Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

CNN to air "Apple is back" special tonight

27 views
Skip to first unread message

Scott

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to

CNN and Fortune Magazine will air a special "NewStand"
edition tonight on Apple Computer, Inc.'s recent turnaround.
This special, which will air at 10 p.m. EDT, will chronicle
the steps Apple has taken during the past year to transform
from a money-losing company into a dominant force in the
computer industry. A central theme of the show will be
Apple's current appeal to investors. Apple's stock has
nearly tripled since the beginning of the year.

With the launch of the widely acclaimed and
revolutionary iMac all-in-one computer less than three
weeks away, momentum for Apple Computer continues to
build. Find out more about Apple's plans for the future
in this CNN special report.

- Scott

Peter L

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
I laughed out loud. "A dominant force in the computer industry!?"

John Reder

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to

Isn't that the same program that aired the Viet Nam nerve gas story?

Scott

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to

> Isn't that the same program that aired the Viet Nam nerve gas story?

CNN NewsStand is actually three separate programs, with
different casts, producers, and content partners.

"NewsStand: CNN/Time" aired the Vietnam nerve gas story. This
program airs on Sundays and Mondays, and covers current events
and issues. For those who aren't familiar with the Vietnam
nerve gas story, this was a report broadcast by CNN that claimed
the military had used nerve gas on its own soldiers. This report
was later retracted by CNN and Time Magazine after the network was
unable to substantiate claims made by sources in the story. This
resulted in the firing of several producers and disciplinary
action taken against reporter Peter Arnett. The situation was
a great embarrassment to CNN.

"NewsStand: CNN/Fortune" focuses on the world of business and
money management. This program airs Wednesdays, and will
include a special on Apple Computer tonight at 10 p.m. EDT.

Finally, "NewsStand: CNN/Entertainment Weekly" covers the
world of entertainment and popular culture. It airs on Thursdays.

- Scott

Bobo

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
Without Apple, who would Microsoft copy?

Peter L wrote:

> I laughed out loud. "A dominant force in the computer industry!?"

Vladimir Kuznetsov

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to

Scott, you must be out of your mind. Who is it that they dominate
with their measly 2% of the market share?

vlad

PS. Are you sure you are not working for Apple?

In article <scott-29079...@cc1001538-a.hwrd1.md.home.com>,


Scott <sc...@SPAMdcski.com> wrote:
>
>the steps Apple has taken during the past year to transform
>from a money-losing company into a dominant force in the

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ha! Ha! Ha!

Scott

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to

Apple has 9.4% market share, according to figures just
released by PC Data. They are the fifth largest computer
manufacturer in the world. They bring in over $6 billion in
revenue per year. Their products have inspired the rest of
the computer industry for over 20 years - and continue to do
so. Apple's stock value has nearly tripled so far this year.
The iMac has generated more excitement than any other
computer launch in history. In some critical markets - such
as education - Apple is not only *a* dominant force but
they are *the* dominant force.

I'm not sure what your definition is of "a dominant force,"
but you don't seem to be up to date with the computer market
if you think Apple has 2% market share. I'd be laughing right
behind you if CNN made that statement a year and a half
ago, but the landscape has changed considerably since then --
suddenly Apple decided to get competitive, and it's starting
to pay off. Watch Apple's product rollouts for the remainder
of the year (not just the iMac) and see what kind of consumer
response they get.

- Scott

P.S. Are you sure you are not working for Compaq?

In article <6po310$8s$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>, vl...@best.com (Vladimir

Arman Afagh

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
In article <35BF58...@csus.edu>, Peter L <Nospam...@csus.edu> wrote:

>I laughed out loud. "A dominant force in the computer industry!?"

Do say, pray tell, what aspect of the computer industry Apple has *not*
had a significant impact on...

ARman.

--
Arman Afagh NYU School of Medicine - Class of 1999
arman...@med.nyu.edu http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~afagha01

Friends don't let friends buy Windows.

Peter L

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
Arman Afagh wrote:
>
> In article <35BF58...@csus.edu>, Peter L <Nospam...@csus.edu> wrote:
>
> >I laughed out loud. "A dominant force in the computer industry!?"
>
> Do say, pray tell, what aspect of the computer industry Apple has *not*
> had a significant impact on...
>
> ARman.
>

That's very different from saying Apple is a "dominant force" in the
industry. Was a dominant force, sure. Is a dominant force, I laugh.

JRStern

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 20:06:48 GMT, Bobo <robert...@pss.boeing.com>
wrote:

>Without Apple, who would Microsoft copy?

Everybody else.

J.


JRStern

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:16:24 -0400, John Reder
<000joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> CNN and Fortune Magazine will air a special "NewStand"
>> edition tonight on Apple Computer, Inc.'s recent turnaround.
>
> Isn't that the same program that aired the Viet Nam nerve gas story?

Nerve gas, of course. How else would you explain Apple's problems?

J.


Cuong Nguyen

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
Apple has a 9.4% RETAIL market share. Actually they only have
approximately a 4% total market share. They are not the fifth
largest manufacturer in the world. They are only the fifth
largest retail manufacturer in the nation.

The first quarter they also had approximately a 4% market share
but they only had approx 8% retail market share, so they are
growing in that respect. However, the heavy gains by direct
sellers like Gateway and Dell and fall in sales of retail outfits
like Compaq and IBM explain why this is the case.

Apple shipped somewhere between 600,000-700,000 systems the first quarter.
They did the same the second quarter.

Last year at this time there were over 1 million macs shipped(with clones).
The clones are gone and apple hasn't made up ground yet.

But I'm sure the imac will take care of that.

Scott (sc...@SPAMdcski.com) wrote:

: Apple has 9.4% market share, according to figures just

: - Scott

: > >from a money-losing company into a dominant force in the
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ha! Ha! Ha!

steve lajoie

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to

Vladimir Kuznetsov <vl...@best.com> wrote in article <6po310$8s$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>...


>
> Scott, you must be out of your mind. Who is it that they dominate
> with their measly 2% of the market share?
>
> vlad

Well, they're claiming more like 9 or 10% for the
current quarter, from market poll sources. But
that's still not "dominate". Microsoft "dominates",
Apple is a minor player.

Watch Scott try to change the subject from what
"dominate" is to your not knowing the current
market share poll. Whenever he pulls a boner,
he changes the subject.

Robert Nicholson

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
When will they repeat it?

Glen Warner

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to

Like who?

--gdw
> J.

--
Remove the 'nyet' from the e-mail address, and you'll be all set.
(%*#$&! spammers ....)

steve lajoie

unread,
Jul 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/31/98
to

Glen Warner <gdwarn...@ricochet.net> wrote in article <gdwarnernyet-3...@mg-20664219-226.ricochet.net>...


> In article <6pofdh$gp8$8...@news-1.news.gte.net>, JRS...@gte.net (JRStern) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 20:06:48 GMT, Bobo <robert...@pss.boeing.com>
> > wrote:
> > >Without Apple, who would Microsoft copy?
> >
> > Everybody else.
>
> Like who?

Well, they could copy Xerox, that's who Apple copied from.

Redmond Young

unread,
Aug 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/1/98
to


It's a big risk to take an idea from a lab experiment and make it
successful in the marketplace. Apple "bet the company" when it
introduced the Macintosh in 1984. They expended millions and
rewote their own original code for the Mac GUI.

Once a rousing success, THEN and ONLY THEN, will Microsoft enter
the market with a clone. And, they had the Mac OS SOURCE CODE
at their disposal because they were developing Mac Apps. Et Tu ? Bill ?

Microsoft, Compaq, Dell ... not innovators, just cloners.

Glen Warner

unread,
Aug 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/1/98
to
In article <01bdbcc2$68162140$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Glen Warner <gdwarn...@ricochet.net> wrote in article
<gdwarnernyet-3...@mg-20664219-226.ricochet.net>...
> > In article <6pofdh$gp8$8...@news-1.news.gte.net>, JRS...@gte.net
(JRStern) wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 20:06:48 GMT, Bobo <robert...@pss.boeing.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >Without Apple, who would Microsoft copy?
> > >
> > > Everybody else.
> >
> > Like who?
>
> Well, they could copy Xerox, that's who Apple copied from.

.... and unlike Microsoft, Apple paid for the privledge.

Since you brought up Xerox, you should know the dollar amount Apple paid
Xerox. If not, your statement is suspect at best simply because you left
out a significant fact (i.e., that Apple paid Xerox).

--gdw

Pierre A. von Kaenel

unread,
Aug 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/1/98
to
Redmond Young wrote:
>
> It's a big risk to take an idea from a lab experiment and make it
> successful in the marketplace. Apple "bet the company" when it
> introduced the Macintosh in 1984.

Let's not forget Apple"s Lisa!!
--
Pierre A. von Kaenel
Math & Computer Science Dept.
Skidmore College
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866

J Perry Fecteau

unread,
Aug 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/1/98
to
the xerox implementation was shitty and weak... much like microsoft's so you
are correct.

On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 20:33:04 GMT, "steve lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

>Glen Warner <gdwarn...@ricochet.net> wrote in article <gdwarnernyet-3...@mg-20664219-226.ricochet.net>...
>> In article <6pofdh$gp8$8...@news-1.news.gte.net>, JRS...@gte.net (JRStern) wrote:

>> > On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 20:06:48 GMT, Bobo <robert...@pss.boeing.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >Without Apple, who would Microsoft copy?
>> >
>> > Everybody else.

>> Like who?

>Well, they could copy Xerox, that's who Apple copied from.

-------------------- http://w3.nai.net/~perfecto -------------------------
The Internet Portal to Success.
-------------------- http://w3.nai.net/~perfecto -------------------------

Pierre A. von Kaenel

unread,
Aug 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/1/98
to
I know Apple copied the concept of the GUI interface and the use of a
mouse - I don't recall their paying anything for that. In fact, didn't
Xerox once sue Apple (many years after Apple took these ideas and made a
success of them) only to have the courts turn them away since it had
been so long?

Steven S. Bishop

unread,
Aug 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/1/98
to
Yes I remember Apple acquiring technology from Xerox but I don't remember
the terms. Recently however, I heard that Apple dropped it's suite against
Microsoft. Apple had alleged Microsoft copied their GUI. But does any of
this have much to do with their stock values. Both MS and APPL are doing
very well.

Pierre A. von Kaenel wrote in message <35C35AC3...@skidmore.edu>...

Scott

unread,
Aug 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/2/98
to
In article <35216...@newsprime.tidalwave.net>, "Steven S. Bishop"
<sbi...@tidalwave.net> wrote:

> Yes I remember Apple acquiring technology from Xerox but I don't remember
> the terms.

The biggest acquisition Apple made from Xerox was the acquisition
of the most of the researchers at Xerox that did pioneering work in
graphical user interface design. But their best work occurred
once they were at Apple, where they received complete support
and encouragement and funding from their management - something
they didn't get at Xerox.

A lot of people say "yeah, Microsoft copied Apple, but Apple
copied Xerox." Researchers at Xerox first developed the concept
of using a graphical interface exclusively, instead of having
separate text/graphical modes, as most computers did at the
time. Xerox also developed the idea of moveable windows,
popup menus, and the use of a mouse as an input device.

That was about it. These were very powerful concepts, of
course, but they did not add up to a fluid product. Each
concept was essentially a research paper.

The problem was, the management at Xerox didn't "get it."
The Xerox researchers were very excited about their technology,
and showed it off to managers, but the managers didn't think
it was marketable and didn't encourage its further development.

Then, Steve Jobs and a team of Apple researchers visited
Xerox. The Xerox engineers - thrilled that someone was showing
an interest in their work (something that had never happened
before), enthusiastically showed the Apple team their work.
Apple's team "got it" immediately, and began to envision a
graphical user interface metaphor that could be used as the
basis of an entire computer. There was an instant synergy
between the two teams, and shortly thereafter, many of
the top Xerox researchers switched employers and became
pioneering members on the Lisa - and/or Macintosh - teams.

Once the seeds were planted at Apple, they began to
grow into an entire operating system. And many of the
"GUI" concepts that are commonplace today were born at
Apple, not Xerox. Apple invented and refined the concept
of a "desktop metaphor" - where, for example, graphical
folder icons would represent directories, and users could
navigate a file system simply by double-clicking folders
and dragging documents around, much as users would do
in real life with paper documents and file cabinets.

The trash can was an Apple invention, along with the
ever-present menu bar. Other programs such as HyperCard
(which was an inspiration to the developers of the
World-Wide-Web) also broke new ground, offering
hypertext and a simple programming language. There
are so many GUI concepts we take for granted today
that originated at Apple, by brilliant people like
Bill Atkinson. Xerox was definitely the inspiration,
but Xerox hadn't gotten very far with their GUI work -
and without Apple, their work would have been discontinued
because Xerox management was ready to pull the plug.
Apple took these concepts, added a whole bunch of new
ones, and incorporated everything into a beautiful
machine that was "plug and play." From a software
engineer's perspective, the Mac was also incredibly
innovative. For example, Apple developed a "Toolbox"
of routines that could be used by all Macintosh
programmers, and all programs used the same Toolbox,
resulting in programs that shared the same look and
feel and took up less space. This is something that
hadn't been done by anyone prior.

A few years ago, Apple started a "look and feel"
law suit against Microsoft, and Xerox also sued Apple
on some minor points. In both cases, agreements had been
made between the two companies (Apple/Xerox, and
Apple/Microsoft), allowing the use of certain technologies,
and basically it was a lot of whining. For example, Apple
management had made a foolish decision years ago to allow
Microsoft to use Apple GUI concepts in their products (remember,
Microsoft has always been a big developer of Macintosh
applications and is largely responsible for the Mac's
success in the first place; without Microsoft Excel
and Word, the Mac may never have taken off.) Microsoft
interpreted this "permission" liberally, putting a lot
of Apple's GUI concepts into their Windows OS. Apple
didn't say anything until around Windows 3.1, when it
became clear that Windows had a chance of competing
against the Mac OS. So a long court battle ensued,
but was ultimately settled last summer after Microsoft
agreed to pay Apple "undisclosed" licensing fees on
an ongoing basis (a fact that, interestingly, has not
received much attention from people). The Xerox suit
was thrown out.

And the Mac also did not take off overnight. Apple's
Lisa was the first computer to feature a GUI, but at
$10,000, few people bought the Lisa. The Mac, with its
lower price, was more appealing, but there were very
few applications available for it initially, and the
first Mac did not have a sufficient amount of memory.
A few key programs - such as Microsoft Excel - along
with an updated Mac with more memory - served as the
real catalyst to the Mac's success. But that didn't
happen until around 1985.

That's some background information, but it doesn't
have much to do with investing. With software and OS
technologies such as QuickTime 3.0 and the upcoming
Mac OS 8.5 (due in late September/early October), you
will begin to see a lot of GUI innovations eminating
from Apple again. Apple is acting more like a startup
these days (just a very well-funded one), and that's
resulting in a lot of unique technologies hitting the
market quickly. Don't take my word for it (and I know
many of you won't); just watch over the next 6 months
to see what new technologies Apple introduces in their
hardware and software products, and the impact these
technologies have on the market. I'm particularly
excited about Mac OS 8.5 because it offers some really
cool features that aren't available on other platforms
yet. (For most of the 90's, Apple let Mac OS 7 sit
and rust!)

- Scott

Pierre A. von Kaenel

unread,
Aug 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/2/98
to
This is nice historical background on the development of the Mac. It
does appear that Apple is trying to regain innovation points - time will
tell if they can reach critical mass. But whatever they do that results
in new concepts will be good for the whole industry (we certainly know
MS will take any good ideas and use it in their products).

Greg Teets

unread,
Aug 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/3/98
to
>. Don't take my word for it (and I know
>many of you won't); just watch over the next 6 months
>to see what new technologies Apple introduces in their
>hardware and software products, and the impact these
>technologies have on the market. I'm particularly
>excited about Mac OS 8.5 because it offers some really
>cool features that aren't available on other platforms
>yet. (For most of the 90's, Apple let Mac OS 7 sit
>and rust!)
>
>- Scott

What are some of these "cool features" you're mentioning.

Thanks,
Greg Teets

Cincinnati, OH

Scott

unread,
Aug 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/3/98
to

> >. Don't take my word for it (and I know
> >many of you won't); just watch over the next 6 months
> >to see what new technologies Apple introduces in their
> >hardware and software products, and the impact these
> >technologies have on the market. I'm particularly
> >excited about Mac OS 8.5 because it offers some really
> >cool features that aren't available on other platforms
> >yet. (For most of the 90's, Apple let Mac OS 7 sit
> >and rust!)
> >
> >- Scott
>

> What are some of these "cool features" you're mentioning.

Hi Greg,

You can read about some of Mac OS 8.5's new features at:

http://www.macnn.com/reality/allegro.shtml

(Note that Mac OS 8.5 is codenamed "Allegro.")

There's a lot of features I'm excited about, but in
particular, the new "Find" command is really compelling.
It expands the current "Find" command's capabilities by
letting you search the Internet or doing a content/context-
based search on a mounted file system. It can even summarize
the results of a search, or save search parameters for
later. It shows results ranked by how strongly they
matched, complete with bar graphs, and you can select some
of the results and re-submit them to fine-tune the search.
The improvements to AppleScript are also awesome.
Few people have realized the power of AppleScript, but
it's starting to come into the light. For example, say
I'm designing a web site - working on the pages on my
local Mac, and uploading the pages to a UNIX server
when they're done. With AppleScript, I can have the
Mac OS automatically upload a file to an FTP server
anytime I drop a modified file into a folder. (It can
do this instantly, or at some regular time of the day,
much like a cron job on UNIX.) Or I can create a complex
Internet search using the new Find command, and save this
search as an AppleScript file. Anytime I double-click this
file, it will perform the search (and, also using AppleScript,
might format the search results in my word processor document
and then e-mail it to a list of people.) The sky is the limit
with AppleScript. I'd be happy to describe it in more
detail if anyone wants to hear about it; you might also
check out http://applescript.apple.com.

I've listed two features; there's dozens more that I'm
really excited to see, but I won't bore you further. Just
check that first reference I gave you for the 8.5 report
on MacNN.

- Scott

steve lajoie

unread,
Aug 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/3/98
to

Pierre A. von Kaenel <pv...@skidmore.edu> wrote in article <35C35AC3...@skidmore.edu>...


> I know Apple copied the concept of the GUI interface and the use of a
> mouse - I don't recall their paying anything for that. In fact, didn't
> Xerox once sue Apple (many years after Apple took these ideas and made a
> success of them) only to have the courts turn them away since it had
> been so long?

Yes, exactly. I remember the irony of Xerox suing Apple for
doing what Apple was suing Microsoft for - taking the GUI, ICON,
and mouse. It made me think of all the Apple advocates who
claim Apple is an innovative company when really they steal
ideas just like Microsoft, they just aren't as successful at
it.

steve lajoie

unread,
Aug 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/3/98
to

Redmond Young <re...@topspeed.corp.sun.com> wrote in article <6pu1jd$i8e$1...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>...

[snip]


> It's a big risk to take an idea from a lab experiment and make it
> successful in the marketplace. Apple "bet the company" when it

> introduced the Macintosh in 1984. They expended millions and
> rewote their own original code for the Mac GUI.

When Apple sued Microsoft, I think it was Xerox who sued Apple.
Apple charged that Microsoft stole their GUI and Mouse. Xerox
said the same thing about Apple. Apple's successful defense was
not that they didn't do it, but that Xerox waited too long to
sue.

This cornerstone of Apple innovation was, oddly enough,
stolen fair and square, apparently, from someone else. :-)



> Once a rousing success, THEN and ONLY THEN, will Microsoft enter
> the market with a clone. And, they had the Mac OS SOURCE CODE
> at their disposal because they were developing Mac Apps. Et Tu ? Bill ?

Well, since part of the quarter billion Microsoft gave Apple
was to settle all the lawsuit claims Apple had against Microsoft,
it would seem to be history and bringing it up just sour grapes.

> Microsoft, Compaq, Dell ... not innovators, just cloners.

Successful, profitable cloners, the kind we like to hear
about in misc.invest.stocks. Take the rest to comp.apple.advocacy.


Scott

unread,
Aug 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/3/98
to
In article <01bdbf0f$b1752120$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Redmond Young <re...@topspeed.corp.sun.com> wrote in article
<6pu1jd$i8e$1...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > It's a big risk to take an idea from a lab experiment and make it
> > successful in the marketplace. Apple "bet the company" when it
> > introduced the Macintosh in 1984. They expended millions and
> > rewote their own original code for the Mac GUI.
>
> When Apple sued Microsoft, I think it was Xerox who sued Apple.
> Apple charged that Microsoft stole their GUI and Mouse. Xerox

^^^^^ ???


> said the same thing about Apple. Apple's successful defense was
> not that they didn't do it, but that Xerox waited too long to
> sue.

The suit against Microsoft was very specific, listing specific
GUI features (such as the trash can, to list but one of many
examples) that Apple believed Microsoft had unfairly copied.
GUI concepts originally invented at Xerox were not part of Apple's
law suit. In a separate message (perhaps you should read it?)
in this thread, I clearly outlined the limited GUI features
invented at Xerox and the notable additions Apple made - such
as using a "desktop" metaphor to represent a file system, etc.
I also pointed out that the researchers from Xerox almost
unanimously changed employers to Apple, where they continued
to refine their ideas for many years under an incredibly
supportive management (something that was in complete contrast
to the situation at Xerox). It's this team that deserves praise,
not Xerox or Apple.

A mouse was not part of the suit at all -- I got a great laugh out
of that one. Since you don't seem to be very familiar with the case,
you might want to research it a bit more if you're going to insist
on making ludicrous statements like that.

(For what it's worth, I thought the lawsuit was awfully
silly. Rather than wasting time whining that their ideas had
been stolen, Apple should have shut up and just continued
innovating, being more careful to specifically patent ideas
that they wanted to retain in the future, as they do now.
But some features are so fundamental that it would hurt
the industry to patent them.)

> This cornerstone of Apple innovation was, oddly enough,
> stolen fair and square, apparently, from someone else. :-)
>
> > Once a rousing success, THEN and ONLY THEN, will Microsoft enter
> > the market with a clone. And, they had the Mac OS SOURCE CODE
> > at their disposal because they were developing Mac Apps. Et Tu ? Bill ?
>
> Well, since part of the quarter billion Microsoft gave Apple
> was to settle all the lawsuit claims Apple had against Microsoft,
> it would seem to be history and bringing it up just sour grapes.

You're the one that brought it up in the first place, Steve.

Glen Warner

unread,
Aug 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/4/98
to
In article <01bdbf10$92cc81e0$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

I think it's quite amazing how you can make these ridiculous assertions
without putting a smilie at the end of your post to indicate that you are
kidding (you are kidding, right?).

Scott explained *twice* exactly what happened with the Xerox lawsuit (no
mouse involved, etc.), and I explained that Apple PAID XEROX FOR THE
PRIVLEDGE of using some of their GUI elements ($100K in stock, if I recall
correctly) and still you persist in spreading this 'bovine scatology' (as
General Schwartzkopf (?sp) once said). Why is this?

steve lajoie

unread,
Aug 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/4/98
to

Glen Warner <gdwarn...@ricochet.net> wrote in article <gdwarnernyet-0...@mg-20664222-90.ricochet.net>...


> In article <01bdbf10$92cc81e0$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
> lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> > Pierre A. von Kaenel <pv...@skidmore.edu> wrote in article
> <35C35AC3...@skidmore.edu>...
> > > I know Apple copied the concept of the GUI interface and the use of a
> > > mouse - I don't recall their paying anything for that. In fact, didn't
> > > Xerox once sue Apple (many years after Apple took these ideas and made a
> > > success of them) only to have the courts turn them away since it had
> > > been so long?
> >
> > Yes, exactly. I remember the irony of Xerox suing Apple for
> > doing what Apple was suing Microsoft for - taking the GUI, ICON,
> > and mouse. It made me think of all the Apple advocates who
> > claim Apple is an innovative company when really they steal
> > ideas just like Microsoft, they just aren't as successful at
> > it.
>
> I think it's quite amazing how you can make these ridiculous assertions
> without putting a smilie at the end of your post to indicate that you are
> kidding (you are kidding, right?).

Seems some of us remember things differently. We don't
need the Apple Advocates Revisionist version of history.



> Scott explained *twice* exactly what happened with the Xerox lawsuit

Scott tends to make things up as he goes along. We've already established
he's not a reputable source in another thread.

> (no mouse involved, etc.),

Maybe not, NPR isn't THE most reputable source, and that's
where I heard the mouse originated at Xerox. Since we had
secretaries using that word processing system and it used a
mouse, I didn't think much of it at the time. But you know, I
tend to believe what I saw of the system and NPR more than
you Apple Advocates.

You might be right. But you're such a passionate bunch that
I just tend to write you off as a bunch of geeks who get all
worked up over trivial details.

> and I explained that Apple PAID XEROX FOR THE
> PRIVLEDGE

You're not high on my list of credible sources either.
I regard you people as eccentrics more interested in
Apple advocacy than stocks. I guess you got tired of
preaching to the choir in your own news group and decided
to infest others like misc.invest.stocks.

:-)
We're sure glad we have people like you guys here to
play Apple trivia and to revise the glorious history
of the Apple Computer Company.
:-)

Not.

Scott

unread,
Aug 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/5/98
to
In article <01bdbfb7$c9c9ae00$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> > Scott explained *twice* exactly what happened with the Xerox lawsuit
>
> Scott tends to make things up as he goes along. We've already established
> he's not a reputable source in another thread.

Scott here: I guess I must have missed that thread. I
do seem to recall pointing out numerous blunders on your part,
which you completely ignore, or just keep repeating. (I still
remember your insistence that Apple had killed all of the
technologies in Rhapsody, an argument that was very
perplexing then and now. At best, Apple changed the name
of their future operating system. That hardly seems to be
of consequence from an investor's point of view.)

To be honest, one has to really question your motives.
You complain about "Mac people" posting on misc.invest.stocks,
calling us "geeks," but seem obliged to reply to every single
message that is Apple Computer related. Of course, you
never have anything positive to say, and regularly spew out
deception. You've established that you do not own or use
a Macintosh, and have little knowledge or interest in the
Mac platform, yet feel compelled to constantly post messages
about Apple, calling people like me -- a long-time Macintosh
user and software developer - a non-reputable source. In
case you haven't noticed, I point out the good and bad.
People who think other people are unobjective often are
revealing their own unobjectivity.

So what is it, Steve? Why do you keep posting about Apple
Computer? You're the one that seems to be on a religious
crusade, not us. We're Apple investors and would like to
candidly discuss happenings related to Apple and what effects
these might have on Apple's stock and future prospects as an
investment. I didn't invest in Apple because I like the
company; I invested in Apple to make money. There are a few
voices of reason on this newsgroup; you most definitely are
not one of them.

> > (no mouse involved, etc.),
>
> Maybe not, NPR isn't THE most reputable source, and that's
> where I heard the mouse originated at Xerox. Since we had
> secretaries using that word processing system and it used a
> mouse, I didn't think much of it at the time. But you know, I
> tend to believe what I saw of the system and NPR more than
> you Apple Advocates.

Thank you for another example.

It's interesting how *you* constantly revise history.
NO ONE is debating the fact that the mouse was invented by
Xerox. Not a single "Apple Advocate" made that claim.

You made the statement that Xerox was suing Apple because
they "copied" the mouse, when in fact, the mouse was never
part of the lawsuit. (Just to refresh your memory, here
was your exact statement:)

Steve said:

> When Apple sued Microsoft, I think it was Xerox who sued Apple.
> Apple charged that Microsoft stole their GUI and Mouse. Xerox

> said the same thing about Apple.

That's what people found so funny. I was quite familiar
with intimate aspects of the law suit, and I can assure you,
a peripheral device such as a mouse was never even remotely
part of the suit (be it Apple's suit against Microsoft, or
Xerox's suit against Apple.)

It's odd that you're now trying to vehemently argue that
Xerox invented the mouse, something that was never contested.
I guess you always have to be arguing something. Which,
again, leads me to question your motives. I'm not sure how
to have a useful discussion or debate with you when your
reasoning is so abritrary.

- Scott

Glen Warner

unread,
Aug 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/5/98
to
In article <01bdbfb7$c9c9ae00$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> > In article <01bdbf10$92cc81e0$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
> > lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

(*snip*)

> >
> > I think it's quite amazing how you can make these ridiculous assertions
> > without putting a smilie at the end of your post to indicate that you are
> > kidding (you are kidding, right?).
>
> Seems some of us remember things differently. We don't
> need the Apple Advocates Revisionist version of history.

I think the idea of history is that you write stuff down so that people
later can read what happened and repeat it as it actually happened.
Ideally, that would keep people from making stuff up.

Ideally.

> > Scott explained *twice* exactly what happened with the Xerox lawsuit
>
> Scott tends to make things up as he goes along. We've already established
> he's not a reputable source in another thread.

Guess I missed that thread. I think, though, that I would be more inclined
to take the word of a Mac developer who provides links to back up his
claims as opposed to a guy who's never used a Mac and tends to 'make
things up as he goes along', to coin a phrase.



> > (no mouse involved, etc.),
>
> Maybe not, NPR isn't THE most reputable source, and that's
> where I heard the mouse originated at Xerox. Since we had
> secretaries using that word processing system and it used a
> mouse, I didn't think much of it at the time. But you know, I
> tend to believe what I saw of the system and NPR more than
> you Apple Advocates.
>

> You might be right. But you're such a passionate bunch that
> I just tend to write you off as a bunch of geeks who get all
> worked up over trivial details.

Didn't John Dvorak say something similar a few weeks back?

> > and I explained that Apple PAID XEROX FOR THE
> > PRIVLEDGE
>
> You're not high on my list of credible sources either.

Thanks. You can probably imagine where you are on my list of creditible
sources. If not, let me put it this way: chances are good that the guy
next to you on that list wants some ice water ... which he won't get.

> I regard you people as eccentrics more interested in
> Apple advocacy than stocks. I guess you got tired of
> preaching to the choir in your own news group and decided
> to infest others like misc.invest.stocks.

Actually, we have a *lot* of people just like you in
comp.sys.mac.advocacy. They apparently get tired of troubleshooting their
systems in comp.os.windows.advocacy and post "Macs Suck!! PCs RULE!!"
messages in c.s.m.a.

Must be that amazing Windows multitasking ....


>
> :-)
> We're sure glad we have people like you guys here to
> play Apple trivia and to revise the glorious history
> of the Apple Computer Company.
> :-)
>
> Not.

So don't read or respond to the posts. Doesn't your newsreader (Microsoft
Internet News 4.blah blah blah) have a killfile? Feel free to put me in
it.

Alex

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to

Scott heeft geschreven in bericht ...

>In article <35216...@newsprime.tidalwave.net>, "Steven S. Bishop"
><sbi...@tidalwave.net> wrote:
>
> That's some background information, but it doesn't
>have much to do with investing.

Maybe it does...

>With software and OS
>technologies such as QuickTime 3.0 and the upcoming
>Mac OS 8.5 (due in late September/early October), you
>will begin to see a lot of GUI innovations eminating
>from Apple again. Apple is acting more like a startup
>these days (just a very well-funded one), and that's
>resulting in a lot of unique technologies hitting the
>market quickly. Don't take my word for it (and I know
>many of you won't); just watch over the next 6 months
>to see what new technologies Apple introduces in their
>hardware and software products, and the impact these
>technologies have on the market. I'm particularly
>excited about Mac OS 8.5 because it offers some really
>cool features that aren't available on other platforms
>yet. (For most of the 90's, Apple let Mac OS 7 sit
>and rust!)
>
>- Scott

I came to computing via the old Commodore 64
and then the Amiga 600 (both cheap little machines).
The Amiga has in common with the AppleMac that it
ran on Motorola (68000) chips (also Lisa, Denise etc.).

The thing with the Amiga was that it used very little memory
to play games or do anything, really. The OS worked with
a *1MB* memory chip (this PC I'm using now needs 32!) and
you could still play stuff like Gunship 2000 or A-10 Tankkiller
(whopping 3 and 2 MB sized games). Now you need at least
50 MB diskspace.
I read somewhere that the IBM/Intel based PC is a whole lot less efficient
than these old Motorola based machines.
It just makes you wonder what computing could have looked like if
Amiga and Apple had had the cheap peripherals, low price and
compatability of IBM computers.
I also read that the people who made the Amiga were ex Apple people.

