Newton: thinkDifferent
Lawson English
[I'm cross-posting this to the newton and mac.advocacy newsgroups because I
think that the Mac advocates are a bunch of looney-tunes that haven't a
clue as to what a PDA needs and I think that the Newton users should maybe
set them straight]
I'm going to love to see how Jobs integrates MacCE handhelds with GPS and
other features that the US military so loved about the Newton that they
used it in their PR footage to demonstrate how high-tech the US military
is. I'm sure that the Wall St. PDA-designers would have used MacCE to
prototype the PDAs used by all floor brokers on the NYSE. Lots of kool
things would have been MUCH easier to do using MacCE than NewtonOS.
NOT.
From the Macintouch web-site:
..."Jon," a MacInTouch reader in Australia, offered another view on Apple's
decision:
[...] "In particular, there has been a recent push here for state
governments to adopt the emate as a platform instead of Wintel machines.
You can image the current response to this announcement. The largest
customers for Newton (other than emate) in OZ are the Department of Defense
and the NSW State Parliment. Neither appears to be very impressed right at
the point in time when the Apple 'Think Different' ads have been launched."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"OpenDoc may be impressive technology, but if no-one else is using it, why
should Apple?" --Steve Jobs
"In short: if you want to blow people away with what can be done *only* on
a Mac, show them Cyberdog." --Tom Keyes
<news://cyberdog.apple.com/cyberdog.general/19411>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin E. Thorne
Lawson English <eng...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<B1218D5...@206.165.43.120>...
This is a strange posting indeed. Just what did Macintosh users do to
deserve your attack on us?
I don't think you're a Newton user.
I think your just a Wintel FUDster that wants to make Apple customers fight
amongst themselves.
Lawson English
Edwin E. Thorne <edwin....@rauland.com> said:
> This is a strange posting indeed. Just what did Macintosh users do to
> deserve your attack on us?
Hide your collective heads in the sand?
> I don't think you're a Newton user.
>
Correct.
> I think your just a Wintel FUDster that wants to make Apple customers
> fight
> amongst themselves.
Nope. I'm a long-time Mac user and part-time developer who is tired of
watching Mac advocates pretend that Apple is doing the right thing just
because it is Apple.
Joe Ragosta
In article <B1218D5...@206.165.43.120>, "Lawson English"
<eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> [I'm cross-posting this to the newton and mac.advocacy newsgroups because I
> think that the Mac advocates are a bunch of looney-tunes that haven't a
> clue as to what a PDA needs and I think that the Newton users should maybe
> set them straight]
>
> I'm going to love to see how Jobs integrates MacCE handhelds with GPS and
> other features that the US military so loved about the Newton that they
> used it in their PR footage to demonstrate how high-tech the US military
> is. I'm sure that the Wall St. PDA-designers would have used MacCE to
> prototype the PDAs used by all floor brokers on the NYSE. Lots of kool
> things would have been MUCH easier to do using MacCE than NewtonOS.
>
> NOT.
>
>
> From the Macintouch web-site:
>
>
>
> ..."Jon," a MacInTouch reader in Australia, offered another view on Apple's
> decision:
>
> [...] "In particular, there has been a recent push here for state
> governments to adopt the emate as a platform instead of Wintel machines.
> You can image the current response to this announcement. The largest
> customers for Newton (other than emate) in OZ are the Department of Defense
> and the NSW State Parliment. Neither appears to be very impressed right at
> the point in time when the Apple 'Think Different' ads have been launched."
"Recent push" from the state governments or not, Apple has averaged 30,000
Newton sales per year for the past 4 years (I don't know if that number
includes eMates).
That's not enough to support a $500 million development program.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Jayfar
In article <joe.ragosta-03...@wil32.dol.net>,
joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta) wrote:
But, unless I misunderstand, the $500 megabucks is what they've already
spent on it to date. At worst, the cost of keeping current models in the
channel as a placeholder should be miniscule. At best they can recoup
some small part of that already-blown money.
Cheers,
Jayfar
--
Jay Farrell Jayfar's Original Virtual Macintosh
jay...@netaxs.com * Your Favorite Mac Site * Now Updated Daily *
Philadelphia, USA <URL:http://www.netaxs.com/~jayfar/live.desk.html>
Jayfar's APPLE DOOMSDAY CLOCK <URL:http://www.netaxs.com/~jayfar/>
Eric Bennett
> [I'm cross-posting this to the newton and mac.advocacy newsgroups because I
> think that the Mac advocates are a bunch of looney-tunes that haven't a
> clue as to what a PDA needs and I think that the Newton users should maybe
> set them straight]
I don't pretend to know what a good PDA is, but IMO taking a solid,
working, and apparently profitable product and replacing it with a vapor
product that may or may not materialize next year is incredibly foolish.
--
Eric Bennett, Cornell University Biochemistry Department
http://www.pobox.com/~ericb (Follow "About Me" link for PGP key)
Eric Bennett
In article <B121A4F...@206.165.43.17>, "Lawson English"
<eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Nope. I'm a long-time Mac user and part-time developer who is tired of
> watching Mac advocates pretend that Apple is doing the right thing just
> because it is Apple.
When it comes to management skills, I thought the usual assumption
(especially by columnists like Don Crabb and Henry Knorr) was that Apple
was doing the *wrong* thing just because it is Apple.
