Apple Shafts America; or, The Computer For the Rich of Us
cs49...@unm-cvax.uucp
The following is a massive diatribe levelled at Steve Jobs and his
band of merry highwaymen down in Cupertino. Apple fans with sensitive
constitutions, consider yourselves warned.
I just received news concerning the Fat Mac, of which we have all
heard so much: the Macintosh, with 512K. It has been released and is
on its way, delivery date approximately three weeks (or thereabouts;
delivery dates haven't been Apple's strong point lately).
I also received news about its price.
Brace yourselves.
$995. Yes, you read right: that's nine hundred ninety-five big ones,
to be removed deftly from your wallet and placed just as deftly into theirs.
All that on top of the $2495 (or $2195, if you happened to get it in one
of the recent sales that have started to spring up here and there) which all
us Macfans have already shelled out.
[Background: My friends and I who purchased Macs are not the
businessmen-types that the Mac seems to be aimed at. We are but simple
college students, not fortunate enough (or rich enough, as the case may be)
to attend one of the schools in the Apple University Consortium, and get
our Macs for dirt cheap. No, we go to the University of New Mexico, in
the Land of Enchantment (Land of Enchantment? You've got to be kidding.
Do you know what it feels like to live in one of the few places in the
civilized world where you can still catch the bubonic plague? The PLAGUE,
for God's sake!!!). Therefore, we had to spring for the big bucks, and
don't get off on this account. OK, back to righteous indignation.]
They have got to be kidding! When the Mac was first announced, the
price was $1995; not bad, considering what you get in a Mac. Then, when it
finally saw the light of day, filtered through display windows, the price
had somehow escalated to $2495 -- for the bare-bones system, of course.
Steep, but still within the range of those of us fortunate enough to have
that kind of cash handy or to have a sympathetic loan officer. This, of
course, was the 128K Mac; the fully-realized Mac was on its way, by
the end of the year, just hang on, we'll get it to you, 512K, Real Soon
Now, wow, gosh ...
Well, they sure got it to us, all right. For the measly sum of
damn near a thousand bucks extra, we plebes can get ourselves the system
that should have come out in the first place. So now Apple has us all
over a barrel. We all sprung our $2995 for the Mac and the printer, and
shortly afterwards realized that the thing was absolutely useless without
the second disk drive. So, another $495 went down the drain. Next comes
the realization that with the basic 128K, the user is left with too little
memory to accomplish anything significant. So, another $995 down the tubes.
Thus Steve Jobs' vision of the computer that anyone can use has become the
computer that no one can afford, because a workable system sells for $4485.
What a bargain!
Looks like Steve & Co. are standing by to rake in the big bucks; The
Rest of Us can all bend over and grab our ankles. It's coming in dry, folks;
no Vaseline on this one.
Now, damn it, I really like the Mac -- I really do. It's got a few
rough spots, but nothing a little software and minor hardware changes
couldn't fix. That's what the Fat Mac was supposed to be all about, at least
as far as hardware went. I, personally, wouldn't own anything else, certainly
not another faceless, amorphous blob from the IBM PC CloneMakers. All in all,
I think it's the best thing to hit the market since -- well, since the
Apple II. And buying Apple is like buying Hewlett-Packard: once you buy one,
you tend to stick with it. At least, I do, and I'm sure there's a lot of
people out there like me.
But pulling little stunts like this is not going to earn old Stevie
Boy any new friends. I can hear Jerry Pournelle cackling away in the
depths of Chaos Manor now, chortling, "I told you so!" Oh, sure, eventually
the price of the changeover will probably drop -- maybe to $500. The point
is, however, that it shouldn't have to. $500 is the price they should be
charging now -- and even that's excessive. They should properly be giving
the damn thing away for the price of labor, since the price hike in the
beginning covers what the upgrade should be costing now. But they won't.
And by delivering yet another shaft to the long-suffering-but-loyal followers
of the Macintosh, Apple has shown that, in the end, they're not that much
different from any other computer company, that they don't really give a
damn about the end-user, and that the final arbiter is, as we all suspected
but hoped against hope was not true, the bottom line on the ledger books.