What killed them both is that they never really got the prices of fully
functional machines down. For the Amiga, upgrading it from a
smooth running *7 Mhz* machine to a whopping 25 Mhz still today costs
as much as the computer itself did (second hand). 1MB of memory,
so you can run on 2 MB still costs $85,-.

But to slightly offset that (and the reason why so many stuck with them
for so long, including me) is that there is a huge, generous community
of programmers out there. Hacked games were cheap, there's lots
of _real_ freeware, etc. The Amiga had a rational Libraries structure
(need a new library: just download it a drop it in Libs:.

What do you think will happen with the Power PC project? Will
it give a new lease on life to the Mac?


Alex

Paul Durrant

unread,
Aug 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/14/98
to
In article <6qijq2$2fq$2...@news2.xs4all.nl>,
"Alex" <avde...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> What do you think will happen with the Power PC project? Will
> it give a new lease on life to the Mac?

Um... it sounds like you're a little out of date. The 680x0 to PPC
transition happened several years ago (1994 IIRC).

If Apple hadn't made the switch, and done it so smoothly and successfully
they'd now be gone.

Paul Durrant

Nigel HAMLIN

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to
steve lajoie wrote:
: You're not high on my list of credible sources either. I

regard you people as
: eccentrics more interested in Apple advocacy than stocks. I
guess you got
: tired of preaching to the choir in your own news group and
decided to infest
: others like misc.invest.stocks.
: :-) We're sure glad we have people like you guys here to play

Apple trivia and
: to revise the glorious history of the Apple Computer Company.
: :-)
: Not.

It occurs to me that it could be "investors" and other
associated "city" or "Wall Street analysts" (give me strength!)
who
have
the sort of attitude that you displayed here, steve (yeah, I
note that you don't even capitalise your own name), who are
responsible for all those "forecasts" that turn out to be so
outrageously incorrect. But they still influence the market so
much, mainly because its so full of all the other dunderheads
who swallow all that sort of BS so gullibly!

What really frightens me is that people like you are also
allowed to vote. But it doesn't frighten me too much, because you
don't get to vote in my country!!!

Nigel HAMLIN
Director
Innovatique Limited

The biggest single improvement that could be made in online
conferences would be for everyone to avoid stating their
personal opinions or preferences as facts. By all means express
your opinion, but avoid phrases like "Everyone agrees....."
or "Most people ......". Remember the opinion is yours and its
not correct to try to speak for everyone else!


http://messages.cnet.com Your information exchange place.
http://messages.cnet.com/news/ Join Now!

Glen Warner

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
In article <dnf.news._____K.___...@messages.cnet.com>,
nig...@pobox.com (Nigel HAMLIN) wrote:

> steve lajoie wrote:
> : You're not high on my list of credible sources either. I
> : regard you people as eccentrics more interested in Apple advocacy than
> : stocks. I guess you got tired of preaching to the choir in your own news
> : group and decided to infest others like misc.invest.stocks.
> : :-) We're sure glad we have people like you guys here to play
> : Apple trivia and to revise the glorious history of the Apple Computer
> : Company.
> : :-)
> : Not.

> It occurs to me that it could be "investors" and other
> associated "city" or "Wall Street analysts" (give me strength!)
> who have the sort of attitude that you displayed here, steve (yeah, I
> note that you don't even capitalise your own name), who are
> responsible for all those "forecasts" that turn out to be so
> outrageously incorrect. But they still influence the market so
> much, mainly because its so full of all the other dunderheads
> who swallow all that sort of BS so gullibly!

"You can fool some of the people some of the time ....", as the saying
goes. Ol' Steve used to routinely cast aspersions on Apple as an
investment and its hardware. He also rewrote history and, when called on
it by Scott or myself, would ignore the correction and post the same
misinformation in another Apple-related thread a few days later. When
called on his 'tactics', he simply stopped posting ... because everything
Scott pointed out about him was correct: he didn't use Macs, didn't own a
Mac, constantly .... well, you get the idea. Suffice it to say, he's
stopped posting. Never answered Scott's questions, either.

Interesting that the folks who said the iMac would fail got hit today with
the headlines about the iMac being the #1 seller this month ... despite
only having been around for *half* a month ......

.... and don't get me started on thos companies that make "iPCs" all of
the sudden.



> What really frightens me is that people like you are also
> allowed to vote. But it doesn't frighten me too much, because you
> don't get to vote in my country!!!

I was going to make a comment about reproduction here, but I'll spare you ....

--gdw
>
> Nigel HAMLIN

(verbose .sig *snipped*)

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/16/98
to
Nigel HAMLIN wrote:
>
> steve lajoie wrote:
> : You're not high on my list of credible sources either. I
> regard you people as
> : eccentrics more interested in Apple advocacy than stocks. I
> guess you got
> : tired of preaching to the choir in your own news group and
> decided to infest
> : others like misc.invest.stocks.
> : :-) We're sure glad we have people like you guys here to play
> Apple trivia and
> : to revise the glorious history of the Apple Computer Company.
> : :-)
> : Not.
>
> It occurs to me that it could be "investors" and other
> associated "city" or "Wall Street analysts" (give me strength!)
> who
> have
> the sort of attitude that you displayed here, steve (yeah, I
> note that you don't even capitalise your own name), who are
> responsible for all those "forecasts" that turn out to be so
> outrageously incorrect.

I responded to a post that was pure Apple advocacy. It
didn't belong here.

> But they still influence the market so
> much, mainly because its so full of all the other dunderheads
> who swallow all that sort of BS so gullibly!

I admit to having a fundamental approach to investing,
rather than the current incredibly popular speculative
approach.

Nope, I didn't see Apple going from 13 to 38, and I should
have because of the very low price to sales ratio. And if
you read back far enough, I predicted Apple would show a
profit IF they cut R&D and G&A enough. I said this would
just be another route to the company's death.

The Price to sales ratio of Apple computer is very good.
Lots of people pointed that out to me a long time ago,
and I foolishly ignored it because other financial data
going on in the company were positively sick.

I predict that they will have revenue growth, and maybe
another modest profit. I see Apple to 50 - 60 range by
late January. High risk, but worth an investment. Buy now
because by the end of the month, Job's will be shooting his
mouth off with half truths again which will trigger large
buying demand. I figure 50 by late October.

Long term, this company is doomed. But then, what company
isn't?

> What really frightens me is that people like you are also
> allowed to vote. But it doesn't frighten me too much, because you
> don't get to vote in my country!!!

Well, I don't make idiot post to the usenet groups like
misc.invest.stocks that are nothing more than 20/20 hind
sight and childish insults.


> Nigel HAMLIN
> Director
> Innovatique Limited
>
> The biggest single improvement that could be made in online
> conferences would be for everyone to avoid stating their
> personal opinions or preferences as facts.

Well, that explains why you come here spouting
bs and have no facts at all.

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/16/98
to
Glen Warner wrote:


> "You can fool some of the people some of the time ....", as the saying
> goes. Ol' Steve used to routinely cast aspersions on Apple as an
> investment and its hardware.

As an investment, yes, I said it sucked. As to the hardware, no,
if you go back and look you'll see that I called the actual hardware
"elegant" and well designed, as compared to the PC which I said
was a series of kluges to make it compatible with an operating system
it was never compatible with.

So, you're half right. You go down from here.

> He also rewrote history and, when called on
> it by Scott or myself, would ignore the correction and post the same
> misinformation in another Apple-related thread a few days later.

You pointed to a number of web sites as references to "correct"
me, and many of them either were too vague or supported my
position.

> When
> called on his 'tactics', he simply stopped posting ... because everything
> Scott pointed out about him was correct: he didn't use Macs, didn't own a
> Mac, constantly .... well, you get the idea.

I sit 15 feet from a mac. It's turned off. I stopped responding
because you guys would go off on fantastic tangents and distortions
and totally lose sight of what I am here for, to make money.
I don't give a damn about your mac advocacy.

> Suffice it to say, he's stopped posting.

Well, wrong again.

>Never answered Scott's questions, either.

Never saw 'em. Besides, Scott doesn't ask questions, he
"advocates". Since he thinks he knows everything, he has
no need to ask.


> Interesting that the folks who said the iMac would fail got hit today with
> the headlines about the iMac being the #1 seller this month ... despite
> only having been around for *half* a month ......

Define "fail". My concerns about the iMac are that it's
a low margin product and competes with the G3s. Most of
the iMac sales are people with older Macs seeking to
upgrade - these people would have eventually have bought
a G3. But even Apple knows that once this Mac advocate
market segment is saturated, sales are going to be
greatly reduced.

It's also too danged expensive.


> .... and don't get me started on thos companies that make "iPCs" all of
> the sudden.
>

> > What really frightens me is that people like you are also
> > allowed to vote. But it doesn't frighten me too much, because you
> > don't get to vote in my country!!!
>

> I was going to make a comment about reproduction here, but I'll spare you ....

Hum. I didn't see any content in your message about the
prospects of Apple stock. Insults, some lies, but nothing
about stocks. Have a nice day.

P.S. without me, you Apple advocates would have very,
very short and repetitious threads. Lets face it, you
love me because I give you a devil's advocate on which
to further argue for your nearly extinct religion.

Namara

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to

I didn't see it. I missed it. And
WELCOME BACK MAC !!!!!!!


Namara <----could of been a contender!


Glen Warner

unread,
Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98
to
In article <36000BED...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Glen Warner wrote:
>
>
> > "You can fool some of the people some of the time ....", as the saying
> > goes. Ol' Steve used to routinely cast aspersions on Apple as an
> > investment and its hardware.
>
> As an investment, yes, I said it sucked. As to the hardware, no,
> if you go back and look you'll see that I called the actual hardware
> "elegant" and well designed, as compared to the PC which I said
> was a series of kluges to make it compatible with an operating system
> it was never compatible with.

I must have missed that thread.

> So, you're half right. You go down from here.


>
> > He also rewrote history and, when called on it by Scott or
> > myself, would ignore the correction and post the same misinformation
> > in another Apple-related thread a few days later.
>
> You pointed to a number of web sites as references to "correct"
> me, and many of them either were too vague or supported my
> position.

I didn't point out any web sites. That was Scott.

> > When called on his 'tactics', he simply stopped posting ... because
> > everything Scott pointed out about him was correct: he didn't use Macs,
> > didn't own a Mac, constantly .... well, you get the idea.
>
> I sit 15 feet from a mac. It's turned off.

Um ... they seem to work better if ... oh, never mind.

> I stopped responding because you guys would go off on fantastic tangents and
> distortions and totally lose sight of what I am here for, to make money.
> I don't give a damn about your mac advocacy.

As Scott said in the message you "missed": so don't answer the posts.

There is a lot of really bad information out there on Macs, most of it
from journalists who reportedly know how to do research ... which they
seem to forget how to do when they're writing about the Mac. This means
that would-be customer 'A' would read an article by one of these
'journalists' which says, say "Wow, Apple stole the mouse from Xerox?!"
(or whatever misinformation is in the article) and then buy something
else. Scott's posts actually are informative to non-Mac users that don't
read the Mac news websites, and as a result don't know that Apple is
planning on releasing project 'ABC' during month 'X', and that this would
be an opportunity for them to make some money.

In this newsgroup, you make up things or distort any Apple-related news
and repeat it like it's true. When Mac-users correct you, you complain,
call us names, etc. Scott asked you some questions which you claim you
never saw ... and yet you mysteriously stopped posting.

Is there a statistician in the house?

> > Suffice it to say, he's stopped posting.
>
> Well, wrong again.

Really? Please allow me to quote you ... amazingly enough, from this very
message:

> I stopped responding because you guys would go off on fantastic tangents

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ !


> and distortions and totally lose sight of what I am here for, to make
> money. I don't give a damn about your mac advocacy.

Now ... who's wrong?

> >Never answered Scott's questions, either.
>
> Never saw 'em. Besides, Scott doesn't ask questions, he "advocates".

In this particular instance, he asked questions. Questions like "If you
don't like Apple, why do you respond to each and every Apple-related
thread?" (not an exact quote, but close enough.)

Also, as I pointed out once before: if it came down to making an
investment decision based on the word of Scott, an Apple developer, or
you, a guy who can't bring himself to turn on the Mac in his office, then
the choice is obvious.

> Since he thinks he knows everything, he has no need to ask.

Okay ... let's test *your* knowledge.

You have a PowerBook 3400c sitting on your desk. You have an iMac sitting
next to it. Both systems are powered up and ready to go. How can you
transfer your files from your PowerBook to the iMac? (You've also left
your PowerBook's floppy drive at home.)

> > Interesting that the folks who said the iMac would fail got hit today with
> > the headlines about the iMac being the #1 seller this month ... despite
> > only having been around for *half* a month ......
>
> Define "fail".

In this instance, I wasn't discussing your predictions; rather those of
the folks in the press who moaned about there being no floppy, etc., etc.
Some of these people said Apple would be unable to move the iMac at all
... and, in this instance, "Fail" is defined as 'a dud'. A 'non-seller'. A
serious 'don't wanter'.

> My concerns about the iMac are that it's a low margin product and competes
> with the G3s.

Unfortunately, the folks at Market Intelligence don't seem to agree with
you. The G3's are selling quite well, thank you. Here's a URL which
defends my position:

http://www.ci.infobeads.com/InfoBeads/Pages/Main/Main.asp?module=insider&topic=Consumer_Market&story=iMac_0916

Now, I've shown you mine. Show me yours.

> Most of the iMac sales are people with older Macs seeking to upgrade - these
> people would have eventually have bought a G3.

Really? Check out the picture --

http://www.jollyroj.com

-- and see what a Mac-user discovered on his neighbors' curb one morning. :o)

> But even Apple knows that once this Mac advocate market segment is saturated,
> sales are going to be greatly reduced.

Steve Jobs promised "a suprise every 90 days" when he "took" the job as
kinda-sorta CEO ... look for an iMac with a bigger monitor coming Real
Soon Now ... probably around Christmas time.

> It's also too danged expensive.

So wait until Christmas. The iMac should drop to $999. Besides ... the
iMac isn't for you; you are not a first-time computer buyer.

Did you hear about the Compaq rep that bought an iMac so his techs could
take it apart and study it? They apparently had concerns about heat, the
translucent casing ("Where are the support ribs?"), etc. ... and wanted to
see how Apple solved these problems ... without losing money on each
machine.

> > .... and don't get me started on those companies that make "iPCs" all of


> > the sudden.
> >
> > > What really frightens me is that people like you are also
> > > allowed to vote. But it doesn't frighten me too much, because you
> > > don't get to vote in my country!!!
> >
> > I was going to make a comment about reproduction here, but I'll spare
you ....
>
> Hum. I didn't see any content in your message about the prospects of
> Apple stock. Insults, some lies, but nothing about stocks. Have a nice day.

Thanks. Since I was responding to someone else's post that also neglected
to have any such content, of course there wasn't anything like that in
there. But, if you insist ... Apple is going up. Quarterly results are due
out next month, all indications are it will be in the $70 million dollar
range again. Also on tap for next month is the release of System 8.5.
Coming up in January is Macworld SF ... and the possible introduction of a
new consumer portable ... which (if the rumors and whispers are true) will
satisfy the owners of current E-Mates and Newtons ... as well as PowerBook
owners.

> P.S. without me, you Apple advocates would have very, very short and
> repetitious threads. Lets face it, you love me because I give
> you a devil's advocate on which to further argue for your nearly
> extinct religion.

I think you meant to say "Ancient weapons and hokey religions are no match
for a good blaster at your side." Sure sounds like it.

Either way, my response is the same: Yeah, yeah. Whatever.

--gdw

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98
to

Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, you're not
objective and the journalist may have a point? This "Apple
gets bad press" line is getting really old. Apple gets it's
share of good press, even in the Wall Street Journal.

It's just a knee jerk reaction to kill the messenger.



> In this newsgroup, you make up things or distort any Apple-related news
> and repeat it like it's true. When Mac-users correct you, you complain,
> call us names, etc.

I've been very patient. Go count how many names were called
on each side.

It's simply not true that I've distorted or made up
facts. Go check it out. The only error I recall making
was using the 10-Q for the old quarter when the 10-Q for
the current quarter came out at about the same time I posted.
I called the old 10-Q the "last" one.

Other than that, the general complaint as been I've
not been a spin doctor for the Apple Computer company.

> Scott asked you some questions which you claim you
> never saw ... and yet you mysteriously stopped posting.

Scott's post are long winded, to be kind.



> Is there a statistician in the house?
>
> > > Suffice it to say, he's stopped posting.
> >
> > Well, wrong again.
>
> Really? Please allow me to quote you ... amazingly enough, from this very
> message:
>
> > I stopped responding because you guys would go off on fantastic tangents
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ !
> > and distortions and totally lose sight of what I am here for, to make
> > money. I don't give a damn about your mac advocacy.
>
> Now ... who's wrong?

I stopped responding to fantastic tangents and distortions
that lose sight of what we're here for. That's not the same
as not posting.

> > >Never answered Scott's questions, either.
> >
> > Never saw 'em. Besides, Scott doesn't ask questions, he "advocates".
>
> In this particular instance, he asked questions.

He advocates.

> Questions like "If you
> don't like Apple, why do you respond to each and every Apple-related
> thread?" (not an exact quote, but close enough.)

1) Who the hell are you or Scott to question what I can or cannot
post to? Who appointed you net god?

2) Some of the rosy optimistic things Apple advocates post
are just plain old misleading and incredibly one sided. This
newsgroup is not the Apple advocacy group, it's a stock group
and both sides of the risk reward equation need to be pointed
out, and if YOU people can't see the risk, then I do a service
by pointing out the risks and drawbacks of buying Apple
stock.



> Also, as I pointed out once before: if it came down to making an
> investment decision based on the word of Scott, an Apple developer, or
> you, a guy who can't bring himself to turn on the Mac in his office, then
> the choice is obvious.

For the average Apple advocate, I suppose it wouldn't matter
what I say and your choice is obvious.



> > Since he thinks he knows everything, he has no need to ask.
>
> Okay ... let's test *your* knowledge.
>
> You have a PowerBook 3400c sitting on your desk. You have an iMac sitting
> next to it. Both systems are powered up and ready to go. How can you
> transfer your files from your PowerBook to the iMac? (You've also left
> your PowerBook's floppy drive at home.)

Macs come equipped and ready to go with Apple's proprietary
network, and have for years. It's just a cable with a funny
connector on end. Plug it in and set up one to be a service
and there you go.

I actually find your post to be rather insulting and off topic.



> > > Interesting that the folks who said the iMac would fail got hit today with
> > > the headlines about the iMac being the #1 seller this month ... despite
> > > only having been around for *half* a month ......
> >
> > Define "fail".
>
> In this instance, I wasn't discussing your predictions; rather those of
> the folks in the press who moaned about there being no floppy, etc., etc.
> Some of these people said Apple would be unable to move the iMac at all
> ... and, in this instance, "Fail" is defined as 'a dud'. A 'non-seller'. A
> serious 'don't wanter'.

You flame me because of something the press said?

I think I questioned the wisdom of the low margin iMac overlapping
the market of the high margin G3. I questioned new customer acceptance
of the iMac.

But I don't think I said it wouldn't sell. G3 sales were impressive,
but lots of Mac users were waiting for a cheaper alternative to the
G3 since the clones were killed.


> > My concerns about the iMac are that it's a low margin product and competes
> > with the G3s.
>
> Unfortunately, the folks at Market Intelligence don't seem to agree with
> you. The G3's are selling quite well, thank you. Here's a URL which
> defends my position:
>
> http://www.ci.infobeads.com/InfoBeads/Pages/Main/Main.asp?module=insider&topic=Consumer_Market&story=iMac_0916
>
> Now, I've shown you mine. Show me yours.

Yours doesn't work. It dumps you at a page that asks for your
password. Very funny.



> > Most of the iMac sales are people with older Macs seeking to upgrade - these
> > people would have eventually have bought a G3.
>
> Really? Check out the picture --
>
> http://www.jollyroj.com
>
> -- and see what a Mac-user discovered on his neighbors' curb one morning. :o)

Wow. Two empty iMac boxes found by some extremist Apple Advocate.

/*Sarcasm Mode On */
Well, >I< certainly am willing to bet the farm on Apple now that
I know that!
/*Sarcasm Mode off*/

This is exactly the kind of worthless stuff that I stopped
responding to. How long did it take to find that one?

> > But even Apple knows that once this Mac advocate market segment is saturated,
> > sales are going to be greatly reduced.
>
> Steve Jobs promised "a suprise every 90 days" when he "took" the job as
> kinda-sorta CEO ... look for an iMac with a bigger monitor coming Real
> Soon Now ... probably around Christmas time.

So?



> > It's also too danged expensive.
>
> So wait until Christmas. The iMac should drop to $999. Besides ... the
> iMac isn't for you; you are not a first-time computer buyer.

I was told that I underestimated the iMac appeal to first time
computer buyers. Maybe so. I seem to recall that the majority
of buyers own older Macs. The iMac is the first non clone
upgrade option anywhere near a reasonable price in a long time.


> Did you hear about the Compaq rep that bought an iMac so his techs could
> take it apart and study it? They apparently had concerns about heat, the
> translucent casing ("Where are the support ribs?"), etc. ... and wanted to
> see how Apple solved these problems ... without losing money on each
> machine.

Motorola chips don't run as hot as Intel chips. They're looking
in the wrong place to solve their problems, and this is totally
irrelevant and why did you bring it up.



> > > .... and don't get me started on those companies that make "iPCs" all of
> > > the sudden.
> > >
> > > > What really frightens me is that people like you are also
> > > > allowed to vote. But it doesn't frighten me too much, because you
> > > > don't get to vote in my country!!!
> > >
> > > I was going to make a comment about reproduction here, but I'll spare
> you ....
> >
> > Hum. I didn't see any content in your message about the prospects of
> > Apple stock. Insults, some lies, but nothing about stocks. Have a nice day.
>
> Thanks. Since I was responding to someone else's post that also neglected
> to have any such content, of course there wasn't anything like that in
> there.

So, why the insult then?

> But, if you insist ... Apple is going up. Quarterly results are due
> out next month, all indications are it will be in the $70 million dollar
> range again.

I wouldn't be surprised. And how was this inconsistent with
what I said? I think Apple stock will at least go to 50.
I once overestimated the Apple investor and thought that
he wouldn't be fooled by fiddling with the numbers. I'm not
going to overestimate the Apple investor again. Another good
quarter of profits will send Apple stock up, regardless of
what Apple cuts within the company to get that profit.

[snip]

> > P.S. without me, you Apple advocates would have very, very short and
> > repetitious threads. Lets face it, you love me because I give
> > you a devil's advocate on which to further argue for your nearly
> > extinct religion.
>
> I think you meant to say "Ancient weapons and hokey religions are no match
> for a good blaster at your side." Sure sounds like it.

Oh, goody. Now we're quoting star wars.

Scott

unread,
Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98
to
In article <3607E489...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, you're not
> objective and the journalist may have a point? This "Apple
> gets bad press" line is getting really old. Apple gets it's
> share of good press, even in the Wall Street Journal.
>
> It's just a knee jerk reaction to kill the messenger.

Apple certainly has been getting lots of good press lately.

But a lot of Mac users have regularly seen statements in
the press that are outright wrong. And the same journalist
names seem to pop up over and over. I think you grossly
underestimate the objectivity and sensibility of Mac users.

Consider that the same journalists are the ones who keep
getting mail from "rabid" Mac users everytime they go to
press. There are plenty of journalists who do *not* get
this response, and in fact get a mailbox full of praise
for objectively covering Apple. When someone makes an error,
they should correct it. In some very specific cases, I
simply cannot understand why some journalists haven't been
fired for continually making the same embarassing mistakes.
But this is off-topic.

> > Scott asked you some questions which you claim you
> > never saw ... and yet you mysteriously stopped posting.
>
> Scott's post are long winded, to be kind.

My posts are very detailed, and provide considerable
background and historical information. I've exhaustively
debunked outlandish statements that you've made in the past,
while at the same time pointing out situations where you
were right on the money. If you're not even reading my
posts, I don't see how you can shoot them down.

Frankly, the information I have provided is invaluable
investment information. It takes you behind the headlines
to get a glimpse of what's going on behind the scenes.
I'm not aware of any statements or predictions I've made
on this newsgroup that turned out to be false. If you
aren't interested in digesting in-depth information about
the fundamentals of Apple Computer, you're really not in
a position to offer investing advice on the company. That
hasn't stopped you, and you've *repeatedly* been wrong,
which I'm relieved to see you now admit.

> > > >Never answered Scott's questions, either.
> > >
> > > Never saw 'em. Besides, Scott doesn't ask questions, he "advocates".
> >
> > In this particular instance, he asked questions.
>
> He advocates.

If you haven't even seen my posts, I don't know how you can
declare that I "advocate." What I have done is pointed out
statements you've made that were outright wrong or at the
least very misleading. You've never responded, I guess because
I'm a "long-winded advocate."

I have been bullish on Apple for the past year. Apple stock
has soared. You may consider me an advocate, but I'd prefer
to think of myself as a wise investor.

> > Questions like "If you
> > don't like Apple, why do you respond to each and every Apple-related
> > thread?" (not an exact quote, but close enough.)
>
> 1) Who the hell are you or Scott to question what I can or cannot
> post to? Who appointed you net god?

I'm an ardent supporter of the Freedom of Speech and you're
welcome to post whatever you want. But when you post misleading
or blatantly false statements about Apple or any other company,
and I have firsthand knowledge that contradicts your statements,
I'll do so.

> 2) Some of the rosy optimistic things Apple advocates post
> are just plain old misleading and incredibly one sided. This
> newsgroup is not the Apple advocacy group, it's a stock group
> and both sides of the risk reward equation need to be pointed
> out, and if YOU people can't see the risk, then I do a service
> by pointing out the risks and drawbacks of buying Apple
> stock.

I thought that's what we were doing. Some of us have been
having very mature discussions about pros and cons related to Apple
Computer, and the effect developments may have on Apple's stock.
There's plenty of advocacy newsgroups, that I have no interest or
time for. I think you have trouble drawing a distinction between
"advocacy" and "positive statements about Apple," but it seems
this is something you'll have to get used to, because the
"advocates" are growing in number.

Advocates, advocates, advocates. How many times do you say
that? It gets old. If anyone says something you don't like,
they're an advocate.

> > Also, as I pointed out once before: if it came down to making an
> > investment decision based on the word of Scott, an Apple developer, or
> > you, a guy who can't bring himself to turn on the Mac in his office, then
> > the choice is obvious.
>
> For the average Apple advocate, I suppose it wouldn't matter
> what I say and your choice is obvious.

If you had sensible, factual, or insightful statements to
make, I would be *very* interested in reading them. So far I've
seen you make crazy statements, and then start yelling "advocate!
advocate!" any time someone corrected you. Then you repeat the
crazy statements two weeks later.

> > > Since he thinks he knows everything, he has no need to ask.
> >
> > Okay ... let's test *your* knowledge.
> >
> > You have a PowerBook 3400c sitting on your desk. You have an iMac sitting
> > next to it. Both systems are powered up and ready to go. How can you
> > transfer your files from your PowerBook to the iMac? (You've also left
> > your PowerBook's floppy drive at home.)
>
> Macs come equipped and ready to go with Apple's proprietary
> network, and have for years. It's just a cable with a funny
> connector on end. Plug it in and set up one to be a service
> and there you go.

Well, it looks like Glen's "test" was successful. This
"proprietary network" you speak of, with the "funny connector,"
is presumably AppleTalk, and I assume the "funny connector"
you're speaking of is a LocalTalk connector, which comes with
*no* Macs, but can be purchased for about $15 and plugs into the
printer serial port.

The problem is that the iMac does not have a serial port.
It only has USB.

The iMac does come with an Ethernet port, but I'd hardly
call that "proprietary" or funny looking.

Since the iMac does not come with a serial port, connecting
it to older Macs is in fact a major problem, and something
Apple investors should know, as it may limit adoption of the
iMac by older Mac users. In fact, this seems to be the case:
a lot of existing Mac users are waiting for USB-to-serial
adapters to come out before purchasing the iMac. Personally,
I wish Apple had included at least one traditional serial port
with the iMac so people could use existing peripherals such as
printers, etc. But Apple decided to screw the short-term
customer in an effort to force industry adoption of USB,
for the benefit of users in the long run.

Without such an adapter, to connect a PowerBook 3400
to an iMac, you have one option: Ethernet. You can get
a hub and connect the two computers to the hub, or get
an Ethernet crossover cable and connect the two computers
directly. You can then use AppleShare to transfer files
between the two.

This is fairly trivial knowledge for anyone who has
experience using Macs, and a comfortable understanding of
the iMac and its limitations. You have successfully
demonstrated that you lack both, which explains why
Macintosh users - and Apple investors - question your
ability to offer sensible investing advice related to
Apple Computer, and then laugh when you have the nerve
to call us "advocates." At least we're well-informed.

> I actually find your post to be rather insulting and off topic.

Glen's post may have been insulting to you, but it
was hardly off-topic and you demonstrated that you're not
up-to-date on current Mac hardware and issues that may
pertain to investors.

> I think I questioned the wisdom of the low margin iMac overlapping
> the market of the high margin G3. I questioned new customer acceptance
> of the iMac.
>
> But I don't think I said it wouldn't sell. G3 sales were impressive,
> but lots of Mac users were waiting for a cheaper alternative to the
> G3 since the clones were killed.

Ahh - finally, something useful to discuss.

I, too, was curious to see *who* would be buying the iMac.
Would it hurt existing G3 sales? Would existing Wintel owners
switch over? I didn't think it would hurt existing G3 sales -
after all, there was no consumer-based G3 system available to
compete with the iMac, so they were two completely different
markets - but I also didn't think Wintel owners would switch
over to the iMac. First-time computer buyers, yes. Long-time
Mac owners, sure. Wintel users, probably not.

The numbers are out, and the iMac not only didn't cut into
G3 sales, but it helped to *increase* G3 sales. Why? Because
the success of the iMac drove home the point that Apple is
a viable company. People who were formerly afraid to upgrade
their high-end Macs suddenly felt free to do so. Not only that,
but a lot of people who were interested in buying the iMac
decided to "step up" to a G3 system when they were at the
store. They had already decided on a Mac, but wanted a bigger
monitor.. More expandability.. Etc.

This confirms my suspicion that there are relatively few
people who purchased the iMac *instead* of a higher-end (and
higher-margin) G3. The iMac is squarely aimed at the consumer
market - particularly first-time computer users.

Another surprise is that a sizable percentage - around 1 in
10, according to early numbers - of iMac purchasers were
purchasing their first Mac, after having used Wintel systems.
That's significant to me (and somewhat of a surprise); I didn't
think Apple would be able to attract Wintel customers until
some follow-on products (hardware and software) were released
during the middle of next year. There's a lot of inertia that
keeps people with their current platform, such as their
investment in software, so it takes a lot to get them to
switch over, and I didn't think the iMac offered enough.

But, as you'll see, G3 sales are much higher than in past
quarters, and iMac sales are way off the chart. Apple will
have no shortage of "margin" for this quarter and next.



> > Steve Jobs promised "a suprise every 90 days" when he "took" the job as
> > kinda-sorta CEO ... look for an iMac with a bigger monitor coming Real
> > Soon Now ... probably around Christmas time.
>
> So?

I don't know if Glen is right about a larger-screen iMac by
Christmas, but his point is that Apple isn't resting on its laurels.
Look at the (positive) press coverage the company is getting now -
Apple knows how to market, and that's a huge advantage - Jobs also
knows that he has to continually surprise the industry to
maintain the excitement and interest in Apple's products. Apple
will be making front pages every 90 days, and each time it does,
more and more people will get curious and give Apple a second
look.

I think that's what you didn't realize in the past. You
considered every positive event by Apple to be a one-trick
pony: something to inflate the stock for a few days, but
nothing that would ultimately prevent Apple's imminent doom.
The thing is, every positive thing Apple does adds up.