Ramon L. Tate
[big snip]
> > ..."Jon," a MacInTouch reader in Australia, offered another view on Apple's
> > decision:
> >
> > [...] "In particular, there has been a recent push here for state
> > governments to adopt the emate as a platform instead of Wintel machines.
> > You can image the current response to this announcement. The largest
> > customers for Newton (other than emate) in OZ are the Department of Defense
> > and the NSW State Parliment. Neither appears to be very impressed right at
> > the point in time when the Apple 'Think Different' ads have been launched."
>
> "Recent push" from the state governments or not, Apple has averaged 30,000
> Newton sales per year for the past 4 years (I don't know if that number
> includes eMates).
>
> That's not enough to support a $500 million development program.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Joe Ragosta
> http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
That's a pretty hefty sum. How much went actually went into OS and
MessagePad development? And just how much of this half-a-bil was spent on
marketing? Not enough, it would seem....
--
Been there, forgot whether I've done that.........
Ramon L. Tate in another time warp
tater...@patriot.net NOTE: skin that 'tater' before you reply :-}
Steve White
> Nope. I'm a long-time Mac user and part-time developer who is tired of
> watching Mac advocates pretend that Apple is doing the right thing just
> because it is Apple.
Think, Lawson, think.
Apple says that it canned the Newton because it never made money. Sales
were dropping. For every sales success in Newton land, the Palm Pilot has
more. Sure, the PP isn't nearly as cool, but it does deliver something
that people want at a price people will pay.
If Apple had no (or minor) financial troubles, sure, stay the course and
fight. When you've lost a couple billion dollars, and the press seems to
think that the official title of the company now is "The Struggling Apple
Computer, Inc.", then you have to pick your fights more carefully.
The same war of Wintel versus Mac was replaying itself: Palm Pilot and
other WinCE products versus Newton. I don't blame Apple for not wanting to
fight this one.
The Newton is cool. WAY cool. I'd love to have one, but I couldn't justify
spending over a grand on a MessagePad 2100, plus software, plus
accessories (and my employer wouldn't buy me one, drat).
The Newton is a technological wonder and a market flop. It's not like the
Mac in one important sense -- the Mac has HAD great market-place success,
and continues to hang on despite the adversity of the past three years.
The Newton never got that chance.
There will be another chance. Somewhere in the next couple of years some
clever engineers at Apple will hit on the next great thing (if I knew what
that was, I wouldn't say so in public) and Apple will have a chance to get
it right.
steve
mr.wong
[lots snipped]
>
> "Recent push" from the state governments or not, Apple has averaged 30,000
> Newton sales per year for the past 4 years (I don't know if that number
> includes eMates).
>
> That's not enough to support a $500 million development program.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Joe Ragosta
> http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Joe,
You always clain to use "studies, facts, and figures: to back up your
assertions. With this in mind:
- Where did you get the $500m figure for development? From Apple? They
don't release such info that I know of.
_ Where did you get the Newton sales figures? Apple, as you know, does NOT
release these figures.
More FUD, as you say in csma. But this time trying to put a positive spin
on something that is not positive. And if you think leaving the handheld
arena to come back possibly in 1999 with a MacOS lite device is strategic,
then I have some property you may be interested in...
mr.wong
(one who thinks Apple got it way wrong not marketing then killing the newton)
John Jensen
mr.wong <mr....@lunatech.com> wrote:
: In article <joe.ragosta-03...@wil32.dol.net>,
: joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta) wrote:
: > [...] Apple has averaged 30,000 Newton sales per year [...]
: > That's not enough to support a $500 million development program.
: Joe,
: You always clain to use "studies, facts, and figures: to back up your
: assertions. [...]
It's also the wrong comparison. For Newton to be profitable, it only has
to cover current operating costs. Development costs (and tooling costs,
etc.) are spent - if you cancel Newton or not.
John
Joe Ragosta
In article <mr.wong-0403...@machiavelli.lunatech.com>,
mr....@lunatech.com (mr.wong) wrote:
> In article <joe.ragosta-03...@wil32.dol.net>,
> joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta) wrote:
>
> > "Recent push" from the state governments or not, Apple has averaged 30,000
> > Newton sales per year for the past 4 years (I don't know if that number
> > includes eMates).
> >
> > That's not enough to support a $500 million development program.
> >
> You always clain to use "studies, facts, and figures: to back up your
> assertions. With this in mind:
>
> - Where did you get the $500m figure for development? From Apple? They
> don't release such info that I know of.
Wall Street Journal. Monday, March 2. (I already gave this reference a
couple of times)
>
> _ Where did you get the Newton sales figures? Apple, as you know, does NOT
> release these figures.
Wall Street Journal. Monday, March 2.
>
> More FUD, as you say in csma. But this time trying to put a positive spin
> on something that is not positive. And if you think leaving the handheld
> arena to come back possibly in 1999 with a MacOS lite device is strategic,
> then I have some property you may be interested in...
I didn't put a positive spin on anything. I've stated several times that I
have mixed feelings on the Newton thing and my gut feel is that it should
have been maintained until the replacements were ready.
But I felt that injecting some facts into the debate might be useful.
M Rassbach
Steve White wrote:
> In article <B121A4F...@206.165.43.17>, "Lawson English"
> <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> > Nope. I'm a long-time Mac user and part-time developer who is tired of
> > watching Mac advocates pretend that Apple is doing the right thing just
> > because it is Apple.
