what you do falls outside the ideal
of "communications", though you've made great strides in this post.
That you believe in the presented future is as much a testament to the
rep's salesmanship as to your vision.
>This vision by Apple can be seen in their newest computers,
[Description of Apple's AV machines deleted]
>Finally, I see Apple, sometime soon, developing
>a monitor with a video camera built-in and making this monitor standard with
>special packages, [...]
Classic Apple evangelism. You see Apple developing products, sometime soon.
You don't see Commodore developing products, ever. Perhaps your vision is
somewhat selective. even imaginative.
> Let's see what one would have to add to an Amiga to do desktop audio/video
>teleconferencing:
[list o' stuff deleted]
> So, you could spend $2000 in hardware on an already-expensive $2500
>A4000 and still not have the hardware and software to do two-way a/v
>teleconferencing, while for $2500 a Mac Centris 660AV comes with everything
>(except the camera) as standard hardware and software.
So, buy a Mac Centris. Then you can hang out in the Mac groups.
> It should be very clear that Commodore has NO such vision for the future
>of computing.
It should be very clear that Commodore has NO such salesmanship in the field
to sell you a vision of the future. This sales rep sold you about $8000
worth of technology that doesn't exist yet and you are drawing conclusions
about Commodore based on it. Do you do this favor for the Zenith, IBM,
Dell, SUN and DEC groups too, or are we specially blessed?
>Networking is at the heart of this vision by Apple, and
>Commodore completely dissolved their networking department and totally washed
>their hands of it by completely turning it over to the third-party companies.
They have taken the most prudent step toward getting their networking
technology to market under existing conditions. In this case, that means
third-party companies.
>The only vision Commodore has for the future is merely giving their computers
>faster CPUs and better graphics and color.
Wrong. Staying in business is a higher priority for them right now.
They seem to have taken some rather dramatic steps in that direction of late.
> BTW, people have ridiculed the idea of a Mac being able to serve as a
>telephone answering machine, but the point is that the computer can do it,
>and do it very inexpensively.
To be fair, people have ridiculed the idea of answering machines in any form
since the dawn of time. That they (answering machines, not people) happen
to be occasionally useful not withstanding, they will continued to be
ridiculed. Get used to it.
> [virtues of AV macs as communication machines deleted]
So, buy a mac and start communicating. Preferably in a different set
of newsgroups.
> This ability to take commands over the phone could be handy, if you were
>careful with it. The AV Mac's voice recognition can be set up to trigger
>with a keyword, like "computer".
Ten (count 'em) years ago we got a demo of a card from Texas Inst. that did
voice recognition in an IBM-XT. It could answer the phone and take messages,
and you could give it voice commands to control software. I got a demo
of the AV Macs from an Apple rep the other day, and the voice recognition
was almost as good on them as it was on that TI card way back then. Which
is to say, if I ever become paraplegic or quadraplegic a may be interested,
but if I can still twich enough to control the computer any other way I'll
opt for other user interfaces--at least until the technology gets a whole
lot better.
> You could give it a secret keyword, then
>use that keyword to make your Mac do things merely by giving it a phone call.
>For this feature to work would require software to be written to exploit it,
>and I expect third-party companies to write such software.
You count on 3rd party companies to make the Mac do wonders, while you
strafe C= for letting 3rd parties do anything that could improve their
situation. Your double standard is showing...
>My point again is that a $2500 A4000 could not do it [...]
>while, for $2500, a Mac C660AV comes with (almost) everything [...]
So buy a mac and go away.
> ++++ Marc Barrett -MB-
> ++ IRC nick: Cyclone | e-mail: barr
...@iastate.edu
--
Todd_Le
...@unc.edu (919) 962-0101 "This sentence no verb."