> > > It's also too danged expensive.
> >
> > So wait until Christmas. The iMac should drop to $999. Besides ... the
> > iMac isn't for you; you are not a first-time computer buyer.
>
> I was told that I underestimated the iMac appeal to first time
> computer buyers. Maybe so. I seem to recall that the majority
> of buyers own older Macs. The iMac is the first non clone
> upgrade option anywhere near a reasonable price in a long time.

That's true. Apple hasn't had an inexpensive machine in far
too long. I expected the iMac to appeal strongly to first-time
computer buyers, and I also went on record stating that I didn't
think people would care that it's $1299, even when you can get a
low-end Wintel system for several hundred dollars less. The
fact is, you can get a WebTV for even less than that! So why are
so many people buying the iMac (whose main benefit, apparently,
and according to Apple's marketing, is the ease at which one can
get on the Internet), when they could get a WebTV for $99?
There's more to the iMac than just a few chips and solder.

> > But, if you insist ... Apple is going up. Quarterly results are due
> > out next month, all indications are it will be in the $70 million dollar
> > range again.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised. And how was this inconsistent with
> what I said? I think Apple stock will at least go to 50.
> I once overestimated the Apple investor and thought that
> he wouldn't be fooled by fiddling with the numbers. I'm not
> going to overestimate the Apple investor again. Another good
> quarter of profits will send Apple stock up, regardless of
> what Apple cuts within the company to get that profit.

Well, this is a first - I think you're more bullish than
I am. When do you think Apple will hit 50? I seem to recall
you had been predicting Apple's death, which didn't seem in
line with the fact that Apple's stock continued to rise
this year and even weathered out market "corrections."

I think Apple's quarterly results are going to far exceed
the most optimistic of expectations. (Again.)

This quarter, and the next several quarters.

Revenue growth will be head-turning. And that's what
investors have really been waiting for. Yes, it's been nice
that Apple's had several quarters of surprise profits, but
where was the revenue growth? Revenue was flat to down.
The iMac seems to have corrected this problem - we'll all
find out in a couple weeks when official quarterly results
are released - and I think that will cause a lot of analysts
to switch to a "buy" rating on Apple. Yes, Apple will probably
hit 50 by year end. It may even go quite a bit higher than
that. There does seem to be a pattern here.

In the past, you've tried to argue that Apple wasn't
spending any money on R&D, and thus was making no investment
in the future. The fact is, Apple is spending more money now
on R&D - in critical areas (such as OS and hardware design) -
than they ever have in the past. I suspect Apple's quarterly
results will confirm that for you, and you will no longer
be able to claim that profits merely came out of reductions
in R&D.

The fact is, I appreciate the "devil's advocate" stance
you take on this newsgroup, and I think you have a lot to
offer. I don't appreciate the name-calling, and your
inclination to ignore objections/corrections to statements
you make, refusing to defend or substantiate them but
simply labeling the accuser "advocate." There are some
loony Mac (and Windows) advocates floating around the
Internet, but I haven't seen a lot of that on this
newsgroup. I point out the good and bad and will continue
to do so, as it pertains to Apple investors.

- Scott

Glen Warner

unread,
Sep 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/23/98
to
In article <3607E489...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Glen Warner wrote:
> >
> > In article <36000BED...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
> > <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Glen Warner wrote:

(*snip*)

> > There is a lot of really bad information out there on Macs, most of it
> > from journalists who reportedly know how to do research ... which they

> > seem to forget how to do when they're writing about the Mac. ....

(*snip*)

> Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, you're not
> objective and the journalist may have a point? This "Apple
> gets bad press" line is getting really old.

No ... didn't occur to me. What *has* occurred to me is that I (who rarely
writes in to correct these sort of articles) and several other people have
noticed the same thing.

Case in point: here in my (and your) neck of the woods, the Puget Sound
Computer User newspaper had an article in it by a guy named S. Deyo. This
article was so full of errors I wrote a rather lengthy letter to correct
the errors. There were so many letters from Mac users that they could only
print excerpts (my 4-pager was whittled down to about 4 paragraphs ... but
they were *good* paragraphs, IMHO). (For the non-local Mac users: this
fellow claimed to have been a Mac consultant for 14 years ... and couldn't
differentiate between a resource and an extension, among other errors.)

> Apple gets it's share of good press, even in the Wall Street Journal.
> It's just a knee jerk reaction to kill the messenger.

Sure ... *now*. Though most of those 'journalists' were also predicting
the death of Apple, the iMac would be a dud, etc., etc. etc. One of these
guys also was crying and moaning when Apple didn't adopt the Be OS and
instead went with NeXT technology. Turned out this guy had a rather
sizable investment in Be.

Nothing quite like objectivity.

> > In this newsgroup, you make up things or distort any Apple-related news
> > and repeat it like it's true. When Mac-users correct you, you complain,
> > call us names, etc.
>
> I've been very patient. Go count how many names were called
> on each side.

I don't recall Scott or myself calling you any names.

(*snip*)

> > Scott asked you some questions which you claim you
> > never saw ... and yet you mysteriously stopped posting.
>
> Scott's post are long winded, to be kind.

But informative to would-be Apple investors.

(*snip*)

> > > I stopped responding because you guys would go off on fantastic

> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ !


> > > tangents and distortions and totally lose sight of what I am here
> > > for, to make money. I don't give a damn about your mac advocacy.
> >

> > Now ... who's wrong?
>
> I stopped responding to fantastic tangents and distortions
> that lose sight of what we're here for. That's not the same
> as not posting.

Uh huh.

> > > >Never answered Scott's questions, either.
> > >
> > > Never saw 'em. Besides, Scott doesn't ask questions, he "advocates".
> >
> > In this particular instance, he asked questions.
>
> He advocates.
>
> > Questions like "If you don't like Apple, why do you respond to each
> > and every Apple-related thread?" (not an exact quote, but close
> > enough.)
>
> 1) Who the hell are you or Scott to question what I can or cannot
> post to? Who appointed you net god?

It's not a matter of our questioning what you can and can't respond to ...
rather, the question is simply why do you respond to Apple-related threads
if you don't like the company based on (as a guess) some mis-informed
journalist's article.

> 2) Some of the rosy optimistic things Apple advocates post
> are just plain old misleading and incredibly one sided.

Really? Like what?

> This newsgroup is not the Apple advocacy group, it's a stock group
> and both sides of the risk reward equation need to be pointed
> out, and if YOU people can't see the risk, then I do a service
> by pointing out the risks and drawbacks of buying Apple
> stock.

Hmmm ... you may have a point: balance is Good. However, it would be
better if you were somewhat more informed.

> > Also, as I pointed out once before: if it came down to making an
> > investment decision based on the word of Scott, an Apple developer, or
> > you, a guy who can't bring himself to turn on the Mac in his office, then
> > the choice is obvious.
>
> For the average Apple advocate, I suppose it wouldn't matter
> what I say and your choice is obvious.

Funny ... I seem to remember seeing a couple posts by non-Mac users
thanking Scott for one of his posts. Apparently, this fellow made a profit
by following his advice. Guess it isn't just the 'Apple advocates' that
read this stuff.


>
> > > Since he thinks he knows everything, he has no need to ask.
> >
> > Okay ... let's test *your* knowledge.
> >
> > You have a PowerBook 3400c sitting on your desk. You have an iMac sitting
> > next to it. Both systems are powered up and ready to go. How can you
> > transfer your files from your PowerBook to the iMac? (You've also left
> > your PowerBook's floppy drive at home.)
>
> Macs come equipped and ready to go with Apple's proprietary
> network, and have for years. It's just a cable with a funny
> connector on end. Plug it in and set up one to be a service
> and there you go.

Well, there you go. You have failed this test.

LocalTalk, or "Apple's proprietary network", is not present on the iMac.

The answer I was looking for was either (1) Ethernet, or (2) IR File Exchange.

Mostly everyone knows what Ethernet is ... but IR ('InfraRed') File
Exchange allows one to transfer files from one system to the other ...
with *no* wires.

Thanks for proving my point, though.

> I actually find your post to be rather insulting and off topic.

Off-topic? Really?

> > > > Interesting that the folks who said the iMac would fail got hit today
> > > > with the headlines about the iMac being the #1 seller this month ...
> > > > despite only having been around for *half* a month ......
> > >
> > > Define "fail".
> >
> > In this instance, I wasn't discussing your predictions; rather those of
> > the folks in the press who moaned about there being no floppy, etc., etc.
> > Some of these people said Apple would be unable to move the iMac at all
> > ... and, in this instance, "Fail" is defined as 'a dud'. A 'non-seller'. A
> > serious 'don't wanter'.
>
> You flame me because of something the press said?

Please read the first line after 'Define "fail".' I've left it in this
message for you.

(*snip* stuff taken care of by the above comment)


> >
> > Unfortunately, the folks at Market Intelligence don't seem to agree with
> > you. The G3's are selling quite well, thank you. Here's a URL which
> > defends my position:
> >
> >
http://www.ci.infobeads.com/InfoBeads/Pages/Main/Main.asp?module=insider&topic=Consumer_Market&story=iMac_0916
> >
> > Now, I've shown you mine. Show me yours.
>
> Yours doesn't work. It dumps you at a page that asks for your
> password. Very funny.

This internet stuff isn't rocket science. Take off everything after 'com/'
and register. Is that hard?

> > > Most of the iMac sales are people with older Macs seeking to upgrade -
> > > these people would have eventually have bought a G3.
> >
> > Really? Check out the picture --
> >
> > http://www.jollyroj.com
> >
> > -- and see what a Mac-user discovered on his neighbors' curb one
morning. :o)
>
> Wow. Two empty iMac boxes found by some extremist Apple Advocate.

Actually, two empty iMac boxes ... and one PC. In the trash. Well, at
least you *did* look at the page. Too bad you didn't actually see it.


>
> /*Sarcasm Mode On */
> Well, >I< certainly am willing to bet the farm on Apple now that
> I know that!
> /*Sarcasm Mode off*/

One word: 'Decaffe'.

> This is exactly the kind of worthless stuff that I stopped
> responding to. How long did it take to find that one?

An e-mailed link.

> > > But even Apple knows that once this Mac advocate market segment is
> > > saturated, sales are going to be greatly reduced.
> >
> > Steve Jobs promised "a suprise every 90 days" when he "took" the job as
> > kinda-sorta CEO ... look for an iMac with a bigger monitor coming Real
> > Soon Now ... probably around Christmas time.
>
> So?

So ... the folks that didn't buy the first iMac will probably buy the
second one.

> > > It's also too danged expensive.
> >
> > So wait until Christmas. The iMac should drop to $999. Besides ... the
> > iMac isn't for you; you are not a first-time computer buyer.
>
> I was told that I underestimated the iMac appeal to first time
> computer buyers. Maybe so. I seem to recall that the majority
> of buyers own older Macs. The iMac is the first non clone
> upgrade option anywhere near a reasonable price in a long time.

The G3 upgrade cards are somewhat reasonable ....

> > Did you hear about the Compaq rep that bought an iMac so his techs could
> > take it apart and study it? They apparently had concerns about heat, the
> > translucent casing ("Where are the support ribs?"), etc. ... and wanted to
> > see how Apple solved these problems ... without losing money on each
> > machine.
>
> Motorola chips don't run as hot as Intel chips. They're looking
> in the wrong place to solve their problems, and this is totally
> irrelevant and why did you bring it up.

See the next line?


>
> > > > .... and don't get me started on those companies that make "iPCs" all of
> > > > the sudden.

(*snip*)

> > > Hum. I didn't see any content in your message about the prospects of
> > > Apple stock. Insults, some lies, but nothing about stocks. Have a
nice day.
> >
> > Thanks. Since I was responding to someone else's post that also neglected
> > to have any such content, of course there wasn't anything like that in
> > there.
>
> So, why the insult then?

What insult?

> > But, if you insist ... Apple is going up. Quarterly results are due
> > out next month, all indications are it will be in the $70 million dollar
> > range again.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised. And how was this inconsistent with
> what I said? I think Apple stock will at least go to 50.
> I once overestimated the Apple investor and thought that
> he wouldn't be fooled by fiddling with the numbers. I'm not
> going to overestimate the Apple investor again. Another good
> quarter of profits will send Apple stock up, regardless of
> what Apple cuts within the company to get that profit.

I'm thinking 45 by January ... barring any bizarre political machinations
or asteroids.



> [snip]
>
> > > P.S. without me, you Apple advocates would have very, very short and
> > > repetitious threads. Lets face it, you love me because I give
> > > you a devil's advocate on which to further argue for your nearly
> > > extinct religion.
> >
> > I think you meant to say "Ancient weapons and hokey religions are no match
> > for a good blaster at your side." Sure sounds like it.
>
> Oh, goody. Now we're quoting star wars.

Sure. It was the 'extinct religion' comment that did it.

Robert Barris

unread,
Sep 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/23/98
to
In article <3607E489...@eskimo.com>,

Stephen La Joie <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>Glen Warner wrote:
>>
>> Okay ... let's test *your* knowledge.
>>
>> You have a PowerBook 3400c sitting on your desk. You have an iMac sitting
>> next to it. Both systems are powered up and ready to go. How can you
>> transfer your files from your PowerBook to the iMac? (You've also left
>> your PowerBook's floppy drive at home.)
>
>Macs come equipped and ready to go with Apple's proprietary
>network, and have for years. It's just a cable with a funny
>connector on end. Plug it in and set up one to be a service
>and there you go.


I was unaware that 10Mb/s ethernet was an "Apple proprietary network".
Or maybe he was referring to the IrDA port that both machines above have.

Rob


Glen Warner

unread,
Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98
to
In article <rbarrisE...@netcom.com>, rba...@netcom.com (Robert
Barris) wrote:

> >Macs come equipped and ready to go with Apple's proprietary
> >network, and have for years. It's just a cable with a funny
> >connector on end. Plug it in and set up one to be a service
> >and there you go.
>
>

> I was unaware that 10Mb/s ethernet was an "Apple proprietary network".
> Or maybe he was referring to the IrDA port that both machines above have.
>
> Rob

Nope ... he just failed the test. Congrats, though ... you passed! Pat
yourself on the back.

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
Robert Barris wrote:
>
> In article <3607E489...@eskimo.com>,

> Stephen La Joie <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >Glen Warner wrote:
> >>
> >> Okay ... let's test *your* knowledge.
> >>
> >> You have a PowerBook 3400c sitting on your desk. You have an iMac sitting
> >> next to it. Both systems are powered up and ready to go. How can you
> >> transfer your files from your PowerBook to the iMac? (You've also left
> >> your PowerBook's floppy drive at home.)
> >
> >Macs come equipped and ready to go with Apple's proprietary
> >network, and have for years. It's just a cable with a funny
> >connector on end. Plug it in and set up one to be a service
> >and there you go.
>
>
> I was unaware that 10Mb/s ethernet was an "Apple proprietary network".

It isn't. Local Talk == Apple proprietary network != Ethernet.

The built in LocalTalk is not 10Mb/s ethernet. It's far slower
than 10 Mb, and it's nothing like the ethernet standard. You can
buy a 10Base ethernet card and install it in many Macs, but for
most Macs you don't get ethernet. Ethernet is, IIRC, "basic" only
in the G3. LocalTalk is accomplished via the printer port.

> Or maybe he was referring to the IrDA port that both machines above have.

Nope, I was unaware that these machines had such a device. Pretty
useless if not all machines have it.


> Rob

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
Scott wrote:
>
> In article <3607E489...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> > Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, you're not
> > objective and the journalist may have a point? This "Apple
> > gets bad press" line is getting really old. Apple gets it's
> > share of good press, even in the Wall Street Journal.
> >
> > It's just a knee jerk reaction to kill the messenger.
>
> Apple certainly has been getting lots of good press lately.

Duh. Look at the subject line. Apple's gotten more than
it's fair share of good press.

> But a lot of Mac users have regularly seen statements in
> the press that are outright wrong. And the same journalist
> names seem to pop up over and over. I think you grossly
> underestimate the objectivity and sensibility of Mac users.

Mac users nitpick and are one sided. When was the last
time you gave Apple bad press? This stock has been one
of the big money losers in the last 5 years. There must
have been something negative about it in that time.


> Consider that the same journalists are the ones who keep
> getting mail from "rabid" Mac users everytime they go to
> press. There are plenty of journalists who do *not* get
> this response, and in fact get a mailbox full of praise
> for objectively covering Apple. When someone makes an error,
> they should correct it. In some very specific cases, I
> simply cannot understand why some journalists haven't been
> fired for continually making the same embarassing mistakes.
> But this is off-topic.

You want to fire any reporter who gives bad press to
Apple? How do you know that you're not the one who's
wrong? Maybe the reporter got it right.



> > > Scott asked you some questions which you claim you
> > > never saw ... and yet you mysteriously stopped posting.
> >
> > Scott's post are long winded, to be kind.
>
> My posts are very detailed, and provide considerable
> background and historical information. I've exhaustively
> debunked outlandish statements that you've made in the past,
> while at the same time pointing out situations where you
> were right on the money. If you're not even reading my
> posts, I don't see how you can shoot them down.
>
> Frankly, the information I have provided is invaluable
> investment information.

To be valuable, it has to be objective and balanced.
You have to not care one way or the other to be objective.
Passionate people cannot be objective.

> It takes you behind the headlines
> to get a glimpse of what's going on behind the scenes.
> I'm not aware of any statements or predictions I've made
> on this newsgroup that turned out to be false.

So, you always think you're right? Geezus.

I've been wrong a couple of times, I know. When Jobs
sold all his stock I was negative on Apple, right after
that, Microsoft dumped a truckload of money on Apple,
causing the stock price to more than double. You were
right that Apple was going to go up, but you had no idea
that Microsoft was the driver. You were right for the
wrong reasons.

Then it fell back to the low teens again, which you
didn't see at all.

I said the only way the stock price would go up is if
they showed a profit, and the only way they could show
a profit was if they cut R&D, which I said would be a
major mistake for a company so vested in operating
systems and hardware. Remember we did the numbers, and I
asked you what was going to change to show a profit? You
claimed that Apple would show a profit without cuts
in R&D. That's what Apple did, and the stock price shot
back up to the mid to upper 30s. Again, you were wrong that
sales would increase, you were right that gross margin
would increase, but you were wrong that profit would be
generated by increased sales and improved gross margins.
You were right the stock price was going to improve, but
again for the wrong reasons!

I am pretty sure now that Apple's going to have another
profitable quarter. They've demonstrated they are more
than willing to compromise the long term health of the
company for short term stock price. I feel Apple will
hit 50 within 6 months, easy.

Long term, they're dead, however. But that's years
away.

But back to my point; all this techno-babble hasn't been
the least bit relevant to making money in Apple stock.
You didn't see the Microsoft investment, you didn't see
the cuts in R&D that made Apple profitable. You're the
worst kind of "right", you've convinced yourself that
your right because of techno-babble when really you've
missed the real driving forces.

> If you
> aren't interested in digesting in-depth information about
> the fundamentals of Apple Computer, you're really not in
> a position to offer investing advice on the company.

Statistics have shown that all that stuff is irrelevant
when predicting the stock price. I ignored the price to
sales ratio, which you did point out in an offhand sort
of way. I should have seen that. But the debt ratio and
low margins really bothered me.

> That
> hasn't stopped you, and you've *repeatedly* been wrong,
> which I'm relieved to see you now admit.

And your still claiming to be the perfect predictor.
Mr. Never been wrong. Trouble is, you would lay out
all the wrong reasons and the stock would take off
because of something you didn't see, and then you would
feel that your on to something with your wrong reasons.

> > > > >Never answered Scott's questions, either.
> > > >
> > > > Never saw 'em. Besides, Scott doesn't ask questions, he "advocates".
> > >
> > > In this particular instance, he asked questions.
> >
> > He advocates.
>
> If you haven't even seen my posts, I don't know how you can
> declare that I "advocate."

I said I never saw the questions. That could just be my newserver.
It's more likely I just skipped over the techno-babble parts and
looked for something relevant.

I know you advocate because you're never negative on Apple, and
want everyone who says a negative word about Apple in the press
to be fired.


> What I have done is pointed out
> statements you've made that were outright wrong or at the
> least very misleading. You've never responded, I guess because
> I'm a "long-winded advocate."

I'm not going to respond to lots of techno-babble. It's off
topic. All that maters is that Apple has a product, and how
does it sell. Could be widgets for all an investor cares.
These widgets DO have certain characteristics. Apple widgets
are non-standard proprietary widgets that cost more than
standard widgets, and have a few attractions. Will they
compete well in the market? Will iWidgets cut into the
G3Widget sales? Can Apple improve the Gross margins of the
iWidget? These are relevant questions. I don't give a damn
about the virtually useless IR link built into a few Macs.

> I have been bullish on Apple for the past year. Apple stock
> has soared. You may consider me an advocate, but I'd prefer
> to think of myself as a wise investor.

Soared for reason's you never saw coming. And as I've said,
why buy Apple when there are BETTER investments out there?
Didn't I say Dell? Over the past 12 months, Dell's done
twice as good as Apple. (9/25/97-9/25/98) An objective
investor doesn't consider Apple to be the only stock on
the market.

[snip long winded insults]

Perry Phillips

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
In article <360F8F5C...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

Well, Stephen gets it wrong again, typical.

> >
> > I was unaware that 10Mb/s ethernet was an "Apple proprietary network".
>
> It isn't. Local Talk == Apple proprietary network != Ethernet.
>
> The built in LocalTalk is not 10Mb/s ethernet. It's far slower
> than 10 Mb, and it's nothing like the ethernet standard. You can
> buy a 10Base ethernet card and install it in many Macs, but for
> most Macs you don't get ethernet. Ethernet is, IIRC, "basic" only
> in the G3. LocalTalk is accomplished via the printer port.

For Stephen's education, Apple Talk is a protocol and Local talk is the
hardware. For a number of years now Apple talk will work over EtherNet as
well as Local talk. If Stephen had every used a Mac he would know you can
set apple talk to the printer port or the EtherNet, which is now pretty
standard on all Macs.

--
Perry Phillips p.phi...@mail.utexas.edu

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
Perry Phillips wrote:
>
> In article <360F8F5C...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie

> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> Well, Stephen gets it wrong again, typical.

I didn't get anything wrong.


> > >
> > > I was unaware that 10Mb/s ethernet was an "Apple proprietary network".

Here I was right. This fellow was wrong...

> > It isn't. Local Talk == Apple proprietary network != Ethernet.

LocalTalk is Apple's proprietary network hardware layer.
It's not the same as the IEEE 802.3 standard hardware
layer. No problem here, this is true...

> > The built in LocalTalk is not 10Mb/s ethernet.

This is true...

> > It's far slower than 10 Mb,

True again...

> > and it's nothing like the ethernet standard.

True again...

> > You can buy a 10Base ethernet card and install it in many Macs,
> > but for most Macs you don't get ethernet.

True...

> > Ethernet is, IIRC, "basic" only in the G3.

I think you seem to be saying that it's standard in the iMac too.
Okay... I wasn't sure. Hence the "IIRC".

> >LocalTalk is accomplished via the printer port.

Again, true.

All of what I said here was correct. You didn't refute any
of my techno-babble details here. You just say in the beginning
that I'm "wrong again". Where?



> For Stephen's education, Apple Talk is a protocol and Local talk is the
> hardware.

True.

>For a number of years now Apple talk will work over EtherNet as
> well as Local talk.

True.

> If Stephen had every used a Mac he would know you can
> set apple talk to the printer port or the EtherNet, which is now pretty
> standard on all Macs.

What is your problem, Perry? I what I said was true and correct
and you come back in an stupid effort to discredit me by saying
I'm wrong and following it up with a couple more true statements.
You don't say one word about where you accuse me of being wrong.

Following your "reasoning":
Well, you're wrong. The sun rises every 24 hours and the moon has
a 28 day cycle. And even though you knew that, because I asked you
know nothing about investing and shouldn't be saying anything about
Apple stock.

Now you know why sometimes I just don't answer you guys.

Perry Phillips

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
In article <360FB170...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> You're getting into techno-babble, Perry.
>
> How come all discussions over Apple stock get down to some
> stupid, insignificant trivia contest with you Apple Advocates?
> Is it a need to feel that you know SOMETHING because you don't
> have a clue about investing? My biggest mistake was letting
> you drag this away from investing into a Apple trivia contest.

You were the one who posted the incorrect info. Just correcting you post.
You really do get mad when you are shown to be incorrect. I can use the
apple talk/local talk over a serial line or EtherNet cable, it just works.
That means I can print or share files over either cable. End of
techno-babble for you simple mind.

Now, lets remember who said when Apple was at 12 that it was going lower
and then out of business, not me. When Apple went to 20, you said it was a
false rally and Apple would soon drop. Your technical info if badly flawed
and so is your stock analysis. If you didn't post such stupid
misinformation we wouldn't bother with you.

--
Perry Phillips p.phi...@mail.utexas.edu

Perry Phillips

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
In article <360FB9AA...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> I didn't get anything wrong.

Well, let see?

>
> > > It isn't. Local Talk == Apple proprietary network != EtherNet.


>
> LocalTalk is Apple's proprietary network hardware layer.
> It's not the same as the IEEE 802.3 standard hardware
> layer. No problem here, this is true...

True, but misleading. What people use is AppleTalk for printing and file
sharing. It can run on either EtherNet or local talk.

>
> > > The built in Local talk is not 10Mb/s ethernet.

>
> This is true...
>
> > > It's far slower than 10 Mb,
>
> True again...

What is the point when you can use either.

>
> > > and it's nothing like the EtherNet standard.
>
> True again...

You are mistaking TCP/IP which is the protocol for EtherNet. There is DEC
net which also runs on EtherNet. Many protocol run on EtherNet. The real
standard is TCP/IP which is what the WWW is based on.

>
> > > You can buy a 10Base ethernet card and install it in many Macs,
> > > but for most Macs you don't get ethernet.
>
> True...

Incorrect, most Mac come with EtherNet and have for a number of years.


>
> > > Ethernet is, IIRC, "basic" only in the G3.
>
> I think you seem to be saying that it's standard in the iMac too.
> Okay... I wasn't sure. Hence the "IIRC".
>
> > >LocalTalk is accomplished via the printer port.
>
> Again, true.

True, but meaningless. Who cares. You want to print or file share. Most
people do not want to know which cable they are running over, only does it
work, which it does on ether cable.

>
> All of what I said here was correct. You didn't refute any
> of my techno-babble details here. You just say in the beginning
> that I'm "wrong again". Where?
>
> > For Stephen's education, Apple Talk is a protocol and Local talk is the
> > hardware.
>
> True.
>
> >For a number of years now Apple talk will work over EtherNet as
> > well as Local talk.
>
> True.

This is the important part. You just want to use it.

>
> > If Stephen had every used a Mac he would know you can
> > set apple talk to the printer port or the EtherNet, which is now pretty
> > standard on all Macs.
>
> What is your problem, Perry? I what I said was true and correct
> and you come back in an stupid effort to discredit me by saying
> I'm wrong and following it up with a couple more true statements.
> You don't say one word about where you accuse me of being wrong.

Talk about technobable, so a serial cable is slower than EtherNet. Fine,
what is your point. You tried to insinuate that because Macs have a
choice, slow and inexpensive local talk and fast EtherNet they are at a
disadvantage? Come on, you got confused over local talk and AppleTalk and
didn't realize it is device independent.

So, let forget the tech stuff, and deal with your investment advice. No
response on that point, the one that matters.

--
Perry Phillips p.phi...@mail.utexas.edu

Rob Barris

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
In article <360F8F5C...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Robert Barris wrote:
> >
> > In article <3607E489...@eskimo.com>,


> > Stephen La Joie <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> > >Glen Warner wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Okay ... let's test *your* knowledge.
> > >>
> > >> You have a PowerBook 3400c sitting on your desk. You have an iMac sitting
> > >> next to it. Both systems are powered up and ready to go. How can you
> > >> transfer your files from your PowerBook to the iMac? (You've also left
> > >> your PowerBook's floppy drive at home.)
> > >
> > >Macs come equipped and ready to go with Apple's proprietary
> > >network, and have for years. It's just a cable with a funny
> > >connector on end. Plug it in and set up one to be a service
> > >and there you go.
> >
> >

> > I was unaware that 10Mb/s ethernet was an "Apple proprietary network".
>

> It isn't. Local Talk == Apple proprietary network != Ethernet.

While your statement is true (LocalTalk is not Ethernet), the two
machines being compared (a PowerBook 3400, and an iMac) do both come with
built in, industry standard 10Mb Ethernet, which enables the machine to
talk a number of protocols such as TCP/IP and also EtherTalk (AppleTalk on
Ethernet). Other software can be installed to enable NetWare and MS-SMB
connectivity as well.

The iMac actually drops the usual RS-422 8-pin serial port that all
previous Macs have had, and thus has no LocalTalk (230Kb/s) capability
built in. Its built-in ports are 10/100Mb ethernet, IrDA, and USB.

Finally, while AppleTalk is designed by a single vendor and in some
sense "proprietary", there is plenty of public documentation from Apple,
and implementations have been written for a number of platforms such as
Windows and Linux. I could argue that it is no more or less "proprietary"
than, say, the Microsoft networking protocols.

> You can
> buy a 10Base ethernet card and install it in many Macs, but for

> most Macs you don't get ethernet. Ethernet is, IIRC, "basic" only
> in the G3. LocalTalk is accomplished via the printer port.

The G3 is the entire Mac product line for more than a year now, and even
the Power Mac family before it came with Ethernet. The Quadras before that
did too. Some consumer models did not have Ethernet built in. In a
nutshell, many many Macs made after 1991 or so have Ethernet standard. So
I don't agree with the "for most Macs you don't get Ethernet" assessment.

> > Or maybe he was referring to the IrDA port that both machines above have.
>
> Nope, I was unaware that these machines had such a device. Pretty
> useless if not all machines have it.

Interesting premise. What does it have to do with Apple?

Rob

Scott

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
In article <360F8F5C...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> > I was unaware that 10Mb/s ethernet was an "Apple proprietary network".
>
> It isn't. Local Talk == Apple proprietary network != Ethernet.
>

> The built in LocalTalk is not 10Mb/s ethernet. It's far slower
> than 10 Mb, and it's nothing like the ethernet standard. You can


> buy a 10Base ethernet card and install it in many Macs, but for
> most Macs you don't get ethernet. Ethernet is, IIRC, "basic" only
> in the G3. LocalTalk is accomplished via the printer port.
>

> > Or maybe he was referring to the IrDA port that both machines above have.
>
> Nope, I was unaware that these machines had such a device. Pretty
> useless if not all machines have it.

I'll keep this short so Steve has a chance of understanding it.

(1) Every product Apple sells today has built-in Ethernet.
-------------

(2) The iMac does not even have LocalTalk, or a modem serial port,
or a printer serial port. All it has is 100 megabit Ethernet
(yes, *100* megabit Ethernet) and USB, both industry standards.
(It also has IrDa, also an industry standard.)

(3) You are completely, 100%, no-doubt-about-it wrong. Someone
asked you how you would network an iMac with a PowerBook,
and your answer was LocalTalk, Apple's "proprietary" network.
You then go off on a tangent criticizing Apple for using
a proprietary network, when in fact, they no longer do. And
you claim that "for most Macs, you don't get Ethernet," when,
in fact, you cannot buy a Mac today that does not come with
Ethernet.

See, the iMac doesn't have LocalTalk. The correct answer was
Ethernet, with bonus points for mentioning that IrDa could also
be used, since both the iMac and the PowerBook 3400 have IrDa.
But to network the two, all you need is an Ethernet crossover
cable.

(4) And then, rather than realizing your enormous mistake, you
seem to think that in some way you are still right. It just
boggles my mind and shows how irrational you are. There's
no gray area here. The iMac does not have LocalTalk, it
has Ethernet. You obviously didn't know this, and once
again, it raises huge questions about why it is you feel
knowledgeable enough to offer advice about Apple Computer and
its products.

- Scott

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
FYI, I canceled the post that you responded to. I didn't like it.
I first got pissed with your arrogant attitude and then fired
off another post. Then I thought I'd better check it. I was
wrong in that post.