>
> Think, Lawson, think.
>
> Apple says that it canned the Newton because it never made money. Sales
> were dropping. For every sales success in Newton land, the Palm Pilot has
What *I* heard was the HISTORICALLY the Newton has never made a profit.
Given No staff, and no real support from about Jan, I can't see how the
newton wasn't making a profit for this last quarter.
Apple asked its developers to create a vertical market for the Newton.
They did this. And Apple cut them off at the knees.
Jim Bailey
M Rassbach wrote:
> Apple asked its developers to create a vertical market for the Newton.
> They did this. And Apple cut them off at the knees.
This is a very interesting point. One that I don't think the powers that be
inside of Apple have any conception of what they may have done. Every
vertical market Newton sale was to a technology guru inside of an Apple
receptive company (rare today.) Anyone of those gurus who still has a job
with that company (many probably do not as of last Friday) will likely never
deal with Apple on any basis ever again. These are the people you cultivate,
not crucify. They are the ones that everyone else in the company goes to find
out about the computer industry. Their professional reputations are now quite tarnished.
Think about what Apple has done. It takes a supreme amount of courage right
now to advocate any Apple product inside of most companies. These people not
only advocated Apple, they advocated a product that has been historically
perceived as a failure. A product with little real marketing or support.
These project managers advocated the Newton and the vertical market product,
and likely put their jobs on the line because the technology was what was
important. Any company that bought into the Newton as a vertical market tool
will likely never, and I mean never, work with Apple or buy Apple products again.
It is easy to be sanguine about the discontinuation of the Newton as a failed
consumer product but if you are a Apple supporter, you had better hope and
pray that the vertical market successes of the Newton were exaggerated.
--
Jim Bailey
<mailto:j...@shore.net>
<http://www.shore.net/~jdb/welcome.html>
Jonathan Harker
Jayfar wrote:
>
> But, unless I misunderstand, the $500 megabucks is what they've already
> spent on it to date. At worst, the cost of keeping current models in the
> channel as a placeholder should be miniscule. At best they can recoup
> some small part of that already-blown money.
>
It's the Apple way: take a technology you can't competently complete and
market, run up a development tab of hundreds of millions--and
billions--of dollars through the years, and *then* kill it off.
I think this may be a good sign though--it could be the old bait 'n
switch tactics Apple has been using so successfully on its "loyal users"
for so long are coming to a close. The old "Buy today's tech because
tomorrows' is going to be so great!" method of doing things at Apple
might be coming to a close because of LACK OF POPULAR DEMAND. Mac users
are getting smart and turning the tables on Apple and saying: "'Tell you
what, Stevie--you get the product out FIRST then I'll think about buying
it."
Ergo, millions of them did not go out and buy the Newton on the strength
of Apple's promise to "eventually" get it right. They wanted it right
first, before the buy.
Jonathan Harker
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <B121A4F...@206.165.43.17>, "Lawson English"
> <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> > Nope. I'm a long-time Mac user and part-time developer who is tired of
> > watching Mac advocates pretend that Apple is doing the right thing just
> > because it is Apple.
>
> (especially by columnists like Don Crabb and Henry Knorr) was that Apple
>
Actually, I always thought Knorr and Crabb were fairly specific in
saying what it was they thought was wrong. And what it was they thought
was right.
My hat's especially off to Knorr, because he had what it took to rise
above being a dupe, or a mindless cheerleader. Crabb, on the other hand,
confuses me. He's always saying one thing and then apologizing about it
later. Hard to keep up with him.
Matt Kennel
On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 20:51:22 -0500, Eric Bennett <er...@pobox.com> wrote:
:In article <B1218D5...@206.165.43.120>, "Lawson English"
:<eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
:
:> [I'm cross-posting this to the newton and mac.advocacy newsgroups because I
:> think that the Mac advocates are a bunch of looney-tunes that haven't a
:> clue as to what a PDA needs and I think that the Newton users should maybe
:> set them straight]
:
:I don't pretend to know what a good PDA is, but IMO taking a solid,
:working, and apparently profitable product and replacing it with a vapor
:product that may or may not materialize next year is incredibly foolish.
Even if the NewtonOS really was too expensive to continue development, and
in the circumstances, I can believe it, killing products and replacing them
with vapor is something that NeXT showed was a very stupid idea.
It's also very much against the recent Apple policy of not announcing
squat about anything until it's just about ready to go.
It's so uncharacteristic that it makes one wonder if Das NewtonTod was
actually ordered by the same person.
Personally I would have released the source to NewtonOS under a license
which permitted free use on any Apple hardware, and with licensing fees on
non-Apple hardware.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD -
* "People who send spam to Emperor Cartagia... vanish! _They say_ that
* there's a room where he has their heads, lined up in a row on a desk...
* _They say_ that late at night, he goes there, and talks to them... _they
*- say_ he asks them, 'Now tell me again, how _do_ you make money fast?'"
Ramon L. Tate
In article <6djjac$l...@nntp02.primenet.com>, John Jensen
<jj...@primenet.com> wrote:
> mr.wong <mr....@lunatech.com> wrote:
> : In article <joe.ragosta-03...@wil32.dol.net>,
> : joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta) wrote:
>
> : > [...] Apple has averaged 30,000 Newton sales per year [...]
> : > That's not enough to support a $500 million development program.