Actually, you WERE a better source than Network for Dummies.

But more importantly, there was nothing wrong in the post
that you "corrected". Everything I said was correct. You
just said I was wrong and then added two more lines of
true statements, which doesn't change a thing.


Perry Phillips wrote:
>
> In article <360FB170...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie


> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> > You're getting into techno-babble, Perry.
> >
> > How come all discussions over Apple stock get down to some
> > stupid, insignificant trivia contest with you Apple Advocates?
> > Is it a need to feel that you know SOMETHING because you don't
> > have a clue about investing? My biggest mistake was letting
> > you drag this away from investing into a Apple trivia contest.
>
> You were the one who posted the incorrect info. Just correcting you post.

You were the one that decided to decide the value of a stock based
on a trivia contest. I propose we arm wrestle next time.

> You really do get mad when you are shown to be incorrect.

I get a little pissed at your nitpicking, especially when
you say I'm wrong and it's not true.

> I can use the
> apple talk/local talk over a serial line or EtherNet cable, it just works.
> That means I can print or share files over either cable. End of
> techno-babble for you simple mind.

As you pointed out, oh great techno-babbler, LocalTalk is a hardware
level interface, just like Ethernet. You can't use LocalTalk over
Ethernet. That's like using a Ford over a Chevy. You can use the
AppleTalk protocol over either hardware, tho. (That's like using
unleaded
gas in either a Ford or Chevy.) If I were to be REALLY picky, I'd point
out that AppleTalk = the AppleTalk protocol+LocalTalk hardware.
EtherTalk = AppleTalk Protocol + IEEE 802.3. Just a nit, but technically
you're wrong.

> Now, lets remember who said when Apple was at 12 that it was going lower
> and then out of business, not me. When Apple went to 20, you said it was a
> false rally and Apple would soon drop. Your technical info if badly flawed
> and so is your stock analysis. If you didn't post such stupid
> misinformation we wouldn't bother with you.

You had no idea where it was going, Perry, or for what reason.
You had hopes, not thoughts. When Apple went from 30 after the
MS announcement to 13, where were you to admit you were wrong?
No Apple Advocate was anywhere to be seen, to admit their error.

And my statement that Apple is going out of business in a few
years still stands. Unless they get the R&D going to develop new
products, they won't have a significant market in 3 to 4 years.
Even now Wintel machines are virtually as fast and lower priced.

If you look at what Dell and Microsoft spend on R&D, it's very
apparent that Apple lacks the funding for hardware and OS
development. It's rather clear that they are going for
short term profits and aren't even going to try to survive in
the long term. I can't say that I disagree totally with the
strategy; to survive long term you have to survive short term.

Perry Phillips

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
In article <360FD388...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> As you pointed out, oh great techno-babbler, LocalTalk is a hardware
> level interface, just like Ethernet. You can't use LocalTalk over
> Ethernet. That's like using a Ford over a Chevy. You can use the
> AppleTalk protocol over either hardware, tho. (That's like using
> unleaded
> gas in either a Ford or Chevy.)

No one said you can use local talk over ethernet, we said apple talk. You
still seem to be confessed on the matter.

If I were to be REALLY picky, I'd point
> out that AppleTalk = the AppleTalk protocol+LocalTalk hardware.
> EtherTalk = AppleTalk Protocol + IEEE 802.3. Just a nit, but technically
> you're wrong.


Scott, in the previous post got it right. Who care if is local or apple
talk. It is the functionality that is important, and you got it wrong!!!

>
> > Now, lets remember who said when Apple was at 12 that it was going lower
> > and then out of business, not me. When Apple went to 20, you said it was a
> > false rally and Apple would soon drop. Your technical info if badly flawed
> > and so is your stock analysis. If you didn't post such stupid
> > misinformation we wouldn't bother with you.
>
> You had no idea where it was going, Perry, or for what reason.
> You had hopes, not thoughts. When Apple went from 30 after the
> MS announcement to 13, where were you to admit you were wrong?
> No Apple Advocate was anywhere to be seen, to admit their error.

Find a post where I said it was going up or down. You can't. But you did
in your great wisdom. You have to live with it!!

>
> And my statement that Apple is going out of business in a few
> years still stands. Unless they get the R&D going to develop new
> products, they won't have a significant market in 3 to 4 years.
> Even now Wintel machines are virtually as fast and lower priced.
>

The above statement should be taken in light of your stock predications,
12 and going lower. You do not understand the technical side of the
computer business and you obviously don't know much on the business side
either. You were pretty definite that Apple would never see 15 again.

--
Perry Phillips p.phi...@mail.utexas.edu

Scott

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
In article <360F9943...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> > But a lot of Mac users have regularly seen statements in
> > the press that are outright wrong. And the same journalist
> > names seem to pop up over and over. I think you grossly
> > underestimate the objectivity and sensibility of Mac users.
>
> Mac users nitpick and are one sided. When was the last
> time you gave Apple bad press? This stock has been one
> of the big money losers in the last 5 years. There must
> have been something negative about it in that time.

I regularly report the good and bad about Apple. Since you've
already admitted that you don't read my "long-winded" messages,
I suppose this has been lost on you. But since you haven't
read my messages, I hardly see how you can render an opinion
about the objectivity of my messages. And my posts on this
newsgroup certainly don't go back 5 years - try less than one
year. Apple was already in their coffin prior to receiving
a new Board of Directors; now, they have a new lease on life.
I became bullish on Apple when I saw a seasoned Board of
Directors, when I saw action instead of inaction, even when the
action was painful to some - such as the end of cloning; and
when I saw Apple deliver a sensible OS strategy.

> > Consider that the same journalists are the ones who keep
> > getting mail from "rabid" Mac users everytime they go to
> > press. There are plenty of journalists who do *not* get
> > this response, and in fact get a mailbox full of praise
> > for objectively covering Apple. When someone makes an error,
> > they should correct it. In some very specific cases, I
> > simply cannot understand why some journalists haven't been
> > fired for continually making the same embarassing mistakes.
> > But this is off-topic.
>
> You want to fire any reporter who gives bad press to
> Apple? How do you know that you're not the one who's
> wrong? Maybe the reporter got it right.

I'm not sure why you can't draw a distinction between
"bad press" and "factual errors." I can. I want to get
factual information about Apple - good and bad - so I can make
knowledgeable investment decisions. Some reporters regularly
get things wrong - for example, saying Mac OS 8 can run
Windows applications - and this shows that they do not have
enough knowledge about Apple to accurately report on its
products. Yet, when these reporters are corrected, they
can take the easy way out by labeling the corrector an
"Apple advocate," much as you do.

I see why you sympathize so much with reporters who don't
know what they're talking about. For example, until recently
(and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here), you
thought the iMac had LocalTalk. It doesn't. Yet, if you
reported that it had LocalTalk, that would lead existing Mac
users to believe they can directly use their existing
peripherals, such as printers and scanners. They can't.
That's a very important point. Accuracy counts.

> > > > Scott asked you some questions which you claim you
> > > > never saw ... and yet you mysteriously stopped posting.
> > >
> > > Scott's post are long winded, to be kind.
> >
> > My posts are very detailed, and provide considerable
> > background and historical information. I've exhaustively
> > debunked outlandish statements that you've made in the past,
> > while at the same time pointing out situations where you
> > were right on the money. If you're not even reading my
> > posts, I don't see how you can shoot them down.
> >
> > Frankly, the information I have provided is invaluable
> > investment information.
>
> To be valuable, it has to be objective and balanced.
> You have to not care one way or the other to be objective.
> Passionate people cannot be objective.

Again, since you don't read my messages, you can't render
an opinion on them. You wouldn't know objectivity if it
hit you in the head because you're living in a fantasy world
of your own, where "most Macs don't come with Ethernet"
(when, in fact, *all* Macs do), and someone who corrects
you is "passionate" and therefore not objective.

> > It takes you behind the headlines
> > to get a glimpse of what's going on behind the scenes.
> > I'm not aware of any statements or predictions I've made
> > on this newsgroup that turned out to be false.
>
> So, you always think you're right? Geezus.

I don't tend to post about subjects I'm not intimately
familiar with. I'm not aware of any factual errors I've made
about Apple in my posts, no. And I don't use my posts to
predict short-term upward or downward movements in Apple's
stocks. I'm interested in Apple as a long-term investment,
and could care less what Apple does in the short-term.
Other investors take a different approach, and that's up
to them - I don't try to time the market.

> I've been wrong a couple of times, I know. When Jobs
> sold all his stock I was negative on Apple, right after
> that, Microsoft dumped a truckload of money on Apple,
> causing the stock price to more than double. You were
> right that Apple was going to go up, but you had no idea
> that Microsoft was the driver. You were right for the
> wrong reasons.

I certainly don't recall predicting that Apple's stock
would go up after Jobs "dumped" his stock; are you sure you
have the right person? Or do you just classify all Macintosh
"evangelists" together into one pigeonhole?

The only predictions I've made here have been long-term in
nature. At the beginning of the year, I predicted Apple's
stock would continue to rise. It has. Like many others, I
thought it was a great "buy" at 13. I thought the Microsoft
deal was smoke and mirrors and did not feel it would have
much of an effect on Apple's stock. I thought Apple was dead
as long as Amelio stayed on board.

> Then it fell back to the low teens again, which you
> didn't see at all.

I never expected it to rise above the low teens at that
point.

> I said the only way the stock price would go up is if
> they showed a profit, and the only way they could show
> a profit was if they cut R&D, which I said would be a
> major mistake for a company so vested in operating
> systems and hardware. Remember we did the numbers, and I
> asked you what was going to change to show a profit? You
> claimed that Apple would show a profit without cuts
> in R&D. That's what Apple did, and the stock price shot
> back up to the mid to upper 30s. Again, you were wrong that
> sales would increase, you were right that gross margin
> would increase, but you were wrong that profit would be
> generated by increased sales and improved gross margins.
> You were right the stock price was going to improve, but
> again for the wrong reasons!

You're telling me I was right and wrong about arguments
I never presented. (In the former case, I guess I should
be flattered.)

You argued that Apple had entirely cut R&D, and was
thus signing its death warrant. Several of us broke down
Apple's R&D and explained where the cuts came from - namely,
the imaging department. (Apple no longer makes printers,
scanners, etc.) I also explained where Apple's R&D was
going - for example, OS development - where it is higher than
it ever has been. Stop changing what the arguments were about
after the fact.

> I am pretty sure now that Apple's going to have another
> profitable quarter. They've demonstrated they are more
> than willing to compromise the long term health of the
> company for short term stock price. I feel Apple will
> hit 50 within 6 months, easy.

Once again, you are presenting the argument I disagreed
with earlier this year. How is Apple compromising its
long-term health? If you're going to say "they're not
spending money on R&D" again, be very careful - is this
a statement you're willing to stand by when Apple's
quarterly results come out?

And I guess you feel Apple's invented some way to produce
great products - such as the iMac, the imminent release of
Mac OS 8.5, and Mac OS Server - without spending any money.
Apple is lean and mean, but they're investing more in their
future now than I have ever seen them in the past. They're a
hell of a lot more focused, and less academic.

> Long term, they're dead, however. But that's years
> away.

It's years away now. Just like any company, I suppose.
But now you're apparently recommending that people purchase
Apple stock, a 180-degree reversal. And you even seem more
bullish than I ever was.

I think Apple's going to show some significant growth
over the next 2 years. What you just don't get is that
all of the "rights things" Apple is doing now add up.
These events aren't memoryless.

I think Andy Grove, Chairman of Intel, summed it up
best in an interview with Time magazine last week. He
predicted that the computer industry was about to go
through a violent revolution - where the "players would
change" - and said that Apple was currently leading this
revolution:

http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/daily/0,2960,14868-101980925,00.html

> But back to my point; all this techno-babble hasn't been
> the least bit relevant to making money in Apple stock.

Techno-babble? I haven't seen much here. Prudent
investors should have an understanding of the company
they're investing in, and the market, and if you're
going to buy a technology stock like Apple (or Microsoft
or Intel..), you really ought to pay attention to the
technology.

For example: the iMac's reliance on USB - a fact that
has escaped you entirely - is, I suppose, what you would
classify as "technobabble."

And yet, the lack of availability of USB products is
one of the biggest reasons consumers have to delay their
purchase of an iMac.

Suddenly, that "technical" detail is very relevant.

> You didn't see the Microsoft investment, you didn't see
> the cuts in R&D that made Apple profitable. You're the
> worst kind of "right", you've convinced yourself that
> your right because of techno-babble when really you've
> missed the real driving forces.

I don't make stock recommendations on this newsgroup.
I provide background information about the computer industry,
and have a particularly fine-tuned knowledge of Apple, since
I have been involved in that industry for a number of years.
Anytime I have predicted the value of Apple's stock in
response to certain forces, I have always pointed out
things that might cause it to go up, as well as things
that might cause it to go down - just like any "analyst."
It's the investor's decision to decide what stocks they wish
to purchase.

You're the one that seems to be missing the real driving
forces. Microsoft's investment was largely irrelevant;
it was just a magic trick, with no long-term effect on
the company; and you seem to have missed the fact that
Apple made cuts across the board to become leaner, and
lead to profitability. Certain divisions, such as Imaging,
were cut out, which lowered R&D expenditures. But R&D
expenditures - in the areas that matter in the long-term -
were increased, and continue to be increased. Here's
another bit of insight for you: even as Apple struggles
to keep up with enormous demand for its products, it is
still quite lean. Yes, that will let Apple maintain
head-turning profitability. But Apple's spending more on
OS development now than ever. And Apple's not being miserly -
for example, they spent $100 million on an advertising
campaign for the iMac. If they were so concerned about
short-term profitability, they wouldn't have done that.
The point of the campaign was not to sell iMacs - after
all, as we both would probably agree, the iMac is meant
largely for the existing Macintosh user base, that doesn't
need any convincing - but rather, the point of the ad campaign
was to buy mind share. To raise people's eyebrows, so
when the *next* killer product comes out, they will already
be thinking "oh yeah, Apple's doing some cool stuff.
Maybe I should look at this one."

> > If you
> > aren't interested in digesting in-depth information about
> > the fundamentals of Apple Computer, you're really not in
> > a position to offer investing advice on the company.
>
> Statistics have shown that all that stuff is irrelevant
> when predicting the stock price. I ignored the price to
> sales ratio, which you did point out in an offhand sort
> of way. I should have seen that. But the debt ratio and
> low margins really bothered me.

Even on the iMac, Apple's profit margin is 20%, several
percentage points higher than the industry average. On the
G3 line, Apple's margin is up to 26%, which is enough to
make other computer manufacturers drool.

What low margins, exactly, are bothering you?

> > That
> > hasn't stopped you, and you've *repeatedly* been wrong,
> > which I'm relieved to see you now admit.
>
> And your still claiming to be the perfect predictor.

Predictor of what? The only prediction I've made -
starting early this year - was that Apple's stock was
undervalued. I have provided background information that
investors can use to make their own predictions, period.
I did point out that I wasn't aware of something I've
been wrong about, in terms of the technical details I've
provided. If you're extrapolating this to imagine that
I've been predicting "Apple's going to go up, up, up!",
and am now claiming that Apple went "up, up, up!", you're
delusional.

> Mr. Never been wrong. Trouble is, you would lay out
> all the wrong reasons and the stock would take off
> because of something you didn't see, and then you would
> feel that your on to something with your wrong reasons.

That sounds awfully familiar.

> > > > > >Never answered Scott's questions, either.
> > > > >
> > > > > Never saw 'em. Besides, Scott doesn't ask questions, he "advocates".
> > > >
> > > > In this particular instance, he asked questions.
> > >
> > > He advocates.
> >
> > If you haven't even seen my posts, I don't know how you can
> > declare that I "advocate."
>
> I said I never saw the questions. That could just be my newserver.
> It's more likely I just skipped over the techno-babble parts and
> looked for something relevant.
>
> I know you advocate because you're never negative on Apple, and
> want everyone who says a negative word about Apple in the press
> to be fired.

I have regularly been negative about Apple. Perhaps you're
confusing me with someone else. And I *never* said someone who
said something negative about Apple in the press should be fired.
What are you smoking? There are plenty of journalists who are
capable of accurately reporting on Apple - both positive and
negative. There are a couple who regularly make factual
errors - positive and negative. These latter folks should
be reassigned to report on things they know about. As a
Macintosh developer, I'm in a position to recognize when
factual errors are made. That doesn't make me an "emotional
advocate."

> > What I have done is pointed out
> > statements you've made that were outright wrong or at the
> > least very misleading. You've never responded, I guess because
> > I'm a "long-winded advocate."
>
> I'm not going to respond to lots of techno-babble. It's off
> topic. All that maters is that Apple has a product, and how
> does it sell. Could be widgets for all an investor cares.

If you don't understand the product, how can you make
judgments about how well it will sell or how the market
will respond?

Your investing philosophy explains why, if you had followed
your own advice this past year, you would have lost a lot
of money.

> These widgets DO have certain characteristics. Apple widgets
> are non-standard proprietary widgets that cost more than
> standard widgets, and have a few attractions. Will they
> compete well in the market? Will iWidgets cut into the
> G3Widget sales? Can Apple improve the Gross margins of the
> iWidget? These are relevant questions. I don't give a damn
> about the virtually useless IR link built into a few Macs.

I don't know why you keep backing yourself into a wall.

You argued, a post ago, that most Macs didn't have Ethernet
and were thus non-standard proprietary machines. We were
specifically talking about the iMac, which you claimed had
LocalTalk. In fact, the iMac has 100 megabit Ethernet, and
*no* LocalTalk.

So, let's say we're talking about widgets. Ok? I don't
want to drown you in techno-babble. I'll even type slowly so
you can comprehend.

If you believe that widget A has feature B, and thus
make all your decisions on that basis, when in fact widget A
doesn't have feature B but instead has feature C, then
you're making reckless investment decisions, especially
when you consider the lack of feature C and presence of
feature B to be harmful to the product.

Sigh. I've become convinced you just like the attention.

- Scott

Paul Durrant

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
In article <360FD388...@eskimo.com>,

Stephen La Joie <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> And my statement that Apple is going out of business in a few
> years still stands. Unless they get the R&D going to develop new
> products, they won't have a significant market in 3 to 4 years.
> Even now Wintel machines are virtually as fast and lower priced.
>

> If you look at what Dell and Microsoft spend on R&D, it's very
> apparent that Apple lacks the funding for hardware and OS
> development. It's rather clear that they are going for
> short term profits and aren't even going to try to survive in
> the long term. I can't say that I disagree totally with the
> strategy; to survive long term you have to survive short term.

Indeed. A company that loses money every quarter has little future. A
Company that makes money every quarter has a chance of one. I'd glad to say
Apple seem to be in the latter category now.

The figures do show that Apple has cut R&D (& other administrative
expenses) and it's also true that the recent profits are more due to a
reduction in expenditure than an expansion in sales (as sales have been
largely flat or down over the last year).

Where I disagree with you is in the assessment of how the cuts in R&D have
been made. It's my belief that the cuts have *not* been in Macintosh
hardware development and core Mac OS development (including Mac OS
Server/Mac OS X). The cuts in R&D have come about by Apple stopping R&D on
peripherals (printers, scanners, cameras), many software projects
peripheral to the cost OS (e.g. OpenDoc, Dylan), and very, very long range
R&D.

I think Apple's levels of R&D spending will not drop further, and will
slowly rise, as gross sales increase (although hopefully not as quickly as
gross sales!).

I expect this quarters results to show an increase in sales and profits,
and even an increase in G3 sales discounting iMac sales.

I think that Apple have shown over the past year that they can trim costs
as necessary to return to profit, and that they can still develop products
that will sell well. I hope over the next year to see several new products
from Apple that will be as big (or bigger) hits as the iMac.

Paul Durrant

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
Perry Phillips wrote:
>
> In article <360FB9AA...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie

> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> > I didn't get anything wrong.
>
> Well, let see?
>
> >
> > > > It isn't. Local Talk == Apple proprietary network != EtherNet.
> >
> > LocalTalk is Apple's proprietary network hardware layer.
> > It's not the same as the IEEE 802.3 standard hardware
> > layer. No problem here, this is true...
>
> True, but misleading. What people use is AppleTalk for printing and file
> sharing. It can run on either EtherNet or local talk.

I didn't say a word about AppleTalk.

Another case of you saying that I'm wrong because you make a
true statement.

> > > > The built in Local talk is not 10Mb/s ethernet.
> >
> > This is true...
> >

> > > > It's far slower than 10 Mb,
> >

> > True again...
>
> What is the point when you can use either.

You said it was wrong, not that you can use IEEE 802.3 or
LocalTalk. I wasn't wrong.

> > > > and it's nothing like the EtherNet standard.
> >
> > True again...
>
> You are mistaking TCP/IP which is the protocol for EtherNet.

Where are you reading TCP/IP in what I wrote? I made
no such mistake. Are you so desperate to call me wrong that you
now have to make things up? 1) TCP/IP hasn't even been touched upon
in our discussions. 2) As you, yourself point out below, there are
many protocols that can be run on the Ethernet standard hardware.
We did mention that the AppleTalk protocol can be run on Ethernet.

> There is DEC
> net which also runs on EtherNet. Many protocol run on EtherNet. The real
> standard is TCP/IP which is what the WWW is based on.

Another example of you thinking that by making a true statement,
you refute my true statement.

> > > > You can buy a 10Base ethernet card and install it in many Macs,
> > > > but for most Macs you don't get ethernet.
> >

> > True...
>
> Incorrect,

Wrong. See Quote.

From Apple's site:

Ethernet networks

Built-in Ethernet connectivity is provided through an Apple
Ethernet port in the Macintosh Centris 650, most Macintosh
Quadra computers, all Power Macintosh computers and
Workgroup Servers, and several LaserWriter printers. Just
choose the appropriate Apple Ethernet transceiver to match
your
cabling system. For all other Macintosh computers, Apple
offers
several interface cards that enable access to Ethernet
networks.
Apple also offers the portable, easy-to-install Apple
Ethernet
10T/5 Workgroup Hub for creating or extending 10BASE-T
Ethernet networks. All Apple Ethernet solutions comply with
IEEE 802.3 standards, include EtherTalk software, and
support a
variety of popular networking protocols.

> most Mac come with EtherNet and have for a number of years.

Which is not at all inconsistent with what I said. Another
example of you trying to refute what I said with another
true statement. Techno-babble.

> > > > Ethernet is, IIRC, "basic" only in the G3.
> >

> > I think you seem to be saying that it's standard in the iMac too.
> > Okay... I wasn't sure. Hence the "IIRC".
> >

> > > >LocalTalk is accomplished via the printer port.
> >

> > Again, true.
>
> True, but meaningless. Who cares. [snip]

I had to be complete. I'm trying to find why you
declared me to be wrong. This wasn't it either.

> > All of what I said here was correct. You didn't refute any
> > of my techno-babble details here. You just say in the beginning
> > that I'm "wrong again". Where?
> >
> > > For Stephen's education, Apple Talk is a protocol and Local talk is the
> > > hardware.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > >For a number of years now Apple talk will work over EtherNet as
> > > well as Local talk.
> >
> > True.
>
> This is the important part. You just want to use it.

Huh? What are you on about now? This is one of the true
but who cares statement that came with your claim that I
was "wrong again".

> > > If Stephen had every used a Mac he would know you can
> > > set apple talk to the printer port or the EtherNet, which is now pretty
> > > standard on all Macs.
> >
> > What is your problem, Perry? I what I said was true and correct
> > and you come back in an stupid effort to discredit me by saying
> > I'm wrong and following it up with a couple more true statements.
> > You don't say one word about where you accuse me of being wrong.
>
> Talk about technobable, so a serial cable is slower than EtherNet. Fine,
> what is your point.

My point is that you said I was wrong when I wasn't wrong
at all. You just made some techno-babble and declared me discredited.

My point is, even when I'm right, you retreat into techno-babble
and claiming I'm wrong, even if it simply isn't true that I'm
wrong.

> You tried to insinuate that because Macs have a
> choice, slow and inexpensive local talk and fast EtherNet they are at a
> disadvantage?

Nope. That wasn't the point at all. The point was your
veracity. You said I was wrong, and I wanted to go over
point by point to find where you found an error. I was
wrong that the G3 was the first Apple with built in
ethernet, but I said I wasn't sure about that, I said
so, and you didn't exactly catch on about it.

LocalTalk was an innovative early solution to networking
Apple computers. Even the Apple II GS spoke LocalTalk. I
certainly wasn't holding it against Apple that they're
innovative of leading edge, or that AppleTalk lasted for
over 10 years, and is still useful. Nor did I say anything
about a smooth transition to the IEEE 802.3 standard.

Hey, I can be wrong enough without you having to put
false statements like this in my mouth. :-)

> Come on, you got confused over local talk and AppleTalk and
> didn't realize it is device independent.

Where did you see this? I even explained that AppleTalk
protocol over Ethernet is "EtherTalk". But AppleTalk
protocol over LocalTalk is called AppleTalk. Not my
fault Apple made it confusing, but I can see where you
got fouled up in the terms.


> So, let forget the tech stuff, and deal with your investment advice. No
> response on that point, the one that matters.

You were the one that made the tech stuff an issue! You ignored my
investment statements and came up with some silly tech question!
You were the one who brought it up in the first place. I answered
your original question by saying that all mac have a apple proprietary
network capability. I called it that Apple proprietary network with the
funny connector.

From the Apple website:

LocalTalk networks

Every Macintosh comes with AppleTalk networking capability,
including software and a LocalTalk networking port. A
LocalTalk network costs little to install, is easy to
maintain, and
transmits information with high reliability at 230.4
kilobits per
second.

Excuse me for reading the Apple site! I should have realized that
it was one of those dastardly media organizations that are constantly
incorrect about Apple, and who Scott says should be fired for being
inaccurate. I guess my biggest fault is for believing the Apple Website
and not some "Mac Ubber Allis" magazine. I should of realized that
the "Every macintosh comes with ... a LocalTalk networking port" was
nothing more than a marketing lie. It's not true as Scott and you
pointed out. Apple was lying to me.

Apple lied. Shoot them, not me. I'm just the innocent victim.

Rob Barris

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
In article <360FFD7F...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:


"Lying" implies intent to deceive, in my book.

Having one out-dated web page is hardly the same thing.

(the page is no longer strictly true with the advent of the iMac, which
does not have LocalTalk. I haven't visited the site myself, but I suspect
the actual online and printed spec sheets for the iMac, since they are more
recent, are in fact accurate about that product's capabilities).

Rob

Scott

unread,
Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98
to
In article <360FFD7F...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> researches LocalTalk, AppleTalk, and Ethernet, and
writes:

> From the Apple website:
>
> LocalTalk networks
>
> Every Macintosh comes with AppleTalk networking capability,
> including software and a LocalTalk networking port. A
> LocalTalk network costs little to install, is easy to
> maintain, and transmits information with high reliability
> at 230.4 kilobits per second.

Can you provide the URL of this? Apple's web site has tens
of thousands of pages on-line, including tech notes dating back
to 1984. Most pages are clearly dated. The statement you quote
was entirely factual at one point in time; prior to the iMac, every
Macintosh did come with a LocalTalk networking port.

But the iMac does not have one, which - along with the lack of
a floppy drive - has been one of the most controversial aspects
of the iMac, and highly publicized.

> Excuse me for reading the Apple site! I should have realized that
> it was one of those dastardly media organizations that are constantly
> incorrect about Apple, and who Scott says should be fired for being
> inaccurate. I guess my biggest fault is for believing the Apple Website
> and not some "Mac Ubber Allis" magazine. I should of realized that
> the "Every macintosh comes with ... a LocalTalk networking port" was
> nothing more than a marketing lie. It's not true as Scott and you
> pointed out. Apple was lying to me.
>
> Apple lied. Shoot them, not me. I'm just the innocent victim.

There's a problem here. You went and found this page *after*
you realized you were wrong, in order to justify your error and
shift the blame to Apple. It's easy to use a search engine on
a web site and find all kinds of dated material; most of Apple's
web pages are clearly marked with the date, and if the web page
you're referring to says "1992" on it, then you're really
stretching. The relevant material on the Apple web site - for
example, all of the material about the iMac - which is what
we were discussing in the first place - clearly shows that
LocalTalk is not included.

See, I can argue with you that Macintosh systems don't come
with a hard drive. You can point out how wrong I am, but I can
very easily jump to Apple's web site, and spend a few minutes
searching until I find a tech note from 1984 that clearly
states that Macintosh systems don't come with a hard drive.
But I'd have to do some digging, and brush aside all the
other evidence that is clearly more up-to-date and suggests
otherwise.

But if I wanted to be accurate and up-to-date with my
knowledge, I would click on the "Products" section of the Apple
web site - it's quite visible - and peruse Apple's current
systems, where I can clearly see that they come with hard
drives.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll pretend
that, with good intentions, you typed in "LocalTalk" on Apple's
search engine, and one of the first articles you saw - which
had no date whatsoever - stated that LocalTalk was included with
every Mac. In that case, I suppose Apple's hand should be
slapped for not going back and updating all of those tens
of thousands of pages.

That's fine. But the problem is that you pretended to be an
expert on the iMac. When someone asked you how you would network
an iMac and a PowerBook 3400, you scoffed at the suggestion
that you didn't know, and boldly stated that one would have to
use Apple's proprietary networking technology. (And yet, those
of us who did know are "Apple zealots.")

I think it's pretty obvious that you simply weren't up to
date on the iMac. Fair enough. But if you're not following
Apple close enough to differentiate between the widely-publicized
limitations of the iMac and a dated page on the web site (which
you had to have arrived at via a search engine query), why
should we value your advice and opinions about the company?
What investment insight do you have to offer? If someone is
looking for information about Apple, shouldn't they at least
go to people knowledgeable enough to have detailed, up-to-date
information based on multiple sources and firsthand knowledge?

By dropping the ball on this one, you missed something that
is a big concern for investors. Pay attention, here, because
I'm about to be ... objective. Nothing new, of course, but
you always seem to miss it. I guess it's that "technobabble"
you refer to that you tune out.

(1) The iMac has no floppy drive.
(2) The iMac has no serial ports (thus, no LocalTalk).
(3) The iMac has no SCSI port.
(4) The iMac doesn't even have ADB.
(5) The iMac is geared primarily towards the existing Macintosh
user base, especially users who have not upgraded their
system in several years (for example, to a PowerPC-based
Mac).
(6) These users undoubtedly have serial and SCSI peripherals:
a StyleWriter printer, perhaps, as well as an external SCSI
Zip drive, and perhaps a UMAX scanner.
(7) These users purchase an iMac. But they can't use any of
their existing peripherals.
(8) Older Macs didn't have Ethernet, and the iMac doesn't have
a floppy drive. How are users going to transfer their
old files to the iMac? They can't use LocalTalk, because
the iMac doesn't support that. It looks like they might
have to buy an Ethernet card for their older Mac, or wait
for slow-coming USB peripherals. And what if they don't
like the new round mouse? They can't even use their old
ADB-based mouse.
(9) So their old peripherals - which are still quite usable -
are suddenly worthless, unless they spend extra money
on a device which will be out "real soon now." And
once you start adding extra money to the $1299 price,
it doesn't seem quite as inexpensive or "all-in-one"
or uncluttered.

This seems like a pretty severe problem to me, and one I
was worried about, because it seemed to present a big "stop"
sign to existing Mac users. Yes, solutions are coming out,
that let you convert between USB and serial, but they
weren't immediately available with the iMac's release,
and still aren't out.

I'd bet a lot of users are waiting for these adapters to
come out before they upgrade. Some may be waiting to see
if Apple comes out with an "iMac 2" that addresses some
of these problems. (My hunch is they won't, although they
might include an expansion bay - a la' the new PowerBooks -
that accommodates a floppy drive.)

But I also wonder why on earth Apple didn't include a
SCSI port or one serial port on the iMac. It wouldn't have
cost that much, and would have gotten around these problems.

The interesting thing is, this design flaw doesn't seem
to be hurting iMac sales. Or is it? That's an interesting
question for investors to ask.