>
> : Joe,
>
> : You always clain to use "studies, facts, and figures: to back up your
> : assertions. [...]
>
> It's also the wrong comparison. For Newton to be profitable, it only has
> to cover current operating costs. Development costs (and tooling costs,
> etc.) are spent - if you cancel Newton or not.
>
> John
Not only spent, but written off as a tax loss. The *sane* thing to do would
have been to:
1. Suspend further development, i.e. stop the big dollar drain first.
2. Set a price that covers the current production costs plus enough to
cover advertising and a nuclear support staff.
3. Reveal enough of the Newton OS guts to licensed developers to enable
them to add lacking functionality (e.g. NCU bug fixes and IR support).
4. Make ans sell those suckers just as fast as you could make them, which
is exactly what they were doing BEFORE they pulled the plug completely
out of the wall.
This kind of strategy would have preserved their customer and developer
relations, satisfied the marketplace, stopped the R&D hemorrhage, and let
them transfer development staff to MacOS like they said they needed to do.
Now, if they are LOSING money on each MP2100 they sell - and I mean EXCLUDING
development costs - this strategy doesn't help and the plug had to be pulled.
If, on the other hand, their margins even at the lower price were enough to
support the scenario above, then their actions are truly crazy given the
priceless benefits that are being squandered.
George Potter
> This is a very interesting point. One that I don't think the powers that be
> inside of Apple have any conception of what they may have done. Every
> vertical market Newton sale was to a technology guru inside of an Apple
> receptive company (rare today.) Anyone of those gurus who still has a job
> with that company (many probably do not as of last Friday) will likely never
> deal with Apple on any basis ever again. These are the people you cultivate,
> not crucify. They are the ones that everyone else in the company goes to find
> out about the computer industry. Their professional reputations are now
quite tarnished.
I am one of the people you mention. I have been stung twice by Apple
recently. First by the death of the clones, then by the death of the
Newton. I was assured that both were part of Apple's long term strategy. I
am lucky, my board of directors is not reactionary. The system still works
and does what we need it to, so I keep my job. I will never again trust my
future to Apple. The next computers purchased for my company will be
Wintel.
I am sure hearing this will not please some people, but the reality of the
situation is this; Apple makes a better computer/OS, Apple is
closed-mouthed at best and deceptive at worst about it's plans, Microsoft
delivers an inferior product, Microsoft is consistant and does deliver, in
real life orphaned technology means lost money, companies don't like to
lose money, it does you no good to have a superior computer/OS when you
are unemployed.
George Potter
Jake Jensen
In article <ericb-03039...@128.84.203.149>, er...@pobox.com (Eric
Bennett) wrote:
> In article <B1218D5...@206.165.43.120>, "Lawson English"
> <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> > [I'm cross-posting this to the newton and mac.advocacy newsgroups because I
> > think that the Mac advocates are a bunch of looney-tunes that haven't a
> > clue as to what a PDA needs and I think that the Newton users should maybe
> > set them straight]
>
> I don't pretend to know what a good PDA is, but IMO taking a solid,
> working, and apparently profitable product and replacing it with a vapor
> product that may or may not materialize next year is incredibly foolish.
>
I own an MP 120 and I love it. However I don't think Newton was ever
profitable. Whether they could have turned it around with the eMate and
MP 2100 is anyone's guess. Personally, I think Apple would have had
trouble wresting mindshare from WinCE and the Pilot juggernaut. Granted,
Newton is much more capible than the Pilot, but public perception is
PDA=PDA.
-Josh
Lawson English
Jake Jensen <jen...@larson-usa.com> said:
> I own an MP 120 and I love it. However I don't think Newton was ever
> profitable. Whether they could have turned it around with the eMate and
> MP 2100 is anyone's guess. Personally, I think Apple would have had
> trouble wresting mindshare from WinCE and the Pilot juggernaut. Granted,
> Newton is much more capible than the Pilot, but public perception is
> PDA=PDA.
Here is what Apple could STILL do. Reverse its decision. Pledge to allow
ANY 3rd-party to use the NewtonOS for a fee. Supply the Army with lots of
ruggadized Newtons in exchange for advertising consideration. Make sure
that for the next two years, every Armed forces ad showed someone with a
Newton in hand.
Etc.
Joe Ragosta
> In article <B1218D5...@206.165.43.120>, "Lawson English"
> <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> > [I'm cross-posting this to the newton and mac.advocacy newsgroups because I
> > think that the Mac advocates are a bunch of looney-tunes that haven't a
> > clue as to what a PDA needs and I think that the Newton users should maybe
> > set them straight]
>
> I don't pretend to know what a good PDA is, but IMO taking a solid,
> working, and apparently profitable product and replacing it with a vapor
> product that may or may not materialize next year is incredibly foolish.
That might be true. But the reports are universal that the Newton was
losing money -- fast. (Wall Street Journal, News.com, CNet).
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Page
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Edwin E. Thorne
In article <B121A4F...@206.165.43.17>, "Lawson English"
<eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Edwin E. Thorne <edwin....@rauland.com> said:
>
>> This is a strange posting indeed. Just what did Macintosh users do to
>> deserve your attack on us?
>
>Hide your collective heads in the sand?
I didn't hide my head in the sand. All I did was go out and buy the
computer of my choice. Somehow that give you license to attack me?
>
>> I don't think you're a Newton user.
>>
>
>Correct.