- Scott

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98
to
Perry Phillips wrote:
>
> In article <360FD388...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie

> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> > As you pointed out, oh great techno-babbler, LocalTalk is a hardware
> > level interface, just like Ethernet. You can't use LocalTalk over
> > Ethernet. That's like using a Ford over a Chevy. You can use the
> > AppleTalk protocol over either hardware, tho. (That's like using
> > unleaded
> > gas in either a Ford or Chevy.)
>
> No one said you can use local talk over ethernet, we said apple talk. You
> still seem to be confessed on the matter.

Here's what you said and clipped from this post, clipped because
it shows your confusion:

> I can use the
> apple talk/local talk over a serial line or EtherNet cable, it just
works.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


> That means I can print or share files over either cable. End of
> techno-babble for you simple mind.

Properly, you should have left the "local talk" out of the sentence.

Then you claim that "non one said you can use local talk over
the ethernet", and claim that it's I, not yourself, that is
confused.

Clearly, your only purpose for being here, (as you later
admit to having never expressed an opinion on the stock
price) is to be an unreasonable Apple Advocate. Nothing
I said was untrue. You have a really nasty habit of trying
to change the subject, saying a few true things, and then
pronouncing the true things I said "wrong".

> If I were to be REALLY picky, I'd point
> > out that AppleTalk = the AppleTalk protocol+LocalTalk hardware.
> > EtherTalk = AppleTalk Protocol + IEEE 802.3. Just a nit, but technically
> > you're wrong.
>
> Scott, in the previous post got it right. Who care if is local or apple
> talk. It is the functionality that is important, and you got it wrong!!!

That I didn't know that the iMac didn't have a LocalTalk printer
port? Blame Apple Computer for lying to me.

> > > Now, lets remember who said when Apple was at 12 that it was going lower
> > > and then out of business, not me. When Apple went to 20, you said it was a
> > > false rally and Apple would soon drop. Your technical info if badly flawed
> > > and so is your stock analysis. If you didn't post such stupid
> > > misinformation we wouldn't bother with you.
> >
> > You had no idea where it was going, Perry, or for what reason.
> > You had hopes, not thoughts. When Apple went from 30 after the
> > MS announcement to 13, where were you to admit you were wrong?
> > No Apple Advocate was anywhere to be seen, to admit their error.
>
> Find a post where I said it was going up or down. You can't. But you did
> in your great wisdom. You have to live with it!!

?!? Thanks for pointing out that you don't post a thing
about stocks in the misc.invest.stocks newsgroup; you just post
off topic Apple Computer Advocacy by your own admission. You're
a self confessed spammer!

I suggest you either form an opinion on the stock price, or post
in the appropriate groups.

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98
to
Paul Durrant wrote:

> Where I disagree with you is in the assessment of how the cuts in R&D have
> been made. It's my belief that the cuts have *not* been in Macintosh
> hardware development and core Mac OS development (including Mac OS
> Server/Mac OS X). The cuts in R&D have come about by Apple stopping R&D on
> peripherals (printers, scanners, cameras), many software projects
> peripheral to the cost OS (e.g. OpenDoc, Dylan), and very, very long range
> R&D.

Which is a GOOD opinion! I like to hear it. On topic. You don't
question my veracity on stocks by asking me inane networking
questions. You might even be right.

But comparing Apple's R&D spending of 76 M$/quarter (qtr ending 6-98)
to Dell computer's spending of 66 M$/quarter (qtr ending 8-98). Dell
and Apple are similar, but a lot of Dell's new product development
is actually done by Intel. I don't mean R&D on processors, but on mother
boards. Dell basically just R&D's what parts to bundle and what their
case should look like. Apple does all that PLUS system board
development,
case development, and, here's a big one, OPERATING SYSTEM development.

How much should Apple be spending? I'd swag that it should be a lot
more. You can disagree if you want.

But I wouldn't just discount it as R&D on other products. Those
other products contribute to Apple's total sales. If those products
stop being marketed, it's still going to have a significant impact
on the Apple computer company's bottom line.

> I think Apple's levels of R&D spending will not drop further, and will
> slowly rise, as gross sales increase (although hopefully not as quickly as
> gross sales!).

Hopefully even more quickly. You know, stock price doesn't do diddly
for the company unless they do a second IPO. The whole purpose of
cutting R&D to the bone was to get the stock price up. It simply
changes the way Apple goes out of business. Before they would have
run out of money to operate. Now, they'll lack competitive products
and sales will fall off.



> I expect this quarters results to show an increase in sales and profits,
> and even an increase in G3 sales discounting iMac sales.

I wouldn't be surprised to see an increase in total revenue due
to iMac sales. I feel this will lower Apple's gross margins. I
doubt that there will increased sales 3 quarters in a row. After
that, the downward slide resumes as the iMac and G3 markets become
saturated.



> I think that Apple have shown over the past year that they can trim costs
> as necessary to return to profit, and that they can still develop products
> that will sell well.

I don't see where it has been demonstrated that they can still
develop products that will sell well. The iMac was not developed
at this level of R&D funding.

> I hope over the next year to see several new products
> from Apple that will be as big (or bigger) hits as the iMac.

Developed from what money?

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98
to
Scott wrote:
>
> In article <360F8F5C...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie

> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I was unaware that 10Mb/s ethernet was an "Apple proprietary network".
> >
> > It isn't. Local Talk == Apple proprietary network != Ethernet.
> >
> > The built in LocalTalk is not 10Mb/s ethernet. It's far slower
> > than 10 Mb, and it's nothing like the ethernet standard. You can

> > buy a 10Base ethernet card and install it in many Macs, but for
> > most Macs you don't get ethernet. Ethernet is, IIRC, "basic" only

> > in the G3. LocalTalk is accomplished via the printer port.
> >
> > > Or maybe he was referring to the IrDA port that both machines above have.
> >
> > Nope, I was unaware that these machines had such a device. Pretty
> > useless if not all machines have it.
>
> I'll keep this short so Steve has a chance of understanding it.
>
> (1) Every product Apple sells today has built-in Ethernet.
> -------------

True, but not relevant. It's funny how when you want to count
Macs, every dead Mac in someone's closet is counted, but when
it comes to features, you only go back 6 months.



> (2) The iMac does not even have LocalTalk, or a modem serial port,
> or a printer serial port. All it has is 100 megabit Ethernet
> (yes, *100* megabit Ethernet) and USB, both industry standards.
> (It also has IrDa, also an industry standard.)

Again, true but not relevant. I based my answer to Perry's question
on Apple's claim that all Macs have a LocalTalk port. Thank
you very much for pointing out, Scott, that Apple is one of those
media outfits that give Apple bad press and should be fired.



> (3) You are completely, 100%, no-doubt-about-it wrong.

About what, Scott? You, like your buddy Perry, did the
"Two true unrelated statements followed with a Claim Steve's
wrong" move. I was completely correct in everything I said.

> Someone
> asked you how you would network an iMac with a PowerBook,
> and your answer was LocalTalk, Apple's "proprietary" network.

According to Apple, it should have been the way to do it.
Thank you SO much for pointing out that the Apple Website
is wrong.

> You then go off on a tangent criticizing Apple for using
> a proprietary network, when in fact, they no longer do.

Bullshit. I said that Apple's proprietary network was leading
edge. Back when it was done, it was 20 times faster than any
other serial connection, and it made simple networks easy.
I didn't criticize Apple. It's a hold over from earlier times
and nothing to be critical about because they made the move
smoothly to Ethernet via EtherTalk.

The fact that the network is proprietary is a fact, not
a criticism.

> And
> you claim that "for most Macs, you don't get Ethernet," when,
> in fact, you cannot buy a Mac today that does not come with
> Ethernet.

Again, depends on what I meant by most. Now it was my turn
to count all the macs in use out there.



> See, the iMac doesn't have LocalTalk. The correct answer was
> Ethernet, with bonus points for mentioning that IrDa could also
> be used, since both the iMac and the PowerBook 3400 have IrDa.
> But to network the two, all you need is an Ethernet crossover
> cable.

Yes, you pointed out before that Apple lied about the
LocalTalk thing. Thanks again. I guess they're just
one of the disreputable sources I read, like the WSJ.

Why do you get your shorts in a knot when ever someone
makes an innocent mistake, anyway? Even Apple makes innocent
mistakes, and then when people take that on good faith,
you jump all over them. As if it somehow validated your
ability to pick stocks.


> (4) And then, rather than realizing your enormous mistake, you
> seem to think that in some way you are still right.

Show me where I said I was right about Perry's trivia question.
Here you lie. I think you'll see that I said "oh, the ONLY Mac
without the LocalTalk. Trick question."

> It just
> boggles my mind and shows how irrational you are.

What boggles everyone's mind is how desperate you are
to discredit anyone who disagrees with you. What? You
work for the Clinton Administration?

> There's
> no gray area here. The iMac does not have LocalTalk, it
> has Ethernet. You obviously didn't know this,

Again, true, but again, not germane to the discussion!
There was nothing in the post you responded to that was
wrong. So you pretend that I'm saying I wasn't wrong about
your other trivia question, and blast me for that.

Pretty lame.

> and once
> again, it raises huge questions about why it is you feel
> knowledgeable enough to offer advice about Apple Computer and
> its products.

You're irrational. You know that don't you? Great, I got
bad info on the LocalTalk port. Great trivia question.
I don't recall saying that I was right on that one once
you and Perry pointed out that I was working from bad
info - the claim that all Macs have LocalTalk.

Which doesn't mean I was wrong about all this other
bullshit you and Perry spread, or your bad habit
of responding to MY true statements with two true
statements and a lie about my veracity. AS I said
before, your credibility is in the toilet.

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98
to
Rob Barris wrote:
>
> In article <360FFD7F...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

[snip]

> > Apple lied. Shoot them, not me. I'm just the innocent victim.
>

> "Lying" implies intent to deceive, in my book.
>
> Having one out-dated web page is hardly the same thing.

If it's meant as a marketing thing, then letting an out of
date page stand is as good as a lie.

But I don't think it was intentional on Apple's part either.

On the other hand, I don't like being flamed for being out
of date if you're going to find being out of date excusable
for the Apple Computer Company.

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98
to
Scott wrote:
>
> In article <360FFD7F...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
> <laj...@eskimo.com> researches LocalTalk, AppleTalk, and Ethernet, and
> writes:
>
> > From the Apple website:
> >
> > LocalTalk networks
> >
> > Every Macintosh comes with AppleTalk networking capability,
> > including software and a LocalTalk networking port. A
> > LocalTalk network costs little to install, is easy to
> > maintain, and transmits information with high reliability
> > at 230.4 kilobits per second.
>
> Can you provide the URL of this? Apple's web site has tens
> of thousands of pages on-line, including tech notes dating back
> to 1984. Most pages are clearly dated. The statement you quote
> was entirely factual at one point in time; prior to the iMac, every
> Macintosh did come with a LocalTalk networking port.

Oh, go piss off. Find it yourself if you don't believe
me. I'm sick to death of you calling me a liar. That's
one big damn lie.



> > Excuse me for reading the Apple site! I should have realized that
> > it was one of those dastardly media organizations that are constantly
> > incorrect about Apple, and who Scott says should be fired for being
> > inaccurate. I guess my biggest fault is for believing the Apple Website
> > and not some "Mac Ubber Allis" magazine. I should of realized that
> > the "Every macintosh comes with ... a LocalTalk networking port" was
> > nothing more than a marketing lie. It's not true as Scott and you
> > pointed out. Apple was lying to me.
> >
> > Apple lied. Shoot them, not me. I'm just the innocent victim.
>
> There's a problem here. You went and found this page *after*
> you realized you were wrong, in order to justify your error and
> shift the blame to Apple.

Bullshit. I "knew" every Mac (and the Apple IIGS) had LocalTalk.
What I knew was wrong. Where did I learn that from? I asked myself that.
Probably Apple, huh? Check Apple - sure enough.

> It's easy to use a search engine on
> a web site and find all kinds of dated material; most of Apple's
> web pages are clearly marked with the date, and if the web page
> you're referring to says "1992" on it, then you're really
> stretching.

Another damn lie. The page is copyrighted 1997.


[snip smear that I'd claim that Macs don't have
hard drives]



> But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll pretend
> that, with good intentions, you typed in "LocalTalk" on Apple's
> search engine,

If you had done this, you'd not be asking me where
the web page was...

> and one of the first articles you saw

I think it was the first...

> - which had no date whatsoever

dated 1997...

> - stated that LocalTalk was included with
> every Mac. In that case, I suppose Apple's hand should be
> slapped for not going back and updating all of those tens
> of thousands of pages.

Yeah, but then you couldn't go around calling people a liar
for not knowing that the iMac didn't have a LocalTalk port,
and you DO so love to discredit people that way.



> That's fine. But the problem is that you pretended to be an
> expert on the iMac.

Nope. I didn't pretend anything. You're making stuff up to flame
me there. I was asked what I thought was a simple question about
how to transfer files. I got it wrong. Whoppee. You win, I missed
the one exception to the rule, published by Apple, that every Mac
has a LocalTalk port.

> When someone asked you how you would network
> an iMac and a PowerBook 3400, you scoffed at the suggestion
> that you didn't know, and boldly stated that one would have to
> use Apple's proprietary networking technology. (And yet, those
> of us who did know are "Apple zealots.")

Scoffed? Oh brother. I couldn't even remember the name of the
apple proprietary network, so I called it "Apple's proprietary
network". That's hardly pretending to be an expert.

[Snip more pointless GARBAGE where Scott goes off
techo-babbling and saying that I'm wrong and beating
his chest about how smart he is]

Scott - Peter Lynch beat the market by 1% point by
buying things he liked. One lousy percentage point.

On the other hand, by paying attention to other
indicators, regarding the finical health of the
company, you can beat the market by about 6%.

Even more so, Peter Lynch admitted that in this
market, had would have taken quite a bath.

My point here is that knowing what kind of network
port an iMac has doesn't mean diddly-squat. That
we like iMac is, itself, enough to satisfy the
Peter Lynch requirement.

There are three kinds of people in this world.
1) Those who don't know what to do and do nothing.
2) Those who don't know what to do and do everything.
3) Those who know what to do and do only that which is
required.

You're in cat 2 when it comes to investing. You don't
have to know about what kind of ports the Mac has to
make investment decisions in Apple. It only points
out that you don't know what you're doing. You have
too much unnecessary spew.

Which says to me that you're here to advocate, not
talk stocks.

Perry Phillips

unread,
Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98
to
In article <3610E3D4...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Clearly, your only purpose for being here, (as you later
> admit to having never expressed an opinion on the stock
> price) is to be an unreasonable Apple Advocate. Nothing
> I said was untrue. You have a really nasty habit of trying
> to change the subject, saying a few true things, and then
> pronouncing the true things I said "wrong".

I am glad you know some much why I post here. Again you jump to
conclusions incorrectly. What I said was that I had not claimed Apple
stock was going up back when it was 12, like you did when you stated
emphatically it was going down. I did post that it was a critical period
in Apples turn around and it was not certain they could turn it around. To
counter some of your negative tone, I did post some positive aspects to
this turn around. I am not an Advocate as you say, as you were so negative
and anti-Apple with out basis (you are at least consistent, negative on
Apple). What I can't stand is your misleading statements and your
incorrect facts. Lets discuss topics rationally and not get off topic, as
you say you would like.

Simply stated, Macs have had inexpensive networking from the very begging.
All new Macs have standard EtherNet cabling, most have had it for years.
Apple talk works over both cables. No more arguing over local talk
definitions. Mac have better networking options than most windows
machines, but not all( just so you will not go off on another tangent).

> >
> > Find a post where I said it was going up or down. You can't. But you did
> > in your great wisdom. You have to live with it!!
>
> ?!? Thanks for pointing out that you don't post a thing
> about stocks in the misc.invest.stocks newsgroup; you just post
> off topic Apple Computer Advocacy by your own admission. You're
> a self confessed spammer!

Please read the above statement. Did I say I did not post a thing about
stocks. No, my statement did not say that!!!! I did not predict that Apple
would go up or down, but I did post information on the company which was
important to how it had a chance to recover. I guess, according to you,
the only valid information for this newsgroup is stock price guessing and
information doesn't count. You past guesses have been so wrong, so
according to you, you are irrelevant to this group. I do not agree with
this. Your arguments about R and D expenditures are important, if a little
simplistic. You need to get off the technical side and stick with your
guesses, going to 50 (which I do not agree with). The haven't set up a
long range plan for the company until OSX comes out. If that is on time
and a success then future looks goods, other wise I do not see a big move.
But this is guessing.

--
Perry Phillips p.phi...@mail.utexas.edu

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98
to
Perry Phillips wrote:
>
> In article <3610E3D4...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> > Clearly, your only purpose for being here, (as you later
> > admit to having never expressed an opinion on the stock
> > price) is to be an unreasonable Apple Advocate. Nothing
> > I said was untrue. You have a really nasty habit of trying
> > to change the subject, saying a few true things, and then
> > pronouncing the true things I said "wrong".
>
> I am glad you know some much why I post here. Again you jump to
> conclusions incorrectly. What I said was that I had not claimed Apple
> stock was going up back when it was 12, like you did when you stated
> emphatically it was going down.

Wow. You did IT again. I'm on to you.
IT being, you clipped what you said and then changed your tune.


Here's what I responded to. You said:

> Find a post where I said it was going up or down. You can't. But you did
> in your great wisdom. You have to live with it!!

You challenged me to find a post where you had a bull or bear
position on Apple stock, and chided me for claiming you were
bullish on Apple. Well, okay... if you speak the truth there,
then what you post here wasn't true.

[snip]

> What I can't stand is your misleading statements and your
> incorrect facts.

My misleading statements?! My incorrect facts!?

You call me wrong where I wasn't. You tell me one
thing in one post and then change it in the next post,
you fail to show where I was wrong, outside of your
trivia iMac network question (shame on me for reading
Apple websites, Apple being the source of my incorrect
"fact".)

And then you attack me for misleading statements and
incorrect facts. STILL. Even though we went over point
by point and all that we found is that you would take
one of my true points, follow up with two more true points
of your own, and call me wrong!

> Simply stated, Macs have had inexpensive networking from the very begging.

Oh my god. Another true point. Did I ever dispute this?
Why are you pretending this is an issue?

> All new Macs have standard EtherNet cabling, most have had it for years.

Oh, here's number two. Again, where did I dispute this?

> Apple talk works over both cables. No more arguing over local talk
> definitions. Mac have better networking options than most windows
> machines, but not all( just so you will not go off on another tangent).

And here it is, you accuse ME of going off on a tangent
when it was you who started down this path with your
silly trivia question to start with.


> > >
> > > Find a post where I said it was going up or down. You can't. But you did
> > > in your great wisdom. You have to live with it!!
> >
> > ?!? Thanks for pointing out that you don't post a thing
> > about stocks in the misc.invest.stocks newsgroup; you just post
> > off topic Apple Computer Advocacy by your own admission. You're
> > a self confessed spammer!
>
> Please read the above statement. Did I say I did not post a thing about
> stocks. No, my statement did not say that!!!!

Okay, if you didn't say the stock is going up or down,
then what about stock did you say?

Mind you, talking about products isn't saying anything about the
stock.

> I did not predict that Apple would go up or down,

That means you said nothing about stocks. If you don't
present a theory and a prediction based on that theory,
your just babbling about stuff that no one wants to
hear about.

Really, you're bullish on Apple and we can tell from the
way that you push the product. However, you seem to want
to deny that your theory (that great products lead to
increased stock price) and prediction (Apple will go up)
aren't there. If you're advancing an opinion on stock
price, welcome to the group. But now you've decided to
deny this. Great. So what are you doing here?

(Aside, the theory isn't very good. Lots of companies with
bad products do quite well, and lots of companies with
good products disappear.)

> but I did post information on the company which was
> important to how it had a chance to recover.

Actually, as I pointed out to Scott, it doesn't matter
one whit. The Peter Lynch method of picking stocks by
product got Lynch a 1% success over the market average.

Fine picky points about a product having an Ethernet vs.
LocalTalk port is going to have an even smaller impact
on stock picking.

None of this techno-babble from you Apple Advocate newsgroup
intruders makes a bit of difference to a seasoned investor.
It simply doesn't matter as much as you and Scott says it
does.

Besides, you don't talk about the company, you talk about
the product. In fine detail. And you bicker about it as if
it was important for stock picking. Show that it is, first.

AS a start, I'll point out that it isn't. Apple has had a
superior product, far more elegantly designed than most of
their competition. Apple ALWAYS has had a superior product.
Apple use to dominate the computer market and had a peak
stock price of 60 or so. Look at how well Apple has done
compared to others in the industry, which produces a rather
unremarkable product, one that you and many other of the
Apple Advocate group would vilify.

Company 10 year return
AAPL About Zero
CPQ 1,780%
DELL 34,675%
GTW 410%
IBM 114%

Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
Apple's had a technologically superior product than ANY
of these companies. Looks to me, that as a predictor,
techno-babble is a negative indicator. A ten year
holder of AAPL could have rightly claimed his company
makes a superior product throughout the the ten
years he held the stock, yet, he not only didn't
make money, he lost it!

The one thing that has been consistent through
Apple's ups and downs is technologically superior
product. When stock price goes up, you feel vindicated,
when it goes down, you have nothing to say about
your theory. I have something to say about your
theory, it sucks. Faster, better, more crash
resistant doesn't matter the least little bit.

Me? I see no difference between a Dell and a Gateway.
But look at the difference in returns!

And personally, I wouldn't buy either a Dell or
a Gateway computer. Too expensive. Doesn't mean
I wouldn't hold their stock.

> I guess, according to you,
> the only valid information for this newsgroup is stock price guessing

That IS the charter of the group, isn't it? Stocks and talking
about where they're going? As was pointed out before, Apple has
an excellent price to sales ratio. As a predictor of future stock
price, this alone overwhelms the Peter Lynch approach of product
analysis in significance. All the rest about Apple computers
is time wasting, pointless, and insignificant to an investor.

I've made the same points to the IOM investors, who also
liked to techno-babble their way around. They didn't understand
"market entry" either. They paid bigtime for their mistakes.
They liked the product, and have eaten it big time. Similarly
with Apple computer for the last 5 years. Long term, this puppy
bites! As predictors go, losers tend to be losers, and winners
tend to be winners. That, too, overwhelms the Peter Lynch theory
of investing.

> and information doesn't count.

Come back when you have data that shows that I should
care about the techno-babble you're on about. It hasn't
been shown to be a statistically significant predictor
of stock price.

I know some investors can't sleep at night unless they
make investing into a much bigger job than it needs to
be. They like to read everything, and know as much as they
can. What you get from that is an investor with a nervous
condition who does very well on "Jeopardy".

Considering past history, perhaps it's too bad they
have the techno-babble security blanket.

All I need to know is that people like Apple computers.
Wow. There's one for the Lynch style investors. That's
worth 1%.

> You past guesses have been so wrong, so
> according to you, you are irrelevant to this group.

I've been wrong for the right reasons. i.e. Microsoft's investment
was unforeseeable and I predicted the only way Apple could show a
profit was to cut R&D. Showing a profit had a dramatic impact on
stock price. I thought investors would check to see how the profits
were made, through sales increases or R&D cuts. People didn't even
bother for the report to come out, the stock price rocketed as soon
as profits were hinted at. Nor does anyone seem to care about R&D
cuts. So I predict that there will be profits again this quarter,
possible sales increases due to iMac, downward pressure on gross
margins due to the iMac, and the stock will go to 50, especially if
profits are increasing (and even if R&D was cut out entirely).

Perry Phillips

unread,
Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98
to
In article <36113038...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Wow. You did IT again. I'm on to you.
> IT being, you clipped what you said and then changed your tune.
> Here's what I responded to. You said:
>
> > Find a post where I said it was going up or down. You can't. But you did
> > in your great wisdom. You have to live with it!!
>
> You challenged me to find a post where you had a bull or bear
> position on Apple stock, and chided me for claiming you were
> bullish on Apple. Well, okay... if you speak the truth there,
> then what you post here wasn't true.

No, I talked about the problems and changes Apple had at that time. I just
did make a predication on how it would turn out. Your wrong here again.

>
> > What I can't stand is your misleading statements and your
> > incorrect facts.
>
> My misleading statements?! My incorrect facts!?

There have been so many post showing how wrong, I will not repeat (imac
local talk, ethernet needs an added card, etc.). Your post are very
selective in your cutting to delete your mistakes.

>
> And here it is, you accuse ME of going off on a tangent
> when it was you who started down this path with your
> silly trivia question to start with.

You were the one who started talking about cables, not me. Just responded
to your mistakes.

>
> Okay, if you didn't say the stock is going up or down,
> then what about stock did you say?
>
> Mind you, talking about products isn't saying anything about the
> stock.
>
> > I did not predict that Apple would go up or down,
>
> That means you said nothing about stocks. If you don't
> present a theory and a prediction based on that theory,
> your just babbling about stuff that no one wants to
> hear about.

So now you can't talk about a company with out predications. Sorry this is
silly. One can rationally discuss the pros and con of a company, what is
its management, new product, and competition without predication. Again
wrong.

> Fine picky points about a product having an Ethernet vs.
> LocalTalk port is going to have an even smaller impact
> on stock picking.

Then why were you posting about it???

>
> None of this techno-babble from you Apple Advocate newsgroup
> intruders makes a bit of difference to a seasoned investor.
> It simply doesn't matter as much as you and Scott says it
> does.

You are a seasoned investor, who can't get the correct reports off the
WWW. Come on this is laughable. It does help to know sometime about the
company.


>
> AS a start, I'll point out that it isn't. Apple has had a
> superior product, far more elegantly designed than most of
> their competition. Apple ALWAYS has had a superior product.
> Apple use to dominate the computer market and had a peak
> stock price of 60 or so. Look at how well Apple has done
> compared to others in the industry, which produces a rather
> unremarkable product, one that you and many other of the
> Apple Advocate group would vilify.

Silly statement here again. You really don't know anything about the
company. Apple had a superior operating system and for a number of years
unremarkable hardware, poor management. They stopped development on the
Mac OS and tried to invent a new OS, which failed. This is what almost
lead to their demise. They then brought NEXT operation system, which is
their future. You again miss the real important part of the picture with
your rather simplistic views.

>
> Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
> Apple's had a technologically superior product than ANY
> of these companies. Looks to me, that as a predictor,
> techno-babble is a negative indicator. A ten year
> holder of AAPL could have rightly claimed his company
> makes a superior product throughout the the ten
> years he held the stock, yet, he not only didn't
> make money, he lost it!

Wrong again, as pointed out above.

>
> The one thing that has been consistent through
> Apple's ups and downs is technologically superior
> product. When stock price goes up, you feel vindicated,
> when it goes down, you have nothing to say about
> your theory. I have something to say about your
> theory, it sucks. Faster, better, more crash
> resistant doesn't matter the least little bit.

You go on and on digging a bigger hole. You really don't know what was
going on at Apple for the last few years.

>
> Me? I see no difference between a Dell and a Gateway.
> But look at the difference in returns!

No difference, management, it is important, as stated before. You are
really out of it arn't you.

>
> > I guess, according to you,
> > the only valid information for this newsgroup is stock price guessing
>
> That IS the charter of the group, isn't it? Stocks and talking
> about where they're going? As was pointed out before, Apple has
> an excellent price to sales ratio. As a predictor of future stock
> price, this alone overwhelms the Peter Lynch approach of product
> analysis in significance. All the rest about Apple computers
> is time wasting, pointless, and insignificant to an investor.

A very short term view. Without a new OS Apple does not have a future.

>
> Come back when you have data that shows that I should
> care about the techno-babble you're on about. It hasn't
> been shown to be a statistically significant predictor
> of stock price.

Your are the one posting techno-babble, incorrectly.

>So I predict that there will be profits again this quarter,
> possible sales increases due to iMac, downward pressure on gross
> margins due to the iMac, and the stock will go to 50, especially if
> profits are increasing (and even if R&D was cut out entirely).

Again, your simplistic point of view R&D cuts are all the same. Do you
know the margins on imac, no. Your predication aren't worth much do to
your lack of knowledge of the company and its product.

--
Perry Phillips p.phi...@mail.utexas.edu

Scott

unread,
Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98
to

Hmm. Steve's called me irrational, a liar, and desperate
to discredit anyone who disagrees with me.

As I thought about how to respond to this, I realized it's
not worth it. He's a little kid who likes to make outlandish
statements that evoke a reaction that massages his ego. In
short, he's everything he claims everyone else is.

In the time I've watched this newsgroup, I've never - not
once - seen someone willing to stand up and "take sides" with
Steve. Yet, dozens of different people regularly take issue with
the comments Steve has made. He labels all of them "liars,"
"irrational," and desperate to discredit him. He's apparently
incapable of having a rational investment discussion about
Apple Computer, turning any discussion into a name-calling
argument, and throwing in torrents of irrelevant material.
(The latest? 10-year histories of technology companies. How
on earth is that relevant? I didn't buy AAPL 10 years ago, I
bought it less than a year ago. I'm interested in the future
performance of AAPL, not how well DELL did 8 years ago.) He
probably lies in bed at night worrying about all those "Apple
evangelists" out there, who are obviously all out to get him
for making statements and predictions about the company that
are not true or don't pan out.

I'm more interested in discussing the fundamentals of Apple
Computer, and its technological direction, so I can make
better investment decisions. As a long-time Macintosh software
developer, I will continue to provide objective insight and
answers to questions - the same type of "technobabble" Steve
claims he doesn't read and isn't relevant to investment
decisions.

I'd recommend that folks don't waste time responding to
outlandish statements he makes. Maybe some day he'll offer
a great bit of insight, but all he's capable of doing right
now is slinging mud, perhaps trying to cover the fact
that he predicted Apple wouldn't be around today, when the
company is currently experiencing the greatest growth of
any computer manufacturer.

- Scott

Scott

unread,
Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98
to
In article <3610F416...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Scott wrote:
> >
> > In article <360FFD7F...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
> > <laj...@eskimo.com> researches LocalTalk, AppleTalk, and Ethernet, and
> > writes:
> >
> > > From the Apple website:
> > >
> > > LocalTalk networks
> > >
> > > Every Macintosh comes with AppleTalk networking capability,
> > > including software and a LocalTalk networking port. A
> > > LocalTalk network costs little to install, is easy to
> > > maintain, and transmits information with high reliability
> > > at 230.4 kilobits per second.
> >
> > Can you provide the URL of this? Apple's web site has tens
> > of thousands of pages on-line, including tech notes dating back
> > to 1984. Most pages are clearly dated. The statement you quote
> > was entirely factual at one point in time; prior to the iMac, every
> > Macintosh did come with a LocalTalk networking port.
>
> Oh, go piss off. Find it yourself if you don't believe
> me. I'm sick to death of you calling me a liar. That's
> one big damn lie.

When did I accuse you of lying? I was genuinely curious to know
what web page you saw this on. When I do a search on LocalTalk
using Apple's search engine, the first thing that comes up is
a Technote dated February, 1992. 228,266 web pages are indexed
by Apple, and 13,597 include the term "LocalTalk." Most of
the ones I see are clearly outdated, and yet, there is perfectly
good reason for them to be on the web site. Having old Technotes
on the site is important for developers - for example, if they
want to learn about an old piece of equipment so they can
support it properly. But Apple intentionally dates their web
pages so people can put the information in perspective.

It may be that you found a web page (out of the 228,266)
that gave no indication it was outdated, and implied that -
today - all Macs had LocalTalk. In that case, you are perfectly
correct to say that Apple has misleading information on their
web site. I couldn't find the page that you referenced,
and your refusal to give it speaks for itself.

> > > Excuse me for reading the Apple site! I should have realized that
> > > it was one of those dastardly media organizations that are constantly
> > > incorrect about Apple, and who Scott says should be fired for being
> > > inaccurate. I guess my biggest fault is for believing the Apple Website
> > > and not some "Mac Ubber Allis" magazine. I should of realized that
> > > the "Every macintosh comes with ... a LocalTalk networking port" was
> > > nothing more than a marketing lie. It's not true as Scott and you
> > > pointed out. Apple was lying to me.
> > >
> > > Apple lied. Shoot them, not me. I'm just the innocent victim.
> >
> > There's a problem here. You went and found this page *after*
> > you realized you were wrong, in order to justify your error and
> > shift the blame to Apple.
>
> Bullshit. I "knew" every Mac (and the Apple IIGS) had LocalTalk.
> What I knew was wrong. Where did I learn that from? I asked myself that.
> Probably Apple, huh? Check Apple - sure enough.