So why don't you shut up? What did you ever contribute to the success of
the Newton? Why are you here harrassing Mac users, when you don't even
use a Newton?
Newtons integrate with Windows as well as the Mac. Are you in Wintel NGs
harrassing them for letting the Newton die?
>
>> I think your just a Wintel FUDster that wants to make Apple customers
>> fight
>> amongst themselves.
>
>
>
>Nope. I'm a long-time Mac user and part-time developer who is tired of
>watching Mac advocates pretend that Apple is doing the right thing just
>because it is Apple.
I don't believe you. If you're a developer, you're a Wintel developer.
Having a Mac II stored in your basement for years doesn't qualify you as a
"long-time Mac user".
I think Apple is doing the right thing because I'm satisfied with the
computer Apple sold me, and for no other reason.
>
>"OpenDoc may be impressive technology, but if no-one else is using it, why
>should Apple?" --Steve Jobs
>"In short: if you want to blow people away with what can be done *only* on
>a Mac, show them Cyberdog." --Tom Keyes
><news://cyberdog.apple.com/cyberdog.general/19411>
Best regards,
Edwin E. Thorne
Created and sent by an Apple Macintosh Performa 6400/180, running MacOS 8.1.
Jim Coffey
Joe Ragosta wrote in message ...
>In article <ericb-03039...@128.84.203.149>, er...@pobox.com (Eric
>Bennett) wrote:
>
>> I don't pretend to know what a good PDA is, but IMO taking a solid,
>> working, and apparently profitable product and replacing it with a vapor
>> product that may or may not materialize next year is incredibly foolish.
>
>That might be true. But the reports are universal that the Newton was
>losing money -- fast. (Wall Street Journal, News.com, CNet).
>
These sources are not, of course, the same ones that reported the Mac's
descent into oblivion.
Gavin Maxwell
[snip, snip, snip...]
Sheesh...
What's going on...?
Why are the Mac and Newton owners all of a sudden at each others throats?!
I've got both - where does that put me?
There's no reason at all to take your angst out on the Macintosh
community... redirect it to where it'll make a difference.
I'm a full-time Newton developer who has been burnt by _Apple_ - I hold no
grudge against the Mac, or it's users... It doesn't make any sense to...
Let's get on shall we? :)
Gavin.
--
Gavin Maxwell
Strategic Business Innovations Ltd.
Gavin "at" SBI.co.nz
Lawson English
Gavin Maxwell <Ga...@DIESPAMMERS.SBI.co.nz> said:
> There's no reason at all to take your angst out on the Macintosh
> community... redirect it to where it'll make a difference.
>
> I'm a full-time Newton developer who has been burnt by _Apple_ - I hold
no
> grudge against the Mac, or it's users... It doesn't make any sense to...
>
> Let's get on shall we? :)
I'm not "taking my angst out on the Mac community." I'm trying to point out
to a few die-hard Apple fans that the currently announced plan is total BS.
You can't make a decent handheld OS out of MacOS any more than you can out
of Windows.
Unless ultra Mac fanatics are willing to recognize this, they'll continue
to be caught up in the Reality Distortion Field until things get Really
Bad.
And if Jobs has his usual reaction towards the Newton protestors on Friday
(today) that he has towards other critics, he'll call the police and
literally cause an international scandal. Won't that be fun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"OpenDoc may be impressive technology, but if no-one else is using it, why
should Apple?" --Steve Jobs
"In short: if you want to blow people away with what can be done *only* on
a Mac, show them Cyberdog." --Tom Keyes
<news://cyberdog.apple.com/cyberdog.general/19411>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ragosta
In article <Gavin-06039...@50.1.2.3>, Ga...@DIESPAMMERS.SBI.co.nz
(Gavin Maxwell) wrote:
> [snip, snip, snip...]
>
> Sheesh...
>
> What's going on...?
>
> Why are the Mac and Newton owners all of a sudden at each others throats?!
>
> I've got both - where does that put me?
I guess you're going to have to beat yourself up.
;-)
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 20:36:25 -0500, joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta)
wrote:
>In article <ericb-03039...@128.84.203.149>, er...@pobox.com (Eric
>Bennett) wrote:
>
>> In article <B1218D5...@206.165.43.120>, "Lawson English"
>> <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > [I'm cross-posting this to the newton and mac.advocacy newsgroups because I
>> > think that the Mac advocates are a bunch of looney-tunes that haven't a
>> > clue as to what a PDA needs and I think that the Newton users should maybe
>> > set them straight]
>>
>> I don't pretend to know what a good PDA is, but IMO taking a solid,
>> working, and apparently profitable product and replacing it with a vapor
>> product that may or may not materialize next year is incredibly foolish.
>
>That might be true. But the reports are universal that the Newton was
>losing money -- fast. (Wall Street Journal, News.com, CNet).
>
May be the vapor product is just smoke and mirrors. If Newton is
losing money like Joe was saying. And if Steve Jobs does not believe
Newton can be turn around soon, it is a good business decision just to
exit the business.
May be that is what he is doing - exiting the PDA marktet.
Kay-Yut
John T. Chapman
In message <joe.ragosta-05...@elk90.dol.net>, joe.r...@dol.net
(Joe Ragosta) wrote:
>
> That might be true. But the reports are universal that the Newton was
> losing money -- fast. (Wall Street Journal, News.com, CNet).