Just because every Mac at one point in time had LocalTalk
does not mean all future Macs will have LocalTalk. Your knowledge
was outdated.

When this was pointed out, you searched Apple's web site to
find a page that supported your assertion, which, as we'll learn
in a second, was *also* oudated, and clearly so...

> > It's easy to use a search engine on
> > a web site and find all kinds of dated material; most of Apple's
> > web pages are clearly marked with the date, and if the web page
> > you're referring to says "1992" on it, then you're really
> > stretching.
>
> Another damn lie. The page is copyrighted 1997.

I was being hypothetical there. That's what the "*if* the web
page.." is about. I'm not sure how you concluded that I was
accusing you of using a web page from 1992, particularly when
I had previously *asked* you what the date of the web page was,
since I couldn't find it anywhere on the site.

But, since you volunteered..

1997? And yet, let's see, the iMac came out in.. August
of 1998.

> [snip smear that I'd claim that Macs don't have
> hard drives]

I never made any such accusation. You can't have a linear
conversation; you convolute everything.

> > But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll pretend
> > that, with good intentions, you typed in "LocalTalk" on Apple's
> > search engine,
>
> If you had done this, you'd not be asking me where
> the web page was...
>
> > and one of the first articles you saw
>
> I think it was the first...

I *had* done it, and the first article I came up with was
a 1992 TechNote titled "AppleTalk: The Rest of the Story."
I couldn't find the article you referenced anywhere in the top 10,
and didn't look farther than that.

That's precisely *why* I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Apparently I was being too generous.

> > - which had no date whatsoever
>
> dated 1997...

Before the iMac came out, oh Mr. iMac Expert.

> > - stated that LocalTalk was included with
> > every Mac. In that case, I suppose Apple's hand should be
> > slapped for not going back and updating all of those tens
> > of thousands of pages.
>
> Yeah, but then you couldn't go around calling people a liar
> for not knowing that the iMac didn't have a LocalTalk port,
> and you DO so love to discredit people that way.

I've never called you a liar. You made an honest mistake
about the capabilities of the iMac, which immediately flagged
to us that you're not up-to-date on Apple's technologies, but
couldn't admit that you had made an honest mistake. Instead,
you try to justify your mistake by searching for some (clearly)
dated web page that supports your statement, if you had made
the statement in 1997. Conveniently, you blame your ignorance
about the iMac on Apple, even though it's been very well
publicized that the iMac does not have conventional serial
ports.

Suddenly, anyone that points out your mistake is someone
who "loves to discredit you." You're the one that's dragged
it on (and on and on..) by refusing to admit you were wrong.

> > That's fine. But the problem is that you pretended to be an
> > expert on the iMac.
>
> Nope. I didn't pretend anything. You're making stuff up to flame
> me there. I was asked what I thought was a simple question about
> how to transfer files. I got it wrong. Whoppee. You win, I missed
> the one exception to the rule, published by Apple, that every Mac
> has a LocalTalk port.

Sigh.

Here's how the discussion went:

- someone asked why you felt you were in a better position to
render objective information about Apple than, say, a long-time
Macintosh developer. Specifically, someone wanted to know why
they should take advice from someone who doesn't even know
that much about Macs.

- your reply? You knew a whole lot about Macs. You've been
using them for years. Or at least have one sitting in the
corner, which you hadn't actually plugged in for awhile, but
same difference.

- someone then asked a simple question about the iMac, a
question related to one of the most controversial aspects of
the iMac - which I went into in the message you're replying to,
but which you didn't feel obliged to discuss, since it's
apparently objective and investment-related

- you provided a blatantly incorrect answer to the question,
saying you were offended at the notion that you might not
know the answer

- someone pointed out that your answer was, in fact, wrong

- and then the thread went on and on and on as you repeatedly
tried to cover up the fact that you were wrong, slinging mud
at all of those who corrected you and prolonging this discussion

> > When someone asked you how you would network
> > an iMac and a PowerBook 3400, you scoffed at the suggestion
> > that you didn't know, and boldly stated that one would have to
> > use Apple's proprietary networking technology. (And yet, those
> > of us who did know are "Apple zealots.")
>
> Scoffed? Oh brother. I couldn't even remember the name of the
> apple proprietary network, so I called it "Apple's proprietary
> network". That's hardly pretending to be an expert.

Scoffed. Let's go back in time and see what you said:

Someone else wrote:
> >
> > Okay ... let's test *your* knowledge.
> >
> > You have a PowerBook 3400c sitting on your desk. You have an iMac sitting
> > next to it. Both systems are powered up and ready to go. How can you
> > transfer your files from your PowerBook to the iMac? (You've also left
> > your PowerBook's floppy drive at home.)

You responded:


>
> Macs come equipped and ready to go with Apple's proprietary
> network, and have for years. It's just a cable with a funny
> connector on end. Plug it in and set up one to be a service
> and there you go.
>

> I actually find your post to be rather insulting and off topic.

You found the person's question to be rather insulting. I'd
call that a scoff if I ever saw one.

> [Snip more pointless GARBAGE where Scott goes off
> techo-babbling and saying that I'm wrong and beating
> his chest about how smart he is]
>
> Scott - Peter Lynch beat the market by 1% point by
> buying things he liked. One lousy percentage point.

What does this have to do with anything? I purchase
Macintosh computers because I like the product. I don't
purchase Apple stock because I like Macintosh computers.
I purchased AAPL for the first time within the past year,
and have been extremely pleased with my investment. It
has outperformed everything else in my portfolio, by
several dozen percentage points.

I only invest in companies that I thoroughly research,
and I follow my investments very, very closely.

> On the other hand, by paying attention to other
> indicators, regarding the finical health of the
> company, you can beat the market by about 6%.
>
> Even more so, Peter Lynch admitted that in this
> market, had would have taken quite a bath.
>
> My point here is that knowing what kind of network
> port an iMac has doesn't mean diddly-squat. That
> we like iMac is, itself, enough to satisfy the
> Peter Lynch requirement.

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. Knowing - at
a minimum - the feature set of Apple's product seems
to be pertinent information to making wise investments.
For example, if the iMac had a 20-MHz 68020 chip in it,
I think I would have been on the phone with my broker
faster than PowerPC beats Pentium in a ByteMark test.
As I said, I was concerned about the iMac's lack of
serial ports, and afraid this would hurt widespread
acceptance of the machine, to the user base it was
aimed towards: the existing Macintosh user base. I think
that's extremely investment-related.

> There are three kinds of people in this world.
> 1) Those who don't know what to do and do nothing.
> 2) Those who don't know what to do and do everything.
> 3) Those who know what to do and do only that which is
> required.
>
> You're in cat 2 when it comes to investing. You don't
> have to know about what kind of ports the Mac has to
> make investment decisions in Apple. It only points
> out that you don't know what you're doing. You have
> too much unnecessary spew.

Hmm.. So what kind of category do you fit in? After
all, if people had followed your investment decisions over
the past year, they would have lost a huge amount of money.
I sure am glad my mutual fund managers consider "technobabble
spew" when making investment decisions instead of just
randomly deciding that certain companies will do well or
poorly, and ignoring all evidence.

> Which says to me that you're here to advocate, not
> talk stocks.

If A implies B, and B implies C, then a common mistake
is to assume A implies C.

I'm not sure I can identify *any* "implies" in the argument
you just presented, and therefore have no idea how you reach
the conclusion that I - or anyone else - is here to
"advocate." If you don't want to participate in technical
or investment discussions about Apple, don't.

Glen Warner

unread,
Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98
to
In article <3610E963...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Paul Durrant wrote:
>
> > I think Apple's levels of R&D spending will not drop further, and will
> > slowly rise, as gross sales increase (although hopefully not as quickly as
> > gross sales!).
>
> Hopefully even more quickly. You know, stock price doesn't do diddly
> for the company unless they do a second IPO. The whole purpose of
> cutting R&D to the bone was to get the stock price up. It simply
> changes the way Apple goes out of business. Before they would have
> run out of money to operate. Now, they'll lack competitive products
> and sales will fall off.

Hmmm.

This opinion has to be based on *something* you read somewhere. What was
it? Does this source happen to make any predictions on what Apple will be
announcing in ... say, January?

I'm just curious where you get this 'lack of competitive products' bit.

--gdw

--
Remove the 'nyet' from the e-mail address, and you'll be all set.
(%*#$&! spammers ....)

Scott

unread,
Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98
to
In article <gdwarnernyet-3...@206.191.146.37>,
gdwarn...@ricochet.net (Glen Warner) wrote:

Me too. Everything I've been reading in the "rags" seems to
indicate Apple is leading the pack in terms of innovation and
competitive products.

Even Andy Grove, Chairman of Intel, said that Apple was leading
the industry, in an interview last week with Time Magazine.
Specifically, he said that the computer industry was about
to enter something he called "the Valley of Death," a destructive
period of time where "the players will change, the technology
will change, and the devices will change." He says that what
started as general-purpose computers with networking added as
an afterthought will migrate into network machines that also
do computing.

[http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/daily/0,2960,14868-101980923,00.html]

He says he has already seen the future, and points to Apple's
iMac as an example.

"The iMac embodies a lot of the things I'm talking about.
Sometimes what Apple is doing may have an electrifying effect on
the rest of us. It's nothing we couldn't have done, but Apple
went ahead and did it," he says.

And, isn't it amazing, that according to Steve, Apple
was able to pull this off without spending any money on R&D?
And let's not forget Mac OS 8.5, which comes out in a couple
weeks and already has reviewers saying that some of its
innovative features - such as internet integration done
right - will show up in Microsoft's OS 2 years from now.

Apple has a whole palette of competitive products they
will be releasing next year. It will be non-stop: flat-screen
displays; new desktop systems that are unlike any others in
the market; the highly anticipated consumer portable, which
will revive a lot of the technologies in Newton; even better
PowerBooks with a new design; an updated iMac; new versions
of QuickTime; new versions of WebObjects; Mac OS 8.6, and,
perhaps most importantly for the long-term, Mac OS X.
Apple's overall R&D may be lower than it was in the "fat"
years, but the company is spending it on the areas that count -
and specifically, in the areas that allow Apple to deliver
compelling, competitive products. Apple used to have
multiple teams working against each other, duplicating
efforts, and duplicating efforts that had no chance to ever
make it into a product. I'm really glad they've fixed that.
Now they have close collaboration between highly-focused
teams that are working around the clock to deliver great
(shipping) technologies such as Mac OS 8.5.

And if Steve thinks Apple's stock price "doesn't do diddly"
for the company, he just doesn't get it.

Everything is tied together, and a rising stock price
shows increasing confidence on the part of Wall Street and
investors about Apple's chance of survival and capability
to grow. It also minimizes the chance of a corporate
take-over.

Apple's "acceptance" on Wall Street has led directly to
consumer confidence. Reporters see that the stock price has
been rising consistently, and change the tone of their
articles. When investors won't buy a company's stock, it
shows they have no faith in the company. When the stock
continually rises, it shows increasing confidence in the
company, and suddenly consumers feel safe buying Apple
products again because they believe the company will be
around 5 years from now. And Apple's providing compelling
products to buy, such as the iMac. Everything is now working
together *for* Apple, and not *against* Apple, as it had
in the past. (Which was entirely Apple's fault.)

Frankly, when I look at Apple, I see a company that is
in a vastly different position than its competitors. I've
always known about some core benefits, but Apple wasn't able
to use these to its advantage. In the low-margin PC world,
the best PC manufacturers can hope to do is maintain their
market share against dozens of other PC manufacturers that
are doing the same exact thing. They can't afford to be
different, because they're locked into Wintel. They don't
control the OS. They don't have any control over the
microprocessors. When a new Pentium comes out, they use it,
and in all respects just "follow the pack."

Then there's Apple. Apple controls the OS, has large
control over PowerPC, and has the talent to viably produce
radically differentiated machines, such as the iMac. If
Apple gets to a point where they offer a clearly superior
computing alternative - and I think they'll reach that
point by the end of next year - they'll suddenly be in a
position where they can scoop up market share from all
the PC manufacturers, and the PC manufacturers will have
their hands tied. Apple could have done this years ago
but failed to. It's amazing Apple's still in business,
but they're finally going in this direction. They've got
some catching up to do, but the brisk sales of iMac -
where about 1 in 4 purchasers are Wintel or first-time
computer users (something I didn't expet) - shows that
they've already started. And as products such as the iMac
do well, that only increases confidence in the company
and attracts more and more users.

So, does anyone have predictions about what profit
Apple will show for the past quarter? How about revenue?

- Scott

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98
to
Glen Warner wrote:
>
> In article <3610E963...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> > Paul Durrant wrote:
> >
> > > I think Apple's levels of R&D spending will not drop further, and will
> > > slowly rise, as gross sales increase (although hopefully not as quickly as
> > > gross sales!).
> >
> > Hopefully even more quickly. You know, stock price doesn't do diddly
> > for the company unless they do a second IPO. The whole purpose of
> > cutting R&D to the bone was to get the stock price up. It simply
> > changes the way Apple goes out of business. Before they would have
> > run out of money to operate. Now, they'll lack competitive products
> > and sales will fall off.
>
> Hmmm.
>
> This opinion has to be based on *something* you read somewhere. What was
> it?

Apple's 10-K and 10-Q.

> Does this source happen to make any predictions on what Apple will be
> announcing in ... say, January?
>
> I'm just curious where you get this 'lack of competitive products' bit.

If you don't spend money on developing new products, you can't sell
them.

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98
to
Scott wrote:
>
> In article <gdwarnernyet-3...@206.191.146.37>,
> gdwarn...@ricochet.net (Glen Warner) wrote:
>
> > In article <3610E963...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
> > <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Paul Durrant wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think Apple's levels of R&D spending will not drop further, and will
> > > > slowly rise, as gross sales increase (although hopefully not as quickly as
> > > > gross sales!).
> > >
> > > Hopefully even more quickly. You know, stock price doesn't do diddly
> > > for the company unless they do a second IPO. The whole purpose of
> > > cutting R&D to the bone was to get the stock price up. It simply
> > > changes the way Apple goes out of business. Before they would have
> > > run out of money to operate. Now, they'll lack competitive products
> > > and sales will fall off.
> >
> > Hmmm.
> >
> > This opinion has to be based on *something* you read somewhere. What was
> > it? Does this source happen to make any predictions on what Apple will be

> > announcing in ... say, January?
> >
> > I'm just curious where you get this 'lack of competitive products' bit.
>
> Me too. Everything I've been reading in the "rags" seems to
> indicate Apple is leading the pack in terms of innovation and
> competitive products.

Innovation? Well, if the past is an indicator of future
events, yes.

But you don't understand that "competitive" means it meets
customers expectations at a price that the customer is willing
to pay. A Dell plain vanilla machine is not very innovative,
but it's competitive as all get out, as Dell's market share and
stock price has shown.



> Even Andy Grove, Chairman of Intel, said that Apple was leading
> the industry, in an interview last week with Time Magazine.
> Specifically, he said that the computer industry was about
> to enter something he called "the Valley of Death," a destructive
> period of time where "the players will change, the technology
> will change, and the devices will change." He says that what
> started as general-purpose computers with networking added as
> an afterthought will migrate into network machines that also
> do computing.

No promise here that the laggard of the computer industry would
survive his vision of the future. I don't think he was expressing
concern that he needs to run out and start making processors for
Apple, or that intel would go out of business.



> [http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/daily/0,2960,14868-101980923,00.html]
>
> He says he has already seen the future, and points to Apple's
> iMac as an example.
>
> "The iMac embodies a lot of the things I'm talking about.
> Sometimes what Apple is doing may have an electrifying effect on
> the rest of us. It's nothing we couldn't have done, but Apple
> went ahead and did it," he says.

Nothing much to disagree with. This Intel guy may have a point.
Even my home PCs are all networked together. It's very, very
easy with Windows 95.

But people have been talking about the demise of the full featured
computer and the rise of the network workstation for years. Hasn't
happened. Doesn't mean it won't, I suppose, but I don't see people
switching to iMacs in droves to do networking. They can do it with
their Wintel machines now. 10baseT EISA cards go for about $10.

And while the iMac my be technically to the point, people aren't
going to pay $1300, or even $1000, or a network machine when they
can spend about $500 for that "iPC". That's called competition.

Bang for buck. It does the same and is compatible with
their existing software.

And this vision of his, it's a pretty damning statement
against the G3. Why DO you need all that computing power
for a network computer? The iMac may be today's darling,
but the G3 is Apple's cash cow.

> And, isn't it amazing, that according to Steve, Apple
> was able to pull this off without spending any money on R&D?

Not true. I said that Apple had most of the development done
before R&D was cut. Dang. I make enough mistakes. Do you have to
make stuff up to try and discredit me? Why don't you go back and
say that I didn't know that the iMac didn't have a LocalTalk port
and claim that because of that, I don't have a worthy opinion about
Apple stock.

> And let's not forget Mac OS 8.5, which comes out in a couple
> weeks and already has reviewers saying that some of its
> innovative features - such as internet integration done
> right - will show up in Microsoft's OS 2 years from now.

Techno-babble.

Networking Windows 95 is already very easy.

{following techno-babble snipped}

Scott

unread,
Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98
to
In article <3612314E...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> > > This opinion has to be based on *something* you read somewhere. What was
> > > it? Does this source happen to make any predictions on what Apple will be
> > > announcing in ... say, January?
> > >
> > > I'm just curious where you get this 'lack of competitive products' bit.
> >
> > Me too. Everything I've been reading in the "rags" seems to
> > indicate Apple is leading the pack in terms of innovation and
> > competitive products.
>
> Innovation? Well, if the past is an indicator of future
> events, yes.
>
> But you don't understand that "competitive" means it meets
> customers expectations at a price that the customer is willing
> to pay. A Dell plain vanilla machine is not very innovative,
> but it's competitive as all get out, as Dell's market share and
> stock price has shown.

Hmm. Interesting.

Well, then, how would you rate the iMac? 7.1% of all personal
computers bought during August were iMacs, even though the iMac
was only on sale for half the month.

[http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,26691,00.html]

It's one of the fastest-selling computers of all time. Apple
is struggling to keep up with unwavering demand, and many analysts
are expecting over one million will be sold by the end of the year.
With help from the iMac, Apple's market share shot up to 13.5%
for the month of August, behind Compaq and HP.

By your definition, is the iMac competitive? Does it meet
customer expectations? Is it available at a price consumers
are willing to pay?

I think the answer on all three counts is an overwhelming
"yes," and there's no shortage of evidence. And the iMac includes
many innovations that other computer makers are reportedly planning
on "adopting."

> > Even Andy Grove, Chairman of Intel, said that Apple was leading
> > the industry, in an interview last week with Time Magazine.
> > Specifically, he said that the computer industry was about
> > to enter something he called "the Valley of Death," a destructive
> > period of time where "the players will change, the technology
> > will change, and the devices will change." He says that what
> > started as general-purpose computers with networking added as
> > an afterthought will migrate into network machines that also
> > do computing.
>
> No promise here that the laggard of the computer industry would
> survive his vision of the future. I don't think he was expressing
> concern that he needs to run out and start making processors for
> Apple, or that intel would go out of business.
>
> > [http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/daily/0,2960,14868-101980923,00.html]
> >
> > He says he has already seen the future, and points to Apple's
> > iMac as an example.
> >
> > "The iMac embodies a lot of the things I'm talking about.
> > Sometimes what Apple is doing may have an electrifying effect on
> > the rest of us. It's nothing we couldn't have done, but Apple
> > went ahead and did it," he says.
>
> Nothing much to disagree with. This Intel guy may have a point.
> Even my home PCs are all networked together. It's very, very
> easy with Windows 95.

I don't think you "get" it. The type of networking you refer
to has been available for over a decade. It might be easier to
configure, but that's about it. That's precisely what Grove
was referring to as "networking added as an afterthought."

What Grove is really referring to would most likely be
classified as "techno-babble" to you.

> But people have been talking about the demise of the full featured
> computer and the rise of the network workstation for years. Hasn't
> happened. Doesn't mean it won't, I suppose, but I don't see people
> switching to iMacs in droves to do networking. They can do it with
> their Wintel machines now. 10baseT EISA cards go for about $10.

I never bought into the "network computer" concept - it was
nothing new, after all. Network computers were just a reinvention
of dumb TTY terminals that have been around for decades. Network
bandwidth was/is not high enough yet to support full-featured,
inexpensive, remote terminals. And you still need servers and
an entire infrastructure in place. It might work in some offices,
but not yet in the consumer space. And what if the network goes
down? That scenario was demonstrated in a rather embarassing
fashion during an NC demo given by Larry Ellison at a trade show.

In my view, the iMac is the first *computer* that was designed
from the ground up as a networking machine. But you know what?
The iMac doesn't really have any features that my PowerMac or
Pentium box doesn't or couldn't have. What makes the iMac
successful is compelling marketing, ease-of-use, and an all-in-one
solution. As Apple claims in their ads, it makes the Internet
accessible for everyone. You don't have to fiddle around with
10baseT EISA cards and complex configurations. You and I can
do that, but a lot of consumers don't want to deal with that.
It's telling that over 20% of iMac purchasers are 50+. It's the
first computer that appeals to the elderly, who have wanted to get
on-line to share e-mail with grandchildren but have been afraid
of all those "unsightly cables" and "unapproachable grey boxes."

[http://www.mercurycenter.com/business/top/079156.htm]

> And while the iMac my be technically to the point, people aren't
> going to pay $1300, or even $1000, or a network machine when they
> can spend about $500 for that "iPC". That's called competition.

I think you're still missing the big picture.

If I wanted an easy-to-use "network computer," I would run out
and buy a WebTV. It's perfect: easy-to-use, inexpensive, and
provides a great Internet experience. And many people have been
purchasing a WebTV. It's certainly caught the interest of
Microsoft.

But you get a lot more with an iMac (or PC), for example,
the ability to run thousands of software titles.

So why are people willing to pay $1300 for an iMac when
low-end PC's are coming out for $500-600? (I think at this
point, it's pretty much clear people *are* willing to pay
$1300 for the iMac. At least so far, the buyers are still
lined up.) Because you get a whole lot more with the iMac.
You get a fast, complete, robust and good-looking machine.
For $600, you get last year's low-end leftover junk,
and lots of folks are finding high mortality rates and
nonexistent support.

[http://www.pcworld.com/pcwtoday/article/0,1510,8256,00.html]

It's not unlike people paying extra for "Dole" canned
fruit, when they could buy generic canned fruit. Only,
in those cases, the merchandise is identical, just different
labeling.

At the low-end, WebTV seems pretty great. The $500
computer market is an area I'd rather not see Apple get
involved in, at least not yet. There's little profit
to be made there: razor-thin (or even negative) margins,
low customer loyalty, etc. Ask Compaq about their
experience in this market. Earlier this year, they lost
more money than Apple lost during its bleeding four
quarters, and yet, no one made a big deal about it.

> Bang for buck. It does the same and is compatible with
> their existing software.
>
> And this vision of his, it's a pretty damning statement
> against the G3. Why DO you need all that computing power
> for a network computer? The iMac may be today's darling,
> but the G3 is Apple's cash cow.

Again, you fail to understand what Mr. Grove is talking
about. More to the point - why would you need the power of
his Pentium chips? This isn't about specific microprocessors.
The types of "computing" people will do in the future will
rely on powerful microprocessors. Mr. Grove was not talking
about the traditional "network computers" we've been hearing
about the past few years, mainly from companies like Sun
and Oracle. That's something completely different.

I don't understand how you can possibly infer that Mr.
Grove was making a "damning" statement against the G3.
He wasn't suggesting that computers would become brainless.
There's a specific reason why Apple bucked the trend and
went with a high-performance chip in its low-end machine,
unlike the Wintel world where Celeron and other low-end
chips are used. That's one of the things that distinguishes
the iMac, and one of the difference that caught Mr. Grove's
eye.

> > And, isn't it amazing, that according to Steve, Apple
> > was able to pull this off without spending any money on R&D?
>
> Not true. I said that Apple had most of the development done
> before R&D was cut.

Development done for what? It's widely known that the iMac
didn't exist until the day Jobs took control of the company.
You seem to be under the impression that Apple is not spending
money on R&D these days, which boggles my mind, since I see
first-hand what kinds of resources Apple is putting into
R&D. They're very often working around the clock.

But, whatever. At some point, when Apple continues to
come out with head-turning products - say, 9 months from now,
I expect you'll have to admit that the development wasn't
done 5 years ago.

> > And let's not forget Mac OS 8.5, which comes out in a couple
> > weeks and already has reviewers saying that some of its
> > innovative features - such as internet integration done
> > right - will show up in Microsoft's OS 2 years from now.
>
> Techno-babble.
>
> Networking Windows 95 is already very easy.

"Networking Windows 95 is already very easy." Ok. Well,
that's it. Wraps up all the internet integration anyone would
ever need, now or in the future. I suppose any other networking
or integration features are just "techno-babble" to you. To
consumers, they're solid reasons to purchase Mac OS 8.5 and
other products from Apple. You might wish to learn about
the "Sherlock" feature in 8.5. It's one of the coolest
features I've seen added to any OS in years, by Apple or
anyone else.

> {following techno-babble snipped}

You're very good at snipping things you can't defend or
discussions that are relevant to investing and this newsgroup.

- Scott

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98
to
Scott wrote:
>
> In article <3612314E...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This opinion has to be based on *something* you read somewhere. What was
> > > > it? Does this source happen to make any predictions on what Apple will be
> > > > announcing in ... say, January?
> > > >
> > > > I'm just curious where you get this 'lack of competitive products' bit.
> > >
> > > Me too. Everything I've been reading in the "rags" seems to
> > > indicate Apple is leading the pack in terms of innovation and
> > > competitive products.
> >
> > Innovation? Well, if the past is an indicator of future
> > events, yes.
> >
> > But you don't understand that "competitive" means it meets
> > customers expectations at a price that the customer is willing
> > to pay. A Dell plain vanilla machine is not very innovative,
> > but it's competitive as all get out, as Dell's market share and
> > stock price has shown.
>
> Hmm. Interesting.
>
> Well, then, how would you rate the iMac?

Good.

[snip]



> By your definition, is the iMac competitive?

In it's market, yes.

> Does it meet customer expectations?

In it's market, yes.

> Is it available at a price consumers are willing to pay?

In it's market, it's long awaited for.


> I think the answer on all three counts is an overwhelming
> "yes," and there's no shortage of evidence.

No, there isn't. In it's market, there was a lot of pent up
demand.

But what do I mean by "in it's market"?

Apple computer users would, generally, never consider
buying anything other than some sort of Mac. Wintels are
right out. This is a generalization, of course, lots of
Mac users have crossed over. What they wanted was the
"latest and greatest" Mac. The G3 was priced out of their
reach, but the iMac isn't.

And yeah, there is a percentage of new computer buyers
buying an iMac. Believe me, they're not buying it because
of the fine details of it's technical merits. They know
even less about it than I, and I, as you constantly point
out, don't know much.

> And the iMac includes
> many innovations that other computer makers are reportedly planning
> on "adopting."

And there's the problem. Apple paid for the "innovation" and gets
to see if the market is ready for it. Other manufactures stand back
and say, "lets add that".

Macs were first with a great GUI. (even if b&w)
Macs were first with great color.
Macs were first with great sound.
Macs were first with ...

I remember being mesmerized by the Mac - some dancing babe on
some screen with real MUSIC (not that dang PC "beep" speaker)
many years ago. Sure beat the latest and greatest CGA card I
had on my PC.

I don't think there was EVER a time when the Mac was more
superior to the Wintel PC than back then.

Well, hell, you know this better than I do.

What has it gotten Apple? It's gotten them worse than
last place among the computer makers.

[snip]

> I don't think you "get" it. The type of networking you refer
> to has been available for over a decade. It might be easier to
> configure, but that's about it. That's precisely what Grove
> was referring to as "networking added as an afterthought."
>
> What Grove is really referring to would most likely be
> classified as "techno-babble" to you.

If it's techno-babble, then it doesn't matter. My position on
that was made in another post.

> > But people have been talking about the demise of the full featured
> > computer and the rise of the network workstation for years. Hasn't
> > happened. Doesn't mean it won't, I suppose, but I don't see people
> > switching to iMacs in droves to do networking. They can do it with
> > their Wintel machines now. 10baseT EISA cards go for about $10.
>
> I never bought into the "network computer" concept - it was
> nothing new, after all. Network computers were just a reinvention
> of dumb TTY terminals that have been around for decades. Network
> bandwidth was/is not high enough yet to support full-featured,
> inexpensive, remote terminals.

[snip]

My network is about to be upgraded to 100 MB/sec. That's bandwidth for
about 20 TV stations.

> In my view, the iMac is the first *computer* that was designed
> from the ground up as a networking machine. But you know what?
> The iMac doesn't really have any features that my PowerMac or
> Pentium box doesn't or couldn't have. What makes the iMac
> successful is compelling marketing, ease-of-use, and an all-in-one
> solution.

Which is why other companies are moving so quickly to copy the idea.
(Again...)

> As Apple claims in their ads, it makes the Internet
> accessible for everyone.

Everyone who has $1300.

> You don't have to fiddle around with
> 10baseT EISA cards and complex configurations.

100baseTX PCI cards, and windows will find most of them or
you stuff the disk in when it asks you to.

> You and I can
> do that, but a lot of consumers don't want to deal with that.
> It's telling that over 20% of iMac purchasers are 50+. It's the
> first computer that appeals to the elderly, who have wanted to get
> on-line to share e-mail with grandchildren but have been afraid
> of all those "unsightly cables" and "unapproachable grey boxes."

Great. Apple's grabbed the market nitch of "late to computers and
soon to be dead."



> [http://www.mercurycenter.com/business/top/079156.htm]
>
> > And while the iMac my be technically to the point, people aren't
> > going to pay $1300, or even $1000, or a network machine when they
> > can spend about $500 for that "iPC". That's called competition.
>
> I think you're still missing the big picture.
>
> If I wanted an easy-to-use "network computer," I would run out
> and buy a WebTV. It's perfect: easy-to-use, inexpensive, and
> provides a great Internet experience. And many people have been
> purchasing a WebTV. It's certainly caught the interest of
> Microsoft.
>
> But you get a lot more with an iMac (or PC), for example,
> the ability to run thousands of software titles.
>
> So why are people willing to pay $1300 for an iMac when
> low-end PC's are coming out for $500-600? (I think at this
> point, it's pretty much clear people *are* willing to pay
> $1300 for the iMac. At least so far, the buyers are still
> lined up.) Because you get a whole lot more with the iMac.

The iMac has been waited for with anticipation for some time
now. Initial demand isn't the long haul.

Besides, we're ignoring the Apple Computer Company and focusing
on the product too much again. As you pointed out to me a long
time ago, the G3 has a great gross margin. When I saw GM go from the
high teens percentage to the low to mid twenties, I thought "hot
dang!"

We shall see how margins and sales hold up in the next month
or so. I sort of expect a increase in sales, but if people are
buying a $1300 iMac instead of a 3-4 k$ G3, there may be big
trouble at the Apple company.

(There is a reason why the G3 came out before the iMac...)

> You get a fast, complete, robust and good-looking machine.
> For $600, you get last year's low-end leftover junk,

Which works just fine this year...

> and lots of folks are finding high mortality rates and
> nonexistent support.

I don't think that's true.

> [http://www.pcworld.com/pcwtoday/article/0,1510,8256,00.html]

This article compares the iMac reliability and after delivery
problems with other Mac computers, not with the $600 PCs.

[snip]



> Again, you fail to understand what Mr. Grove is talking
> about. More to the point - why would you need the power of
> his Pentium chips?

Maybe you don't. But I've said that all along. Why do you need
the power of the Mac chips? Aren't they suppose to be even
more powerful?

Ah!

Even your article points out that processor benchmarks are
one thing, but almost totally lost in the things like modems,
busses and other 'waits' the processor encounters.

> This isn't about specific microprocessors.
> The types of "computing" people will do in the future will
> rely on powerful microprocessors. Mr. Grove was not talking
> about the traditional "network computers" we've been hearing
> about the past few years, mainly from companies like Sun
> and Oracle. That's something completely different.


> I don't understand how you can possibly infer that Mr.
> Grove was making a "damning" statement against the G3.

Because the G3 is the Anti-iMac.

> He wasn't suggesting that computers would become brainless.
> There's a specific reason why Apple bucked the trend and
> went with a high-performance chip in its low-end machine,
> unlike the Wintel world where Celeron and other low-end
> chips are used. That's one of the things that distinguishes
> the iMac, and one of the difference that caught Mr. Grove's
> eye.

You're waxing again...

Even the website you quoted says that the iMac's processor
speed isn't that significant in real use.

"Apparently the iMac's G3 processor does beat the
high-speed Pentium on certain technical benchmarks,
but that doesn't mean real-world performance is
superior when bogged down with buses, an operating
system, and application software."


> > > And, isn't it amazing, that according to Steve, Apple
> > > was able to pull this off without spending any money on R&D?
> >
> > Not true. I said that Apple had most of the development done
> > before R&D was cut.
>
> Development done for what?

For the iMac.

> It's widely known that the iMac
> didn't exist until the day Jobs took control of the company.
> You seem to be under the impression that Apple is not spending
> money on R&D these days, which boggles my mind, since I see
> first-hand what kinds of resources Apple is putting into
> R&D. They're very often working around the clock.

I can read the 10-Q. I know exactly what Apple is spending
on R&D, and I've compared it to what Dell is spending. In
comparison, it doesn't appear to be enough.

Perhaps if more money had been spend on the low end iMac,
they would have developed a real low end machine that can
compete with the $600 knock offs AND maintain a gross margin.

Time will tell.



> But, whatever. At some point, when Apple continues to
> come out with head-turning products - say, 9 months from now,
> I expect you'll have to admit that the development wasn't
> done 5 years ago.

Not five years. One or two, tho'. I expect a few quarters
of revenue growth, followed by a horrific fall to disaster
where Apple gets scooped up, chopped up, or digested.

Lots of what Apple use to sell was printers and other junk.
No R&D on that means that much less revenue in the future.
You can't cut seed crop and expect to harvest more at the
end of the season, Scott. Nor can you invest nothing and
expect to get more in the end. R&D is a company's investment
in it's own future.


> > > And let's not forget Mac OS 8.5, which comes out in a couple
> > > weeks and already has reviewers saying that some of its
> > > innovative features - such as internet integration done
> > > right - will show up in Microsoft's OS 2 years from now.
> >
> > Techno-babble.
> >
> > Networking Windows 95 is already very easy.
>
> "Networking Windows 95 is already very easy." Ok. Well,
> that's it. Wraps up all the internet integration anyone would
> ever need, now or in the future. I suppose any other networking
> or integration features are just "techno-babble" to you.

I have my whole PC network on the internet through one modem.
It was remarkably easy, with the right software. Intranet or
Internet, it's all the same to my system. Hey, I can even use
IE 4.0's small scale web server to set up intranet pages on
my home system.

I wonder what I could do with Windows 98?

> To
> consumers, they're solid reasons to purchase Mac OS 8.5 and
> other products from Apple.

Excuse, but the average Wintel consumer isn't going to buy
Mac OS 8.5. It's a limited market.

[snip]

> > {following techno-babble snipped}
>
> You're very good at snipping things you can't defend or
> discussions that are relevant to investing and this newsgroup.

They weren't relevant, they weren't even interesting.

Scott

unread,
Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98
to
In article <36128CD2...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> [snip]
>
> > By your definition, is the iMac competitive?
>
> In it's market, yes.
>
> > Does it meet customer expectations?
>
> In it's market, yes.
>
> > Is it available at a price consumers are willing to pay?
>
> In it's market, it's long awaited for.
>
> > I think the answer on all three counts is an overwhelming
> > "yes," and there's no shortage of evidence.
>
> No, there isn't. In it's market, there was a lot of pent up
> demand.
>
> But what do I mean by "in it's market"?
>
> Apple computer users would, generally, never consider
> buying anything other than some sort of Mac. Wintels are
> right out. This is a generalization, of course, lots of
> Mac users have crossed over. What they wanted was the
> "latest and greatest" Mac. The G3 was priced out of their
> reach, but the iMac isn't.
>
> And yeah, there is a percentage of new computer buyers
> buying an iMac. Believe me, they're not buying it because
> of the fine details of it's technical merits. They know
> even less about it than I, and I, as you constantly point
> out, don't know much.

You're correct in pointing out that the iMac is geared
towards existing Macintosh users - primarily ones who haven't
upgraded in years, and perhaps some who "switched over" and
regretted it. But Apple was making no attempts to expand
its user base with the iMac; Steve Jobs said as much himself.
The purpose of the iMac was to capture mind share and solidify
the rabidly loyal user base, and it's done that tremendously
well.

What has been surprising to me is that the iMac *is*
expanding the Macintosh user base. And it does not appear
to be cutting into PowerMac G3 sales, as we'll no doubt see
when Apple releases its quarterly results. (There's every
indicating it has indirectly increased sales of PowerMac
G3's, having boosted user confidence in Apple.) Something
like 1 in 4 iMac purchasers never owned a Mac before.
I expected 5% of iMac purchasers would be new Mac users,
so that's a great sign.

Apple has products in the works that will be designed to
attract new users to the Mac fold, but they had to solidify
their existing user base first. The "user base" is estimated
to be 25 million, so I think the iMac will keep selling for
awhile.

One note about your message (which I actually found
to be interesting and thought-provoking, this time around):
be careful in your differentiation between the "G3" and the
"iMac". I assume when you say "G3", you are referring to the
PowerMacintosh (and PowerBook?) G3 line(s). The G3 is an
alternative name for the PowerPC 750 microprocessor, which
is used to power *all* of Apple's current machines, including
the iMac.

> > And the iMac includes
> > many innovations that other computer makers are reportedly planning
> > on "adopting."
>
> And there's the problem. Apple paid for the "innovation" and gets
> to see if the market is ready for it. Other manufactures stand back
> and say, "lets add that".
>
> Macs were first with a great GUI. (even if b&w)
> Macs were first with great color.
> Macs were first with great sound.
> Macs were first with ...
>
> I remember being mesmerized by the Mac - some dancing babe on
> some screen with real MUSIC (not that dang PC "beep" speaker)
> many years ago. Sure beat the latest and greatest CGA card I
> had on my PC.
>
> I don't think there was EVER a time when the Mac was more
> superior to the Wintel PC than back then.
>
> Well, hell, you know this better than I do.
>
> What has it gotten Apple? It's gotten them worse than
> last place among the computer makers.

Well, first, that's not true. Apple was the #3 computer
vendor in August. That's hardly last place: there's a couple
dozen computer manufacturers coming after Apple that would
love to be in third place. At the same time, Apple isn't
making Wintel machines; it has its own platform, so it
really *needs* to be near the front of the pack to maintain
developer interest and long-term viability.

What has it gotten Apple? It's kept Apple alive, plain
and simple. Two years ago, I was pretty convinced that Apple
was going down the toilet. I thought it was a shame - because
Apple has always been the innovator - but I didn't see any
way around it. I saw lots of companies, schools, and friends
nostalgically dumping their Macs and buying PC's. I saw
Apple continue to make really boneheaded mistakes - such as
having a big PowerBook promotion tied with the Independence
Day movie, when all PowerBooks were off the market due to
a recall! It was sickening. The company seemed intent on
running out of business, and was stuck in a back hole of
well-deserved bad press. It seemed like Apple was stuck
in a whirlpool, heading towards the drain with little
chance of getting out.

The only force holding back what seemed like the inevitable,
was the very technology that made Apple successful in the
first place. If Apple was any other computer company - a
company that only followed, and never innovated - they probably
wouldn't have seen the 90's. It is the innovation that
allowed Apple to survive, even as bad management seemed intent
on destroying it.

I always wondered: imagine what Apple could do if they
married their innovation and brand name with management as
good as Microsoft?

People tend to like to buy the better product. The
innovative one. But they need help. Apple historically
produced products that were less and less better than
the competition, but they simply placed them on the shelf
and figured people would automatically know the products
were better, and buy them. Only, that doesn't work.
Finally, Apple seems to get this, and doesn't mind taking
big risks and making bold statements.

> [snip]
>
> > I don't think you "get" it. The type of networking you refer
> > to has been available for over a decade. It might be easier to
> > configure, but that's about it. That's precisely what Grove
> > was referring to as "networking added as an afterthought."
> >
> > What Grove is really referring to would most likely be
> > classified as "techno-babble" to you.
>
> If it's techno-babble, then it doesn't matter. My position on
> that was made in another post.
>
> > > But people have been talking about the demise of the full featured
> > > computer and the rise of the network workstation for years. Hasn't
> > > happened. Doesn't mean it won't, I suppose, but I don't see people
> > > switching to iMacs in droves to do networking. They can do it with
> > > their Wintel machines now. 10baseT EISA cards go for about $10.
> >
> > I never bought into the "network computer" concept - it was
> > nothing new, after all. Network computers were just a reinvention
> > of dumb TTY terminals that have been around for decades. Network
> > bandwidth was/is not high enough yet to support full-featured,
> > inexpensive, remote terminals.
>
> [snip]
>
> My network is about to be upgraded to 100 MB/sec. That's bandwidth for
> about 20 TV stations.

Yes, and gigabit Ethernet is coming too. But you have to look
at all of the plumbing. I have a cable modem, which promises
speeds up to 10 megabits per second, but I haven't met someone
who's seen half that speed. The traditional idea of a network
computer is that you have a bunch of computers connected to
a server. The network computer itself usually doesn't have
local file storage, if it's a "pure" network computer. If
you have an office of 50 workers, accessing one server, even
over a gigabit Ethernet network, that network is going to be
stressed out. We're not talking about transferring small web
pages around; we're talking about multiple users simultaneously
moving very large chunks of data around. And there are other
bottlenecks in the system, too. What about the server? Can
it handle this type of load? Time is money, and if network
computers don't seem as responsive as a low-end system costing
a few hundred more, they're not worth it. And so far, the
market hasn't bought into them. Never mind the fact that if
the network goes down, everyone goes down.

Concerning your statement: your network is undoubtedly being
upgraded to 100 Megabit Ethernet (100 Mb/sec), not megabyte.
That's only 12.5 megabytes per second, peak, and due to the way
TCP/IP works (and networking under Windows NT or Mac OS), you'll
probably never reach 80% of that capacity. Even with extremely
good compression, that's not near enough bandwidth to get 20
broadcast-quality TV stations. The fact that most offices share
that bandwidth with multiple systems only amplifies the problem,
sometimes significantly. And even if your local network has
100 megabit (or 1,000 megabit) Ethernet, if you connect to
the Internet, you're still often tied to the speed of various
components of the Internet you have no control over, such as
the speed of the web server you're trying to connect to.

My point is that "pure" network computers - the type Oracle
has been pushing, with little success - are ahead of their
time. You can have a successful system that is network-centric,
but I think with today's technology, you need to have local
disk storage and respectable computing power to make it work.
You can't rely on the network, because they're too slow and
unstable.

> > In my view, the iMac is the first *computer* that was designed
> > from the ground up as a networking machine. But you know what?
> > The iMac doesn't really have any features that my PowerMac or
> > Pentium box doesn't or couldn't have. What makes the iMac
> > successful is compelling marketing, ease-of-use, and an all-in-one
> > solution.
>
> Which is why other companies are moving so quickly to copy the idea.
> (Again...)
>
> > As Apple claims in their ads, it makes the Internet
> > accessible for everyone.
>
> Everyone who has $1300.

Correct.

> > You don't have to fiddle around with
> > 10baseT EISA cards and complex configurations.
>
> 100baseTX PCI cards, and windows will find most of them or
> you stuff the disk in when it asks you to.

It's not hard, but we both know there's a lot of consumers
who don't want to have to do anything - just plug in a power
cord and never have to worry about it again. Like my aunt,
a school teacher who doesn't know what it means to "highlight
that text."

Well, the iMac has pretty good margins too, as far as personal
computers go. And resellers are reporting that iMac sales
haven't cut into PowerMac G3 sales, and in fact, have had
completely the opposite effect, driving sales.

The biggest complaint I'm hearing from users right now is
that Apple isn't able to keep up with demand for high-end PowerMacs
and PowerBooks. There's a lot of people who crave all the
computing power they can get, and Apple's been focusing too much
on delivering iMacs right now, shifting manufacturing resources
to the lower-end machine. That bothers me.

The iMac is only one tiny product, one tiny aspect of Apple's
overall strategy. I've been following all of the other aspects,
and am very pleased by what I'm seeing. The iMac is a done deal.
Apple's currently working on products which I think will be
even more successful than the iMac, which you'll start to see
or at least hear about around March of next year. I don't see
demand for Apple's current products showing any sign of slowdown,
but I agree with you: if Apple stood still today, they would
enjoy a couple great quarters and then be in trouble again.
They're not standing still, and realize how important it is
to continue to meet everyones' high expectations.

> > You get a fast, complete, robust and good-looking machine.
> > For $600, you get last year's low-end leftover junk,
>
> Which works just fine this year...
>
> > and lots of folks are finding high mortality rates and
> > nonexistent support.
>
> I don't think that's true.
>
> > [http://www.pcworld.com/pcwtoday/article/0,1510,8256,00.html]
>
> This article compares the iMac reliability and after delivery
> problems with other Mac computers, not with the $600 PCs.
>
> [snip]

There was an article I was searching for, which was published
on the CNN web site within the past week, that talked about
sub-$1,000 PC's and their high mortality rates and low customer
satisfaction. I searched for the article when I was posting
that message but couldn't find it. The article I'm referring
to didn't even mention the iMac. I'll look for it again and
post the reference to it. But, it does make sense: companies
who are hardly making any profit on the very low-end PC's
are not going to be spending much money on support, or buying
the highest quality power supplies, etc.

> > Again, you fail to understand what Mr. Grove is talking
> > about. More to the point - why would you need the power of
> > his Pentium chips?
>
> Maybe you don't. But I've said that all along. Why do you need
> the power of the Mac chips? Aren't they suppose to be even
> more powerful?
>
> Ah!
>
> Even your article points out that processor benchmarks are
> one thing, but almost totally lost in the things like modems,
> busses and other 'waits' the processor encounters.

Processor benchmarks are pretty lousy indicators of
overall system performance. I would love to debate the
difference in performance between the iMac and the highest-end
Pentiums, but that's for a later time.

The iMac easily outperforms similarly-priced PC's in
real-world performance. There's really no contest.

Apple is claiming the iMac also outperforms the most
expensive PC's, and I take issue with that. In terms of
raw processor performance, that's true, but not always
in real-world performance. Apple's really stretching.

> > This isn't about specific microprocessors.
> > The types of "computing" people will do in the future will
> > rely on powerful microprocessors. Mr. Grove was not talking
> > about the traditional "network computers" we've been hearing
> > about the past few years, mainly from companies like Sun
> > and Oracle. That's something completely different.
>
> > I don't understand how you can possibly infer that Mr.
> > Grove was making a "damning" statement against the G3.
>
> Because the G3 is the Anti-iMac.

Well, as I said earlier, the G3 is the chip that powers
the iMac. When I say G3, I refer to the PowerPC 750 chip.
It is used in the PowerMacintosh, the PowerBook, and the iMac,
and will soon be used in a new completely product as well.

I'm not sure I understand your statement even if you
mean PowerMac G3. Are you saying that the PowerMac G3
competes against the iMac?

> > He wasn't suggesting that computers would become brainless.
> > There's a specific reason why Apple bucked the trend and
> > went with a high-performance chip in its low-end machine,
> > unlike the Wintel world where Celeron and other low-end
> > chips are used. That's one of the things that distinguishes
> > the iMac, and one of the difference that caught Mr. Grove's
> > eye.
>
> You're waxing again...
>
> Even the website you quoted says that the iMac's processor
> speed isn't that significant in real use.
>
> "Apparently the iMac's G3 processor does beat the
> high-speed Pentium on certain technical benchmarks,
> but that doesn't mean real-world performance is
> superior when bogged down with buses, an operating
> system, and application software."

True, but note they say "high-speed Pentium." They're
taking issue with the comparison between the PowerPC 750,
running at 233-MHz with a backside cache, and top-of-the-line
Pentium II chips. I agree completely with them.

They wouldn't dare make any statement about comparing the
speed of the iMac with the speed of Celeron-based low-end PC's,
which typically don't even have a cache. In its price class,
the iMac outperforms PC's in the same price class, in real-
world performance, by a large margin.

> > > > And, isn't it amazing, that according to Steve, Apple
> > > > was able to pull this off without spending any money on R&D?
> > >
> > > Not true. I said that Apple had most of the development done
> > > before R&D was cut.
> >
> > Development done for what?
>
> For the iMac.

Most development of the iMac occurred after the large R&D
cuts you're referring to.

> > It's widely known that the iMac
> > didn't exist until the day Jobs took control of the company.
> > You seem to be under the impression that Apple is not spending
> > money on R&D these days, which boggles my mind, since I see
> > first-hand what kinds of resources Apple is putting into
> > R&D. They're very often working around the clock.
>
> I can read the 10-Q. I know exactly what Apple is spending
> on R&D, and I've compared it to what Dell is spending. In
> comparison, it doesn't appear to be enough.
>
> Perhaps if more money had been spend on the low end iMac,
> they would have developed a real low end machine that can
> compete with the $600 knock offs AND maintain a gross margin.
>
> Time will tell.

I think they could and can. But there's not much reason
to, when the iMac - at $1,300 - is flying off shelves and
they are struggling to keep up with demand. Apple would
be in a much worse situation if they couldn't deliver
a $999 system with higher demand. Once demand begins to
soften, you'll see some deep price cuts on the iMac, because
the margin is built into it - and components prices continue
to fall.

Glen Warner

unread,
Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98
to
In article <scott-30099...@cc1001538-a.hwrd1.md.home.com>,
sc...@SPAMdcski.com (Scott) wrote:

> So, does anyone have predictions about what profit
> Apple will show for the past quarter? How about revenue?
>
> - Scott

Analysts say $.40/share. I've heard also $.70/share. I'll go for a nice
middle figure of $.55/share.

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98
to
Scott wrote:
>
> Hmm. Steve's called me irrational, a liar, and desperate
> to discredit anyone who disagrees with me.
>
> As I thought about how to respond to this, I realized it's
> not worth it. He's a little kid who likes to make outlandish
> statements that evoke a reaction that massages his ego. In
> short, he's everything he claims everyone else is.

You could have responded by including in your post what I said,
what you said in responce, and how I responded, and left it to
the reader to judge. But that wouldn't have made your case; it
would have busted it.

You'd rather leave the evidence out and just post unsupported.

> In the time I've watched this newsgroup, I've never - not
> once - seen someone willing to stand up and "take sides" with
> Steve.

Most people don't care to get into it.

> Yet, dozens of different people regularly take issue with
> the comments Steve has made. He labels all of them "liars,"
> "irrational," and desperate to discredit him.

Evidence?

> He's apparently
> incapable of having a rational investment discussion about
> Apple Computer, turning any discussion into a name-calling
> argument, and throwing in torrents of irrelevant material.

Torrents of irrelevant material? I pointed out how being
product focused in such great detail, while it may be a
selling point for computers, isn't really relevant to
the selling company's stock price as a rebuttal to what
I regarded as YOUR torrent of irrelevant material. As I
point out, good product will get you about 1% above market
average. In Apple's case, this hasn't worked.

> (The latest? 10-year histories of technology companies. How
> on earth is that relevant? I didn't buy AAPL 10 years ago, I
> bought it less than a year ago. I'm interested in the future
> performance of AAPL, not how well DELL did 8 years ago.)

As I just pointed out, Apple has had superior product all
during those ten years. Apple's performance has not only kept
up with the computer industry, it not only hasn't kept up
with the S&P 500, it hasn't even kept up with inflation during
those 10 years. A bond would have been a better investment.

My entire point - what made it relevant, is that the type
of technical detail you go into about the product hasn't
mattered in the past.

> He
> probably lies in bed at night worrying about all those "Apple
> evangelists" out there, who are obviously all out to get him
> for making statements and predictions about the company that
> are not true or don't pan out.

Again, you show your tendency to attribute things and thoughts
to other people and then discredit people based on the things
and thoughts you just made up.

I don't think about you at all. Once I leave the thread, you're
pretty far from my thoughts. Sorry, I didn't even think to send
you a birthday card.


> I'm more interested in discussing the fundamentals of Apple
> Computer, and its technological direction, so I can make
> better investment decisions.

I posted two things: 1) The fact that Peter Lynch, who picked
stocks based on the quality of the products they made, only
beat the market by 1% and that in today's market he, himself,
admits he would be trounced. And 2) That Apple has ALWAYS had
a superior product and that it hasn't been an indicator of
Apple's stock price. This hasn't been some sort of see-saw
technology thing, where Apple slips behind and Wintel surpasses
and back and forth, with Apple stock going up and down based
on who's ahead. It's been Apple on top, technology wise, all
the way.

IT'S NOT NEWS THAT APPLE HAS A MORE TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED
PRODUCT.

If I hold one independent varible fixed and the dependent
varible still wiggles a lot, I can conclude that the one
fixed varible doesn't impact the dependent varible much.

> As a long-time Macintosh software
> developer, I will continue to provide objective insight and
> answers to questions - the same type of "technobabble" Steve
> claims he doesn't read and isn't relevant to investment
> decisions.

Make your case that it's relevant.


> I'd recommend that folks don't waste time responding to
> outlandish statements he makes. Maybe some day he'll offer
> a great bit of insight, but all he's capable of doing right
> now is slinging mud, perhaps trying to cover the fact
> that he predicted Apple wouldn't be around today, when the
> company is currently experiencing the greatest growth of
> any computer manufacturer.

Mud? You make up things, attribute them as "probable" about
me, and then denounce me for it.

You follow a true statement of mine with two true statements,
and call me "wrong". And either stuff wrong words in my mouth
or don't say where I was wrong.

> - Scott

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98
to
Scott wrote:
>
> Hmm. Steve's called me irrational, a liar, and desperate
> to discredit anyone who disagrees with me.
>
> As I thought about how to respond to this, I realized it's
> not worth it. He's a little kid who likes to make outlandish
> statements that evoke a reaction that massages his ego. In
> short, he's everything he claims everyone else is.

You could have responded by including in your post what I said,

what you said in response, and how I responded, and left it to

Evidence?

If I hold one independent variable fixed and the dependent
variable still wiggles a lot, I can conclude that the one
fixed variable doesn't impact the dependent variable much.

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98
to

Okay...

> But Apple was making no attempts to expand
> its user base with the iMac; Steve Jobs said as much himself.
> The purpose of the iMac was to capture mind share

Uh, your first statement, that Apple was making no
attempt to expand its user base, conflict with your
supporting statement, that "the purpose ... was to
capture mind share."

> and solidify the rabidly loyal user base,

The "and" clause identifies this as an independent
goal.

Just thought I'd point out, I made a true statement,
you called me wrong, and followed it with some more
true statements that don't at all conflict with what
I said.

> and it's done that tremendously
> well.
>
> What has been surprising to me is that the iMac *is*
> expanding the Macintosh user base. And it does not appear
> to be cutting into PowerMac G3 sales, as we'll no doubt see
> when Apple releases its quarterly results. (There's every
> indicating it has indirectly increased sales of PowerMac
> G3's, having boosted user confidence in Apple.) Something
> like 1 in 4 iMac purchasers never owned a Mac before.
> I expected 5% of iMac purchasers would be new Mac users,
> so that's a great sign.

(in other words, it's doing what Jobs said it was suppose
to do...)

Well, I predicted Apple at 50 in the short (6 month) term.
If iMac doesn't cut into (now I don't know what to call
the damn things...) the higher gross margin unit sales,
then my prediction will probably be on the money because
sales will increase, and that will attract buyers.



> One note about your message (which I actually found
> to be interesting and thought-provoking, this time around):
> be careful in your differentiation between the "G3" and the
> "iMac". I assume when you say "G3", you are referring to the
> PowerMacintosh (and PowerBook?) G3 line(s). The G3 is an
> alternative name for the PowerPC 750 microprocessor, which
> is used to power *all* of Apple's current machines, including
> the iMac.

Non-iMac Macs? Higher margin machines? What should I call them?

> > > And the iMac includes
> > > many innovations that other computer makers are reportedly planning
> > > on "adopting."
> >
> > And there's the problem. Apple paid for the "innovation" and gets
> > to see if the market is ready for it. Other manufactures stand back
> > and say, "lets add that".
> >
> > Macs were first with a great GUI. (even if b&w)
> > Macs were first with great color.
> > Macs were first with great sound.
> > Macs were first with ...
> >
> > I remember being mesmerized by the Mac - some dancing babe on
> > some screen with real MUSIC (not that dang PC "beep" speaker)
> > many years ago. Sure beat the latest and greatest CGA card I
> > had on my PC.
> >
> > I don't think there was EVER a time when the Mac was more
> > superior to the Wintel PC than back then.
> >
> > Well, hell, you know this better than I do.
> >
> > What has it gotten Apple? It's gotten them worse than
> > last place among the computer makers.
>
> Well, first, that's not true.

Here you call me wrong...

> Apple was the #3 computer vendor in August. That's hardly last
> place: there's a couple dozen computer manufacturers coming after > Apple that would love to be in third place.

True statement #1

> At the same time, Apple isn't
> making Wintel machines; it has its own platform, so it
> really *needs* to be near the front of the pack to maintain
> developer interest and long-term viability.

Maybe true statement #2.

But neither of these change the fact that I pointed out
that over a 10 year period, Apple is last. It's clear
from the context and the data that I meant 10 years.

I'm getting really use to this.


> What has it gotten Apple? It's kept Apple alive, plain
> and simple. Two years ago, I was pretty convinced that Apple
> was going down the toilet. I thought it was a shame - because
> Apple has always been the innovator - but I didn't see any
> way around it. I saw lots of companies, schools, and friends
> nostalgically dumping their Macs and buying PC's. I saw
> Apple continue to make really boneheaded mistakes - such as
> having a big PowerBook promotion tied with the Independence
> Day movie, when all PowerBooks were off the market due to
> a recall! It was sickening. The company seemed intent on
> running out of business, and was stuck in a back hole of
> well-deserved bad press. It seemed like Apple was stuck
> in a whirlpool, heading towards the drain with little
> chance of getting out.
>
> The only force holding back what seemed like the inevitable,
> was the very technology that made Apple successful in the
> first place. If Apple was any other computer company - a
> company that only followed, and never innovated - they probably
> wouldn't have seen the 90's.

?!? One company that is often accused of only following
and not innovating is MICROSOFT. They are also frequently
accused of making a poor product.

I don't care to say one way or the other on that.

But if it WAS true, how'd you explain that Microsoft
has become world dominate in light of their lack of
innovation?

> It is the innovation that
> allowed Apple to survive, even as bad management seemed intent
> on destroying it.
>
> I always wondered: imagine what Apple could do if they
> married their innovation and brand name with management as
> good as Microsoft?

Henry Ford once sent his engineers out to junk yards to
see why his cars failed. The engineers came back and reported
all kinds of failures, except for the car's king-pin.
Henry then ordered the engineers to cheapen up the king-pin
so that it didn't outlast the rest of the car. He viewed
it as a waste of money.

Such is, I'm afraid, the nature of good management.

Apple's insistence on making products with features that
are WAY ahead of anticipation of market needs - this
innovation, is just an indicator of bad management.


> People tend to like to buy the better product. The
> innovative one. But they need help.

Actually, they need about $500 more...

> Apple historically
> produced products that were less and less better than
> the competition, but they simply placed them on the shelf
> and figured people would automatically know the products
> were better, and buy them. Only, that doesn't work.

I agree it didn't work. I think at issue is WHY it didn't
work.


[snip]

> > My network is about to be upgraded to 100 MB/sec. That's bandwidth for
> > about 20 TV stations.
>

[snip]

> The traditional idea of a network
> computer is that you have a bunch of computers connected to
> a server.

My network is peer to peer, with one 'peer' that's
more of a file server but other computers in my
network still use files on the other peers.

Sort of like a unix system, so I'd hardly call
the idea of a server "traditional". Servers are
a kluge for the former inability of MS-Dos computers
to share files.

> The network computer itself usually doesn't have
> local file storage, if it's a "pure" network computer. If
> you have an office of 50 workers, accessing one server, even
> over a gigabit Ethernet network, that network is going to be
> stressed out.

I don't think so because I know what a router is. At
work, we have networks with hundreds of computers accessing
a few servers. No problem. Most applications are run off
the server using metered software. The work network isn't
peer to peer.

> We're not talking about transferring small web
> pages around; we're talking about multiple users simultaneously
> moving very large chunks of data around. And there are other
> bottlenecks in the system, too. What about the server? Can
> it handle this type of load?

Yeah. We use Dell computers running Windows NT. It's just
like having the files on your own hard disk.

But what does this have to do with Apple, macs or what?


> Concerning your statement: your network is undoubtedly being
> upgraded to 100 Megabit Ethernet (100 Mb/sec), not megabyte.

You're reading too much into my use of 'MB' vs "Mb'. It
was pretty clear from the context what I meant.

> That's only 12.5 megabytes per second, peak, and due to the way
> TCP/IP works (and networking under Windows NT or Mac OS),

The bandwidth is there. 100 M BITS per second gives over 100 MHz.

I run all kinds of protocols at home. No problem. No reason why
I should have to use TCP/IP for video distribution.

[snip]

> My point is that "pure" network computers - the type Oracle
> has been pushing, with little success - are ahead of their
> time. You can have a successful system that is network-centric,
> but I think with today's technology, you need to have local
> disk storage and respectable computing power to make it work.
> You can't rely on the network, because they're too slow and
> unstable.

My employer's network is very fast, and, IIRC, the largest
Microsoft network in existence. I can just as easily and
quickly print to a printer in another state or country as
I can to the one around the corner. I can even access my
work computer from any computer on my home network, so I
can answer questions after hours.

I don't see that "they're too slow and unstable". I think that's
just wishful thinking on your part.



> > > In my view, the iMac is the first *computer* that was designed
> > > from the ground up as a networking machine. But you know what?
> > > The iMac doesn't really have any features that my PowerMac or
> > > Pentium box doesn't or couldn't have. What makes the iMac
> > > successful is compelling marketing, ease-of-use, and an all-in-one
> > > solution.
> >
> > Which is why other companies are moving so quickly to copy the idea.
> > (Again...)
> >
> > > As Apple claims in their ads, it makes the Internet
> > > accessible for everyone.
> >
> > Everyone who has $1300.
>
> Correct.
>
> > > You don't have to fiddle around with
> > > 10baseT EISA cards and complex configurations.
> >
> > 100baseTX PCI cards, and windows will find most of them or
> > you stuff the disk in when it asks you to.
>
> It's not hard, but we both know there's a lot of consumers
> who don't want to have to do anything - just plug in a power
> cord and never have to worry about it again. Like my aunt,
> a school teacher who doesn't know what it means to "highlight
> that text."

But will they have to do anything with the iPC? Market
entry being what it is.

[snip]

> > Besides, we're ignoring the Apple Computer Company and focusing
> > on the product too much again. As you pointed out to me a long
> > time ago, the G3 has a great gross margin. When I saw GM go from the
> > high teens percentage to the low to mid twenties, I thought "hot
> > dang!"
> >
> > We shall see how margins and sales hold up in the next month
> > or so. I sort of expect a increase in sales, but if people are
> > buying a $1300 iMac instead of a 3-4 k$ G3, there may be big
> > trouble at the Apple company.
> >
> > (There is a reason why the G3 came out before the iMac...)
>
> Well, the iMac has pretty good margins too, as far as personal
> computers go.

You were right about the G3. Who knows. Maybe I'll be saying
HOT DANG! again. All would support my short term (6 month) prediction
that Apple will hit 50.

> And resellers are reporting that iMac sales
> haven't cut into PowerMac G3 sales, and in fact, have had
> completely the opposite effect, driving sales.