>
That doesn't mean it COULDN'T make money, just that wasn't. How can anything
succeed in the marketplace on word-of-mouth alone?
Apple appears to be turning this around with the Mac market thanks to the
Think Different campaign, but are still losing marketshare; it may be some
time (if ever) before the new marketing has significant results. Nonetheless,
the last few months have shown a growth in sales and a general acclaim of
the ads - a definite sign of hope.
I wonder if a good ad campaign for the Newton couldn't have also turned it
into a breadwinner, especially given the current rage for PDAs?
--
John T. Chapman <mailto:jt...@spamkill.lightlink.com> (delete "spamkill."
when replying.)
Posted with Ink Spot (for the Newton) from DejaVu Software, Inc.
Usenet wherever you are - http://www.martnet.com/~dejavu/
Lawson English
John T. Chapman <jt...@spamkill.lightlink.com> said:
> I wonder if a good ad campaign for the Newton couldn't have also turned
it
> into a breadwinner, especially given the current rage for PDAs?
>
There's a problem here. Everyone is talking about the Newton as though it
were a PDA. It isn't. The MessagePad series are PDAs. The Newton is
something a bit more than that.
Unfortunately, rather than recognizing that they had just defined a new
category of computerized devices and letting an ad hoc Newton, Inc license
Newton OS to everyone that wanted it, they tried to make the Newton fit
into some kind of comprehensive corporate strategy.
Obviously, if I am correct about the potential of the Newton in all sorts
of undreamt of markets, trying to make it fit into a single existing
product category was futile and counter-productive.
That's nothing new for Apple, of course. They apparently try to do 20
futile and counter-productive things before breakfast every day.
Joe Ragosta
In article <B121A4F...@206.165.43.17>, "Lawson English"
<eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Edwin E. Thorne <edwin....@rauland.com> said:
>
> > I think your just a Wintel FUDster that wants to make Apple customers
> > fight
> > amongst themselves.
>
>
>
> Nope. I'm a long-time Mac user and part-time developer who is tired of
> watching Mac advocates pretend that Apple is doing the right thing just
> because it is Apple.
And I'm a long-time Mac user who'd tired of Wintel FUDsters and people
like you who pretend that Apple is doing the wrong thing just because it
is Apple.
--
Joe Ragosta
> mr.wong <mr....@lunatech.com> wrote:
> : In article <joe.ragosta-03...@wil32.dol.net>,
> : joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta) wrote:
>
> : > [...] Apple has averaged 30,000 Newton sales per year [...]
> : > That's not enough to support a $500 million development program.
>
> : Joe,
>
> : You always clain to use "studies, facts, and figures: to back up your
> : assertions. [...]
>
> It's also the wrong comparison. For Newton to be profitable, it only has
> to cover current operating costs. Development costs (and tooling costs,
> etc.) are spent - if you cancel Newton or not.
True. But no one in this group knows what the current operating costs are
and whether Apple is able to cover them.
Allen Ethridge
In article <joe.ragosta-07...@elk88.dol.net>,
joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta) wrote:
>John Jensen <jj...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> It's also the wrong comparison. For Newton to be profitable, it only has
>> to cover current operating costs. Development costs (and tooling costs,
>> etc.) are spent - if you cancel Newton or not.
>True. But no one in this group knows what the current operating costs are
>and whether Apple is able to cover them.
This is strange, since the Newton was clearly generating more revenue than
Rhapsody. If Apple couldn't cover the operating costs of Newton, how do
they do the same for Rhapsody? Since this year is expected by many to be
the year of the handheld computer and Rhapsody as yet has no demonstrated
market how can cutting Newton while keeping Rhapsody be justified?
Steve Jobs is cannabilizing Apple in order to build a product that he failed
with back when the market for such a product was easier to penetrate.
If Rhapsody is the only product for the future of Apple, then Apple is
effectively getting out of the consumer computer market.
Allen
M Rassbach
And, as stated before, NeXTSTEP/OpenSTEP was a marginal commerical
success. Technically superior to other offerings, but just didn't sell
to well.
Hey, wait! That sounds like the Newton!
Perhaps that announced handheld for 1999 will run Rhapsody!
Combine the leading edge Newton with the leading edge Rhapsody. Wow, 2
marginal products in one! Sold by a company that makes niche computer
products.
Hows that Joe?
John Kestner
Sorry, Lawson's dead on. (I'll vouch for him, too. Remember him way back
on OneNet, smarter than the average bear...)
His point is that we should all be pissed at Apple because of the way it's
treated loyal customers. And believe me, many of those who have bought a
Newton did so because of their faith in Apple. And it's amazing how Mac
fanatics are defending Apple. All hail Jobs the Savior!
My eyes have been opened; I've been worshipping a false idol...
john
In article <ethorne-0503...@pppsl531.chicagonet.net>,
eth...@chicagonet.net (Edwin E. Thorne) wrote:
>In article <B121A4F...@206.165.43.17>, "Lawson English"
><eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>Edwin E. Thorne <edwin....@rauland.com> said:
>So why don't you shut up? What did you ever contribute to the success of
>the Newton? Why are you here harrassing Mac users, when you don't even
>use a Newton?
>
>Newtons integrate with Windows as well as the Mac. Are you in Wintel NGs
>harrassing them for letting the Newton die?
>>
>>Nope. I'm a long-time Mac user and part-time developer who is tired of
>>watching Mac advocates pretend that Apple is doing the right thing just
>>because it is Apple.
>
>I don't believe you. If you're a developer, you're a Wintel developer.
>Having a Mac II stored in your basement for years doesn't qualify you as a
>"long-time Mac user".
--- - ------- -------
We live only to discover beauty. All else is a form of waiting. - Kahlil Gibran
Joe Ragosta
In article <350195...@milestonerdl.com>, M Rassbach
<ma...@milestonerdl.com> wrote:
> And, as stated before, NeXTSTEP/OpenSTEP was a marginal commerical
> success. Technically superior to other offerings, but just didn't sell
> to well.
>
> Hey, wait! That sounds like the Newton!
>
> Perhaps that announced handheld for 1999 will run Rhapsody!
>
> Combine the leading edge Newton with the leading edge Rhapsody. Wow, 2
> marginal products in one! Sold by a company that makes niche computer
> products.
>
> Hows that Joe?
Let's see:
Newton has had 4-5 years and has flopped. It hasn't sold enough to cover
the costs.
Rhapsody, OTOH, hasn't even been released yet and it's getting rave reviews.
Newton was a marginal product which was not strategic for Apple.
Rhapsody _is_ strategic to Apple's future.
Newton did nothing to expand Apple's customer base.
Rhapsody is planned to (although no one knows if it will, yet).
Perhaps even _you_ can understand the difference.
John Bauer
Allen Ethridge wrote:
> This is strange, since the Newton was clearly generating more revenue than
> Rhapsody. If Apple couldn't cover the operating costs of Newton, how do
> they do the same for Rhapsody? Since this year is expected by many to be
> the year of the handheld computer and Rhapsody as yet has no demonstrated
> market how can cutting Newton while keeping Rhapsody be justified?
I would expect a shipping product to generate more revenue than one in
development. It remains to be seen if this is the year of the handheld
computer; if that turns out to be the case and the cause is an improved
version of both the Pilot and WinCE, it won't indicate a hell of a lot
about the lost opportunities of Newton. Rhapsody's market, by the way,
is at least in part the Mac market.
> Steve Jobs is cannabilizing Apple in order to build a product that he failed
> with back when the market for such a product was easier to penetrate.
> If Rhapsody is the only product for the future of Apple, then Apple is
> effectively getting out of the consumer computer market.
??? Rhapsody technology is the future of Mac OS; Mac OS (and future
derivatives) is part of the consumer computer market.
--
John Bauer
<remove NOT from email address above, just like the spammers do>
Martin Nisshagen
Joe Ragosta [] wrote:
>In article <B121A4F...@206.165.43.17>, "Lawson English"
><eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> Nope. I'm a long-time Mac user and part-time developer who is tired of
>> watching Mac advocates pretend that Apple is doing the right thing just
>> because it is Apple.
>And I'm a long-time Mac user who'd tired of Wintel FUDsters and people
>like you who pretend that Apple is doing the wrong thing just because it
>is Apple.
Well, if Apple management always has done the right thing they probably
would have performed a lot better, wouldn't they?
It's maybe not really strange that Apple get critique from both their own
users and also isn't always any viable option for users of other platforms.
Another thing, if you really can't stand that Apple and their management get
critiques and you have as a big problem with that as you seems to, maybe you
shouldn't participate in advocacy groups?
Just a small suggestion to think about.
Best regards,
m a r t i n | n
--
Martin Nisshagen ICQ UIN: 689662 __O verdi +
MTS Technology, Sweden -\<, callas =
martin-at-mts-se (MIME 1.0) PGP 5.0: 0x45D423AC (·)/(·) 100% pleasure
Spam this Monkey Boy
In article <joe.ragosta-07...@elk84.dol.net>,
joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta) wrote:
> Let's see:
>
> Newton has had 4-5 years and has flopped. It hasn't sold enough to cover
> the costs.
Joe, try this on for size:
Newton was not marketed by Apple for 4 to 5 years, and still develped a loyal
following of users and developers.
> Rhapsody, OTOH, hasn't even been released yet and it's getting rave reviews.
How long has Apple been promising a new OS to Mac users? Its about damn
time they started to deliver on the promise of a stable OS!
> Newton was a marginal product which was not strategic for Apple.
Newton was an exceptional product, and could have been strategic for Apple,
had someone in power had the cajones to follow through.
> Rhapsody _is_ strategic to Apple's future.
The way I perceive it is that Apple is playing up the Mac OS as
strategic to Apple's future, and that Rhapsody is being played down, not up.
> Newton did nothing to expand Apple's customer base.
Wrong again Joe. I've heard numerous comments from Newton owner's who
had no intention of buying or using a Mac. They were able to see Apple
as a company "bigger" than Macintosh. I would call that an expanded
customer base.
On the other hand, Apple completely blew any opportunity to lure the fringe
Wintel/Newt users into the Mac fold by dumping the Newton. Guess my
favorite computer company is busy contracting its base...agaian!
> Rhapsody is planned to (although no one knows if it will, yet).
I'll try not to hold my breath on that one.
Joe, I have been a pretty loyal Apple customer through the years:
Newton OMP, IIe, IIc, 512Ke, Mac Plus, SE/30, PB170, Performa 6115, Quadra
840AV,
and Newton 2100. I still own the last four machines. I am shopping for a
G3 or 8600.