Again, since I'm bullish 'till 50...

Could be. I've bought 2 computers in my life. An Apple II GS
and a used Gateway that doesn't look anything like what it
was when I bought it. All my other computers I bought from
pieces and assembled. I don't have much experience with
high mortality rates or low customer satisfaction. The only
computer I've ever had that failed before it became obsolete
was the Apple II GS.

We use to use macs at work. You know that mac that use to be
15 feet away from me? Well, it's gone, I just now noticed.
Hauled off to be surpluses.

[snip]



> Processor benchmarks are pretty lousy indicators of
> overall system performance. I would love to debate the
> difference in performance between the iMac and the highest-end
> Pentiums, but that's for a later time.

If it needs to be debated, it won't affect stock price.



> The iMac easily outperforms similarly-priced PC's in
> real-world performance. There's really no contest.

But do the similarly priced PCs do what the customer
wants them to do? I saw a system in Sunday's paper,
$800 with a monitor AND a printer. Does that do little
Sally's homework? You betcha.



> Apple is claiming the iMac also outperforms the most
> expensive PC's, and I take issue with that. In terms of
> raw processor performance, that's true, but not always
> in real-world performance. Apple's really stretching.

If Henry Ford was in charge of Apple...

He'd save money with slower processors and get the price
down to lower levels. Sort of like his king-pin decision.
What good is it to have one really over designed part?



> > > This isn't about specific microprocessors.
> > > The types of "computing" people will do in the future will
> > > rely on powerful microprocessors. Mr. Grove was not talking
> > > about the traditional "network computers" we've been hearing
> > > about the past few years, mainly from companies like Sun
> > > and Oracle. That's something completely different.
> >
> > > I don't understand how you can possibly infer that Mr.
> > > Grove was making a "damning" statement against the G3.
> >
> > Because the G3 is the Anti-iMac.
>
> Well, as I said earlier, the G3 is the chip that powers
> the iMac.

Yes, you are right. I was wrong to use "G3" to indicate
non-iMac. What SHOULD I say for non-iMac Macs?

> When I say G3, I refer to the PowerPC 750 chip.
> It is used in the PowerMacintosh, the PowerBook, and the iMac,
> and will soon be used in a new completely product as well.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your statement even if you
> mean PowerMac G3. Are you saying that the PowerMac G3
> competes against the iMac?

I would think so, but you say it doesn't. This close to
the end of the quarter reports, we can wait and see.

But if it doesn't, all the better for my prediction that
Apple will hit 50. (Given my record on predictions regarding
Apple, my being bullish on Apple probably means Cupertino will
be destroyed by an asteroid.)



> > > He wasn't suggesting that computers would become brainless.
> > > There's a specific reason why Apple bucked the trend and
> > > went with a high-performance chip in its low-end machine,
> > > unlike the Wintel world where Celeron and other low-end
> > > chips are used. That's one of the things that distinguishes
> > > the iMac, and one of the difference that caught Mr. Grove's
> > > eye.
> >
> > You're waxing again...
> >
> > Even the website you quoted says that the iMac's processor
> > speed isn't that significant in real use.
> >
> > "Apparently the iMac's G3 processor does beat the
> > high-speed Pentium on certain technical benchmarks,
> > but that doesn't mean real-world performance is
> > superior when bogged down with buses, an operating
> > system, and application software."
>
> True, but note they say "high-speed Pentium." They're
> taking issue with the comparison between the PowerPC 750,
> running at 233-MHz with a backside cache, and top-of-the-line
> Pentium II chips. I agree completely with them.

Okay.



> They wouldn't dare make any statement about comparing the
> speed of the iMac with the speed of Celeron-based low-end PC's,
> which typically don't even have a cache. In its price class,
> the iMac outperforms PC's in the same price class, in real-
> world performance, by a large margin.

My buddy over clocks the Celeron. It can humm. Intel is about
to put logic in to prevent this from being done, tho.



> > > > > And, isn't it amazing, that according to Steve, Apple
> > > > > was able to pull this off without spending any money on R&D?
> > > >
> > > > Not true. I said that Apple had most of the development done
> > > > before R&D was cut.
> > >
> > > Development done for what?
> >
> > For the iMac.
>
> Most development of the iMac occurred after the large R&D
> cuts you're referring to.

Okay. You win. The iMac was developed on a shoe string.

Scott

unread,
Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98
to
In article <36139681...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

No, it doesn't. To expand its user base beyond traditional
Macintosh users, Apple has to *sell* a computer to users beyond
its traditional user base.

That wasn't the point of the iMac. Apple (and myself)
did not expect the iMac to sell to a lot of non-Mac users.

Mind share may eventually turn into market share. If
Apple gets enough attention from the iMac, it may cause
people to think twice down the road.. Perhaps when the
iMac II is out, or Mac OS X comes out. But that will be
a different product; at that point, with the current
Macintosh user base satisfied and "exhausted," the purpose
of Apple's product will be to explicitly expand the
user base.

That is the thinking behind my statements. The iMac
may serve as the opening act for a product whose purpose
*will* be to expand the user base - in other words, to warm
the crowds - but I don't see the iMac directly expanding
the user base. You need a product that sells to users
outside your existing user base to expand user base, and
no such product exists, although the iMac has surprisingly
expanded the user base a bit.

It really doesn't offer enough incentive for people
to switch over, in my opinion.

> > and solidify the rabidly loyal user base,
>
> The "and" clause identifies this as an independent
> goal.
>
> Just thought I'd point out, I made a true statement,
> you called me wrong, and followed it with some more
> true statements that don't at all conflict with what
> I said.

Excuse me, but where did I call you wrong? I sure
don't see it. Looking back, I don't see any specific point
we're debating. I think I was expanding on what you had
said.

> > and it's done that tremendously
> > well.
> >
> > What has been surprising to me is that the iMac *is*
> > expanding the Macintosh user base. And it does not appear
> > to be cutting into PowerMac G3 sales, as we'll no doubt see
> > when Apple releases its quarterly results. (There's every
> > indicating it has indirectly increased sales of PowerMac
> > G3's, having boosted user confidence in Apple.) Something
> > like 1 in 4 iMac purchasers never owned a Mac before.
> > I expected 5% of iMac purchasers would be new Mac users,
> > so that's a great sign.
>
> (in other words, it's doing what Jobs said it was suppose
> to do...)

No. Apple's position has been that the iMac was designed
for the existing user base, and they hoped to attract "some"
first-time computer buyers, although they don't know how
successful that would be. CFO Fred Anderson discussed this
at great length in a conference call with reporters last
quarter.

That the iMac (apparently) is selling briskly to first-time
computers buyers *and* former Windows owners is a surprise
to everyone.

> Well, I predicted Apple at 50 in the short (6 month) term.
> If iMac doesn't cut into (now I don't know what to call
> the damn things...) the higher gross margin unit sales,
> then my prediction will probably be on the money because
> sales will increase, and that will attract buyers.
>
> > One note about your message (which I actually found
> > to be interesting and thought-provoking, this time around):
> > be careful in your differentiation between the "G3" and the
> > "iMac". I assume when you say "G3", you are referring to the
> > PowerMacintosh (and PowerBook?) G3 line(s). The G3 is an
> > alternative name for the PowerPC 750 microprocessor, which
> > is used to power *all* of Apple's current machines, including
> > the iMac.
>
> Non-iMac Macs? Higher margin machines? What should I call them?

Sorry for the confusion. Apple has simplified their
product line into four areas; three are shipping now, and the
fourth will ship in the first half of next year.

At the high-end (professional), you have desktops and laptops.

At the low-end (consumer), you have desktops and laptops.

The two product lines at the high-end are the PowerMacintosh
G3 series, which is the desktop, and the PowerBook G3 series,
which is the portable.

At the low-end is the iMac. A low-end laptop is in development,
and will be very similar to the older Newton-based eMate, except
it will be based on the Mac OS.

All products are based on the "G3 chip," the PowerPC 750.
The iMac comes in one configuration; the PowerMac and PowerBook
come in millions of configurations, since they can be custom-built
through Apple's on-line store.

The PowerBook laptop line has the highest margins, followed
by the PowerMac, followed by the iMac. Margins range from about
20-26%. There has been little competition between the "pro"
models and the "consumer" model, because they're aimed at
distinctly different user bases. A graphics artist, for example,
won't purchase a $1299 iMac because they need a 21" screen
with accelerated video, expansion, etc.

> > > > And the iMac includes
> > > > many innovations that other computer makers are reportedly planning
> > > > on "adopting."
> > >
> > > And there's the problem. Apple paid for the "innovation" and gets
> > > to see if the market is ready for it. Other manufactures stand back
> > > and say, "lets add that".
> > >
> > > Macs were first with a great GUI. (even if b&w)
> > > Macs were first with great color.
> > > Macs were first with great sound.
> > > Macs were first with ...
> > >
> > > I remember being mesmerized by the Mac - some dancing babe on
> > > some screen with real MUSIC (not that dang PC "beep" speaker)
> > > many years ago. Sure beat the latest and greatest CGA card I
> > > had on my PC.
> > >
> > > I don't think there was EVER a time when the Mac was more
> > > superior to the Wintel PC than back then.
> > >
> > > Well, hell, you know this better than I do.
> > >
> > > What has it gotten Apple? It's gotten them worse than
> > > last place among the computer makers.
> >
> > Well, first, that's not true.
>
> Here you call me wrong...

Well, you are wrong if you're claiming Apple is last place
among the computer makers.

> > Apple was the #3 computer vendor in August. That's hardly last

> > place: there's a couple dozen computer manufacturers coming after >
Apple that would love to be in third place.
>
> True statement #1
>
> > At the same time, Apple isn't
> > making Wintel machines; it has its own platform, so it
> > really *needs* to be near the front of the pack to maintain
> > developer interest and long-term viability.
>
> Maybe true statement #2.
>
> But neither of these change the fact that I pointed out
> that over a 10 year period, Apple is last. It's clear
> from the context and the data that I meant 10 years.

I don't see this context at all. Saying that Apple is
"last" over a 10-year period doesn't make any sense. How
would you even define that, let alone substantiate that?
What is Apple's position *today*? That's what's important,
and it's directly related to what they've been doing the past
month.. year.. or 10 years.

If you're talking about return on investment, in terms of
an investor investing in Apple 10 years ago - which isn't
obvious from your statements - you probably have a point,
but I don't see how that's really relevant. I certainly
didn't own stock 10 years ago. I didn't own Apple stock
prior to a year ago. I'm interested in how the company is
going to perform now and in the future, not how they
performed 3, 5, or 10 years ago. (Well, not quite: that
they performed so poorly for such a long time caused their
stock price to drop to a real bargain - **assuming the
company could turn around** - and I only purchased the
stock when (a) I thought it had reached rock bottom and (b)
the company would turn around.)

Because they had good management.

Isn't that clear from my statements? I described how Apple
had really, REALLY crummy management.. And they barely managed
to hang on to existence.. The only thing that kept them hanging
on, by a thread, was that they had innovative products that
helped to counteract all of the lousy management decisions.

Microsoft has arguably not been the best innovator in the
market, but they've been persistent, had "good enough" products,
and most importantly, had *excellent* management.

If Apple's (past) management was thrust upon Microsoft's
(mediocre) products, Microsoft would be out of business.

If Microsoft's management had been thrust upon Apple's
innovative products, Apple would dominate the market today.
(A lot of people think that if Apple had licensed the Mac OS
years ago, Windows wouldn't exist.)

What made me change my mind about Apple, and regain
confidence in the company, is when I saw the expulsion of
the bad managers (from the top down - there were lots of
really crummy middle managers and some dead wood around),
and the introduction of some talented managers such as
Fred Anderson, Avie Tevanian, Steve Jobs, and his hand-picked
Board of Directors. I have some problems with Jobs and his
tendency to be petulant, but he does surround himself with
good "generals" and has an uncanny marketing ability and
desire for perfection.

Suddenly, Apple seems to have good management *and*
products that are as innovative as ever.

Today, they're in a better position than they've ever
been.

> > It is the innovation that
> > allowed Apple to survive, even as bad management seemed intent
> > on destroying it.
> >
> > I always wondered: imagine what Apple could do if they
> > married their innovation and brand name with management as
> > good as Microsoft?
>
> Henry Ford once sent his engineers out to junk yards to
> see why his cars failed. The engineers came back and reported
> all kinds of failures, except for the car's king-pin.
> Henry then ordered the engineers to cheapen up the king-pin
> so that it didn't outlast the rest of the car. He viewed
> it as a waste of money.
>
> Such is, I'm afraid, the nature of good management.
>
> Apple's insistence on making products with features that
> are WAY ahead of anticipation of market needs - this
> innovation, is just an indicator of bad management.

I'm not sure I agree with that. If Apple simply met
market expectations, what differentiates them from Compaq,
Dell, Packard Bell, and the rest? Nothing. It seems to
me Apple's decisions are forward-thinking and evolutionary
advancements, but not stupid business decisions. For example,
if Apple had chosen to include a fiber optic network port
on the iMac, I'd be scratching my head. I was surprised
they didn't include a floppy drive with the iMac, but in
retrospect, there don't seem to be many users complaining
about that, and Apple's helping to pull the entire industry
out from the past.

> > People tend to like to buy the better product. The
> > innovative one. But they need help.
>
> Actually, they need about $500 more...
>
> > Apple historically
> > produced products that were less and less better than
> > the competition, but they simply placed them on the shelf
> > and figured people would automatically know the products
> > were better, and buy them. Only, that doesn't work.
>
> I agree it didn't work. I think at issue is WHY it didn't
> work.

Why do you think it didn't work? I think it didn't work
because:

- as I said, the superiority of the machines kept decreasing
over time; Windows continued to evolve from something terrible
into something "pretty good," whereas the Mac OS sat still.
Even worse, over time Apple products began to morph into
more PC-like products. The first PowerBook was an instant
hit due to its groundbreaking design. Then, Apple slowly
began to produce boxy laptops that were more and more like
standard PC laptops, and often following others with new
features such as CD-ROMs. Apple only recently broke from
this trend, first with the PowerBook 3400 but especially
with the new PowerBook G3's, which don't look *anything*
like a PC laptop.

- Apple had completely ineffective advertising.

- The systems were more expensive, and Apple was making little
effort to convince people that they were *worth* the extra
money. (They were; Macs have enjoyed lower overall cost
of ownership, decreased support costs, greater life, etc.,
but Apple didn't bother communicate this fact.)

>
> [snip]
>
> > > My network is about to be upgraded to 100 MB/sec. That's bandwidth for
> > > about 20 TV stations.
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > The traditional idea of a network
> > computer is that you have a bunch of computers connected to
> > a server.
>
> My network is peer to peer, with one 'peer' that's
> more of a file server but other computers in my
> network still use files on the other peers.
>
> Sort of like a unix system, so I'd hardly call
> the idea of a server "traditional". Servers are
> a kluge for the former inability of MS-Dos computers
> to share files.
>
> > The network computer itself usually doesn't have
> > local file storage, if it's a "pure" network computer. If
> > you have an office of 50 workers, accessing one server, even
> > over a gigabit Ethernet network, that network is going to be
> > stressed out.
>
> I don't think so because I know what a router is. At
> work, we have networks with hundreds of computers accessing
> a few servers. No problem. Most applications are run off
> the server using metered software. The work network isn't
> peer to peer.

One comment is that a pure network computer doesn't have
file storage (or much memory), so it is unable to cache
programs and data, as your systems are undoubtedly doing.

> > We're not talking about transferring small web
> > pages around; we're talking about multiple users simultaneously
> > moving very large chunks of data around. And there are other
> > bottlenecks in the system, too. What about the server? Can
> > it handle this type of load?
>
> Yeah. We use Dell computers running Windows NT. It's just
> like having the files on your own hard disk.

Because, due to caching, they are, at least after you
bring them up once.

> But what does this have to do with Apple, macs or what?

I think this originated from a discussion about Andy Grove's
comments, and whether his vision of a "computer designed for
networking" was equal to the traditional "network computer"
we've been hearing about in past years, which have been
market failures.


> > Concerning your statement: your network is undoubtedly being
> > upgraded to 100 Megabit Ethernet (100 Mb/sec), not megabyte.
>
> You're reading too much into my use of 'MB' vs "Mb'. It
> was pretty clear from the context what I meant.

True, but I see lots of folks (especially journalists,
and even computer scientists), thinking that 10-Base-T
Ethernet gives you 10 megabytes per second. People are
so used to "megabytes" that they assume Mb/sec or MB/sec
is megabyte, but there's a big difference.

> > That's only 12.5 megabytes per second, peak, and due to the way
> > TCP/IP works (and networking under Windows NT or Mac OS),
>
> The bandwidth is there. 100 M BITS per second gives over 100 MHz.

Can you provide an example of anyone who has successfully been
able to pump - was it 20? - broadcast-quality TV channels through
a 100 Mb/s link? People are working on this problem, but they
haven't gotten there yet.

> I run all kinds of protocols at home. No problem. No reason why
> I should have to use TCP/IP for video distribution.

Except that TCP/IP is the standard language that is used
over Ethernet. But, let's say you had a protocol that could
transmit video with no extra baggage - like analog cable,
where you can pump hundreds of channels through a coax cable.
You were still talking about a system that couldn't go beyond
12.5 megabytes per second.

If you multiply 24 bits per pixel times, say, 1024x768
pixels, times 30 frames per second, times the number of channels
you indicated, you would need one hell of a compression scheme
to fit that into a 100 megabit/s pipe.

Bandwidth is constantly increasing, but it's still a huge
bottleneck for the types of applications people have already
figured out they want to do with computers in the future.

> [snip]
>
> > My point is that "pure" network computers - the type Oracle
> > has been pushing, with little success - are ahead of their
> > time. You can have a successful system that is network-centric,
> > but I think with today's technology, you need to have local
> > disk storage and respectable computing power to make it work.
> > You can't rely on the network, because they're too slow and
> > unstable.
>
> My employer's network is very fast, and, IIRC, the largest
> Microsoft network in existence. I can just as easily and
> quickly print to a printer in another state or country as
> I can to the one around the corner. I can even access my
> work computer from any computer on my home network, so I
> can answer questions after hours.
>
> I don't see that "they're too slow and unstable". I think that's
> just wishful thinking on your part.

Then why is it Oracle can't even get through an entire
demo, on an *isolated, laboratory* network, without the network
going down and killing the entire demo?

Unless you've got your own separate network, and the world's
best system administrators, I think you're grossly exagerrating
the reliability of today's networks. There are so many things
that can go wrong, that you have no control over. This is
largely why pure network computers have not been an easy sell.

But, I think we're going too far off on a tangent.

> > > > In my view, the iMac is the first *computer* that was designed
> > > > from the ground up as a networking machine. But you know what?
> > > > The iMac doesn't really have any features that my PowerMac or
> > > > Pentium box doesn't or couldn't have. What makes the iMac
> > > > successful is compelling marketing, ease-of-use, and an all-in-one
> > > > solution.
> > >
> > > Which is why other companies are moving so quickly to copy the idea.
> > > (Again...)
> > >
> > > > As Apple claims in their ads, it makes the Internet
> > > > accessible for everyone.
> > >
> > > Everyone who has $1300.
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > > > You don't have to fiddle around with
> > > > 10baseT EISA cards and complex configurations.
> > >
> > > 100baseTX PCI cards, and windows will find most of them or
> > > you stuff the disk in when it asks you to.
> >
> > It's not hard, but we both know there's a lot of consumers
> > who don't want to have to do anything - just plug in a power
> > cord and never have to worry about it again. Like my aunt,
> > a school teacher who doesn't know what it means to "highlight
> > that text."
>
> But will they have to do anything with the iPC? Market
> entry being what it is.
>
> [snip]

Are you asking if they will have to worry about things
with an iPC - a Wintel-based machine designed to be easy-to-use?
Such a machine doesn't exist yet. But it will still be hampered
by the inherent complexities of Windows. At the core, the Mac
OS has some long-standing benefits that make it easier to use
than Windows, especially at the low-end. I'm not going to
go into detail on that, but I think it really comes down to
this: Apple controls their hardware, Microsoft does not.
When Microsoft develops Windows, they have to worry about it
running on a huge variety of hardware platforms. That leads
to instability.

> > > Besides, we're ignoring the Apple Computer Company and focusing
> > > on the product too much again. As you pointed out to me a long
> > > time ago, the G3 has a great gross margin. When I saw GM go from the
> > > high teens percentage to the low to mid twenties, I thought "hot
> > > dang!"
> > >
> > > We shall see how margins and sales hold up in the next month
> > > or so. I sort of expect a increase in sales, but if people are
> > > buying a $1300 iMac instead of a 3-4 k$ G3, there may be big
> > > trouble at the Apple company.
> > >
> > > (There is a reason why the G3 came out before the iMac...)
> >
> > Well, the iMac has pretty good margins too, as far as personal
> > computers go.
>
> You were right about the G3. Who knows. Maybe I'll be saying
> HOT DANG! again. All would support my short term (6 month) prediction
> that Apple will hit 50.
>
> > And resellers are reporting that iMac sales
> > haven't cut into PowerMac G3 sales, and in fact, have had
> > completely the opposite effect, driving sales.
>
> Again, since I'm bullish 'till 50...
>
>

> [snip]
>
> > Processor benchmarks are pretty lousy indicators of
> > overall system performance. I would love to debate the
> > difference in performance between the iMac and the highest-end
> > Pentiums, but that's for a later time.
>
> If it needs to be debated, it won't affect stock price.

Well, nerds love debating such things, and Intel has a
hard time believing that the PowerPC could be so much
better. (It is, but it's crippled by the Mac OS, which
in many ways is still living in the 80's.)

For the market the iMac is geared towards, I think most
users could care less that, for example, the iMac uses
a 233-MHz PowerPC 750 chip with 512kb backside cache.
They like it because it's cute, approachable, and responsive.
I've read several interviews with Jonathan Ive, the (physical)
designer of the iMac, and he said he's grown disgusted
with how "benchmark-driven" the computer industry has become.

> > The iMac easily outperforms similarly-priced PC's in
> > real-world performance. There's really no contest.
>
> But do the similarly priced PCs do what the customer
> wants them to do? I saw a system in Sunday's paper,
> $800 with a monitor AND a printer. Does that do little
> Sally's homework? You betcha.

Except Sally might prefer the good-looking iMac.
(Apparently kids really flock to the machine.)

As I've said in the past, I think there are different
market points, and the iMac isn't being targeted towards
people who only have $800 to spend and will take anything
"that works." (Remember, now, that the iMac is largely
geared towards long-time Mac users: people who have already
spent probably much more than $1300 on a Mac system in the
past.) Apple is selling more iMacs than it can make to
people who are perfectly content paying $1300 for it.

And what about when these people dwindle? Apple will
have an iMac 2 within the next 9 months. The iMac - still
a perfectly capable machine - will be able to drop down
to $999.. maybe $899.. and still be a compelling machine.

> > Apple is claiming the iMac also outperforms the most
> > expensive PC's, and I take issue with that. In terms of
> > raw processor performance, that's true, but not always
> > in real-world performance. Apple's really stretching.
>
> If Henry Ford was in charge of Apple...
>
> He'd save money with slower processors and get the price
> down to lower levels. Sort of like his king-pin decision.
> What good is it to have one really over designed part?

Well, when the people that purchased the $800 Wintel
machine that can't run the latest version of Explorer see
their friends with iMacs still doing just fine..

Apple can get the price down to lower levels. The
233-MHz G3, while speedy compared to Intel's offerings, is
at the very, very low-end of the PowerPC processor
market. I don't believe Motorola and IBM have manufactured
a PowerPC 750 chip *slower* than 233-MHz. Don't think for
a second that Apple is paying a premium for the 233-MHz
G3; I'm sure it costs less to them than a Celeron chip.

Again, why should Apple sell a $999 iMac when consumers
are scooping it up at $1299? If they lowered the price
even $50, demand would probably increase so much that
they couldn't keep up, and they'd be in a much worse
situation. They can barely keep up as it is. As demand
softens, the price will lower. (No insight there, just
simple economics.)

> > > > This isn't about specific microprocessors.
> > > > The types of "computing" people will do in the future will
> > > > rely on powerful microprocessors. Mr. Grove was not talking
> > > > about the traditional "network computers" we've been hearing
> > > > about the past few years, mainly from companies like Sun
> > > > and Oracle. That's something completely different.
> > >
> > > > I don't understand how you can possibly infer that Mr.
> > > > Grove was making a "damning" statement against the G3.
> > >
> > > Because the G3 is the Anti-iMac.
> >
> > Well, as I said earlier, the G3 is the chip that powers
> > the iMac.
>
> Yes, you are right. I was wrong to use "G3" to indicate
> non-iMac. What SHOULD I say for non-iMac Macs?

PowerMac or PowerBook.

> > When I say G3, I refer to the PowerPC 750 chip.
> > It is used in the PowerMacintosh, the PowerBook, and the iMac,
> > and will soon be used in a new completely product as well.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand your statement even if you
> > mean PowerMac G3. Are you saying that the PowerMac G3
> > competes against the iMac?
>
> I would think so, but you say it doesn't. This close to
> the end of the quarter reports, we can wait and see.
>
> But if it doesn't, all the better for my prediction that
> Apple will hit 50. (Given my record on predictions regarding
> Apple, my being bullish on Apple probably means Cupertino will
> be destroyed by an asteroid.)

:-)

I think your main concern is that Apple slashed R&D too much -
preventing them from developing the kinds of products they need
to succeed in the long run.

Apple did slash R&D, but they did it in areas which were not
critical to their long-term survival - their core markets - and,
in fact, they drastically increased R&D in areas that are
critical to their survival, such as hardware design and OS
development.

I'd rather see Apple concentrate its resources on areas
that are central to its existence. Apple make good digital
cameras, but then that market took off. Apple was not in
a position to devote resources to competing with Olympic,
Panasonic, Sharp, Sony, Casio, Nikon, etc., unless it decided
that it only wanted to be in the digital camera market,
something that would undoubtedly have upset shareholders
(and long-time users).

I guess I can only say to wait and watch; I think within
the next year, you'll see that Apple's R&D is more effective
now than it ever has been, and you'll undoubtedly see a large
jump in overall R&D expenditures, too.

- Scott

Glen Warner

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to
In article <36122D68...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Glen Warner wrote:
> >
> > In article <3610E963...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie


> > <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Paul Durrant wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think Apple's levels of R&D spending will not drop further, and will
> > > > slowly rise, as gross sales increase (although hopefully not as
quickly as
> > > > gross sales!).
> > >
> > > Hopefully even more quickly. You know, stock price doesn't do diddly
> > > for the company unless they do a second IPO. The whole purpose of
> > > cutting R&D to the bone was to get the stock price up. It simply
> > > changes the way Apple goes out of business. Before they would have
> > > run out of money to operate. Now, they'll lack competitive products
> > > and sales will fall off.
> >
> > Hmmm.
> >

> > This opinion has to be based on *something* you read somewhere. What was
> > it?
>

> Apple's 10-K and 10-Q.
>

> > Does this source happen to make any predictions on what Apple will be
> > announcing in ... say, January?
> >
> > I'm just curious where you get this 'lack of competitive products' bit.
>

> If you don't spend money on developing new products, you can't sell
> them.

Conviently ignoring my question: what does Apple have coming up in the
next few months? If you don't know, you can't really say if Apple is
spending any R&D money. If you do know (or at least have some idea), you
can.

You say they aren't, so the question to you (again) is: what does Apple
have under development scheduled for release within the next six months?

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to
Glen Warner wrote:
>
> In article <36122D68...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

[snip]

> > If you don't spend money on developing new products, you can't sell
> > them.
>
> Conviently ignoring my question: what does Apple have coming up in the
> next few months? If you don't know, you can't really say if Apple is
> spending any R&D money. If you do know (or at least have some idea), you
> can.

You can find out what Apple's spending in R&D from their quarterly
reports. That is the best way to see if Apple has new products planned
for the future.



> You say they aren't,

Actually, I say that they've cut the new products down, which should
cut sales down.

> so the question to you (again) is: what does Apple
> have under development scheduled for release within the next six months?

I don't care. Product is product. I went through some long post
explaining why it doesn't matter what those products are.

If you want to post some long Apple Sales brochure and try and
sell some Apple stuff here in this newsgroup, go head. It doesn't
have much to do with stock, tho'.

Paul Durrant

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to
In article <3610E963...@eskimo.com>,

Stephen La Joie <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> But comparing Apple's R&D spending of 76 M$/quarter (qtr ending 6-98)
> to Dell computer's spending of 66 M$/quarter (qtr ending 8-98). Dell
> and Apple are similar, but a lot of Dell's new product development
> is actually done by Intel. I don't mean R&D on processors, but on mother
> boards. Dell basically just R&D's what parts to bundle and what their
> case should look like. Apple does all that PLUS system board
> development,
> case development, and, here's a big one, OPERATING SYSTEM development.
>
> How much should Apple be spending? I'd swag that it should be a lot
> more. You can disagree if you want.

If Dell is spending money sensibly, then it does sound like Apple's
spending is low. I'd question your assertion that Intel do Dell's
motherboards. I know Intel make a lot of the motherboards out there, but I
thought Dell did their own. I'd also suspect that Dell's R&D speding has
more 'fat' in it than Apple's does currently.

> But I wouldn't just discount it as R&D on other products. Those
> other products contribute to Apple's total sales. If those products
> stop being marketed, it's still going to have a significant impact
> on the Apple computer company's bottom line.

I think you'll find that this has already happened. As far as I recall,
there was almost no contribution to Apple's gross sales from these other
things last quarter.

>
> > I think Apple's levels of R&D spending will not drop further, and will
> > slowly rise, as gross sales increase (although hopefully not as quickly as
> > gross sales!).
>
> Hopefully even more quickly.

No, this has been one of Apple's (many) failings in the past - massive
cutback in spending to get back to profits, and then massive overspend once
back in profits. Boom/bust doesn't help R&D. I'd rather look forward to a
steady increase in R&D, while retaining profitability. Spending money on
R&D in a prudent manner is rather difficult - it's relatively easy to just
take on lots more engineers, much harder to make sure they're all working
on something productive.

> [...] Before they would have


> run out of money to operate. Now, they'll lack competitive products
> and sales will fall off.

This is where we disagree.

> > I expect this quarters results to show an increase in sales and profits,
> > and even an increase in G3 sales discounting iMac sales.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised to see an increase in total revenue due
> to iMac sales. I feel this will lower Apple's gross margins. I
> doubt that there will increased sales 3 quarters in a row. After
> that, the downward slide resumes as the iMac and G3 markets become
> saturated.
>
> > I think that Apple have shown over the past year that they can trim costs
> > as necessary to return to profit, and that they can still develop products
> > that will sell well.
>
> I don't see where it has been demonstrated that they can still
> develop products that will sell well. The iMac was not developed
> at this level of R&D funding.

Umm.. yes it was. The iMac was developed in the last year. I expect a
further demonstration very shortly with Mac OS 8.5 which I expect to sell
well, and another sometime Mar-May next year with the 'consumer' portable.

> > I hope over the next year to see several new products
> > from Apple that will be as big (or bigger) hits as the iMac.
>
> Developed from what money?

The $76 million/qtr... increasing over the next year.


Paul Durrant


Paul Durrant

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to

Glen Warner

unread,
Oct 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/6/98
to
In article <3614DF93...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Glen Warner wrote:
> >
> > In article <36122D68...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie


> > <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > If you don't spend money on developing new products, you can't sell
> > > them.
> >
> > Conviently ignoring my question: what does Apple have coming up in the
> > next few months? If you don't know, you can't really say if Apple is
> > spending any R&D money. If you do know (or at least have some idea), you
> > can.
>

(*snip*)



> I don't care. Product is product. I went through some long post
> explaining why it doesn't matter what those products are.
>
> If you want to post some long Apple Sales brochure and try and
> sell some Apple stuff here in this newsgroup, go head. It doesn't
> have much to do with stock, tho'.

So ... are you saying that, say, Intel's stock price won't climb when
Merced comes out? .... or that Apple's stock price won't rise once the
G4-based systems are released?

Yes, product is important.

0 new messages