I have specified and purchased Apple in the corporate setting, and was
president of
an Apple user group.
My current opinion of Apple couldn't be printed in a family newspaper. What
they did with the Newton group was unbelievably stupid, even for Apple!
My friends wonder why I still bother to own Mac's, when my PII will do pretty
much anything a Mac can do.
These days, I wonder why as well.
M Rassbach
Joe Ragosta wrote:
> Let's see:
> Newton has had 4-5 years and has flopped. It hasn't sold enough to cover
> the costs.
NeXTSTEP had 10 years. And without Steve's backing, would have died.
Basicly didn't cover costs.
> Rhapsody, OTOH, hasn't even been released yet and it's getting rave reviews.
The MessagePad 2100 IS getting rave reviews in the press.
> Newton was a marginal product which was not strategic for Apple.
> Rhapsody _is_ strategic to Apple's future.
It is? When bought, the NeXT OS will replace the MacOS. Now, it's just
a server OS. With a company that HAD a Unix server product, that was
canceled. 2 different times. A-UX and AIX, as I remember.
> Newton did nothing to expand Apple's customer base.
Apple's Newton was never marketed.
3Com sees the PalmPilot as needed to get the 3Com name in the HANDS of
eveyone.
Apple sees NO value in this. Look at what was done to the Newton. Look
how much advertising is done historically.
> Rhapsody is planned to (although no one knows if it will, yet).
Given time, and marketing perhaps Rhapsody will. The Newton was never
given the marketing chance.
> Perhaps even _you_ can understand the difference.
What difference. Numbers is Numbers.
Lets use yours.
$500 mil spent on Newton, and admission of not making a profit
historically.
$400 mil spent on NeXT, no sales (that we know of). And it's for a
product called Unix. Unix is known as not being a profitable desktop
OS. (back to Openstep being the MacOS replacement) Who knows how much
spent after the buyout.
To save the core product MacOS, NeXT should get dumped. That's what YOU
Joe Ragosta are supporting Apple to have done with the Newton. You need
to have Apple to that to save Mac OS. That's what you want, isn't it?
To save a niche product?
Kenneth Wong
Just to make a point, Apple hardly spent a cent on marketing the
Newton. If they had more marketing (a la Windows CE-style marketing)
and had cut the price to $799 earlier, they have beaten Win CE to the
line before WinCE 2.0 even had a chance.
Too late. Oh well.....
Kenneth Wong
On 4 Mar 1998 04:00:11 GMT, swh...@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu (Steve
White) wrote:
In article <B121A4F...@206.165.43.17>, "Lawson English"
<eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Nope. I'm a long-time Mac user and part-time developer who is tired of
> watching Mac advocates pretend that Apple is doing the right thing just
> because it is Apple.
Think, Lawson, think.
Apple says that it canned the Newton because it never made money.
Sales
were dropping. For every sales success in Newton land, the Palm Pilot
has
more. Sure, the PP isn't nearly as cool, but it does deliver something
that people want at a price people will pay.
If Apple had no (or minor) financial troubles, sure, stay the course
and
fight. When you've lost a couple billion dollars, and the press seems
to
think that the official title of the company now is "The Struggling
Apple
Computer, Inc.", then you have to pick your fights more carefully.
The same war of Wintel versus Mac was replaying itself: Palm Pilot and
other WinCE products versus Newton. I don't blame Apple for not
wanting to
fight this one.
The Newton is cool. WAY cool. I'd love to have one, but I couldn't
justify
spending over a grand on a MessagePad 2100, plus software, plus
accessories (and my employer wouldn't buy me one, drat).
The Newton is a technological wonder and a market flop. It's not like
the
Mac in one important sense -- the Mac has HAD great market-place
success,
and continues to hang on despite the adversity of the past three
years.
The Newton never got that chance.
There will be another chance. Somewhere in the next couple of years
some
clever engineers at Apple will hit on the next great thing (if I knew
what
that was, I wouldn't say so in public) and Apple will have a chance to
get
it right.
steve
Lawson English
> There will be another chance. Somewhere in the next couple of years
> some
> clever engineers at Apple will hit on the next great thing (if I knew
> what
> that was, I wouldn't say so in public) and Apple will have a chance to
> get
> it right.
So what makes you think that there are any clever engineers left at Apple
with time on their hands to come up with the "Next Big Thing?"
David Smiley
> Let's see:
>
> Newton has had 4-5 years and has flopped. It hasn't sold enough to cover
> the costs.
> Rhapsody, OTOH, hasn't even been released yet and it's getting rave reviews.
>
> Newton was a marginal product which was not strategic for Apple.
> Rhapsody _is_ strategic to Apple's future.
>
> Newton did nothing to expand Apple's customer base.
> Rhapsody is planned to (although no one knows if it will, yet).
>
> Perhaps even _you_ can understand the difference.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Joe Ragosta
> See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Page
> http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
You are very childish and have little ability to reason.
--David Smiley
Mitch Eguchi
In message <01bd46d4$085a7940$c074...@edwint.rauland.com>, "Edwin E. Thorne"
<edwin....@rauland.com> wrote:
>
> > think that the Mac advocates are a bunch of looney-tunes that haven't
a
> > clue as to what a PDA needs and I think that the Newton users should
> maybe
> > set them straight]
> >
Posted with my favorit Ink Spot from DejaVu Software, Inc.