I guess 1984 is a little more like _1984_ than we might've hoped.
From The Rest of Us to Apple: one extremely loud and heartfelt Bronx
cheer.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Mike Conley @ University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
{ucbvax!unmvax!cvax:cs4911ay}
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Sunny Kirsten
After all those wonderful words of love for Mackintosh marketing,
I could only feel a lack of extreme sympathy, having shelled out $7K for
a Lisa I with the intent of buying LisaPascal to do some programming with...
Well, first there's the problem of you couldn't get LisaPascal from the
dealers, because Apple pretty much stopped distributing the Twiggy version,
in anticipation of the "upgrade" from two 800KB Twiggy drives to 1 400KB Sony.
Of course I'm still waiting, a year later, for my dealer to get a free
"upgrade" kit to upgrade my Lisa I to a Lisa II so I can buy a programming
language for the bitch. (are you listening, Apple?)
On the other hand, I wouldn't trade my Lisa for anything but a
Sun workstation.
--
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny :-> Kirsten of Sun Microsystems Inc.)
Robert E. Schleicher
on the ledger books. Apple isn't a privately-owned company for the purpose
of helping out computer buffs, its a $1 bilion dollar publicly-traded
company that must recognize its obligations to its owners, the stock-holders.
Now, one can argue that the best business strategy would still be one that
encouraged long-term satisfaction with the Apple product line, but that
is strictly a business (ie maximize profit, long-term and/or short-term)
decision.
As to the prices you quote. Is anyone really paying those prices?
Here in the Chicago area, Macs are selling for around $1700 at the
cheapest places, and about $2300 or so gets you the basic Mac,
the printer, and a few software items like MacPaint and MacWrite.
This is at regular computer stores, and doesn't reflect the student discount
rate to the consortium (although the presence of a couple of such schhols
in the area may well exert some competitive price pressure). Anyone paying
full price for a Mac ought to seriously consider mail order, as a means to
save several hundred bucks.
Bob Schleicher
ihuxk!rs55611
Kenton Lee
Come on guys, be real. A 512KB dynamic board for ANY personal
computer is going to cost around $1000. Maybe a little less from
the discount joints, but still not cheap.
--
Kenton Lee, Bell Labs - WB
wb3g!kfl or hoxna!kfl
Mike Nelson
My favorite is the Lisa. Some 4 or 5 thousand bucks = half meg
memory and NO operating system! Of course for a measily grand
more you can have the other half meg of ram that the Lisa OS
takes and two hundred gets you the OS.
Mike Nelson
AT&T Bell Labs
ihuxf!cuda
PS My office mate has a Lisa she uses for graphics. It is one
of the best machines around for that. I just don't like the
way they market it.
Michael Eve
While the prose in the original flame waxed a little
excessive, I agree with the substance: Apple Computer
Company is no longer the computer company for the rest
of us.
As a longtime owner of an Apple ][, I am very disappointed
by the evolution of Apple's corporate philosophy. The
early Apple believed in the masses. A general purpose
machine was offered, and complete specs were given with
the machine to ENCOURAGE independent work. Now, except
for the ][e, Apple is attempting to force a closed
architecture upon the market, and the thought of
telling the mere, average person what is going on
inside sends shudders through the corporate structure.
Detailed specs are sold at a hefty price. Substance
in manuals has been replaced with Madison Ave, gee-whiz
fluff. Software developers are "certified" because
everyone knows John Q. Public can't program and shouldn't
be encouraged to program.
[2 paragraphs of execessive prose deleted.]
What really takes the cake, is Apple's refusal to
stand behind the consumer. First, there was the
rev. A/ rev. B ][e where the owner had to prove
he needed the rev. B board. More recently, ][c
owners find the serial port is improperly designed,
and Apple says "Prove you need it" before they will
fix it. Now, the poorly conceived memory board of
the Mac has finally proven to be inadequate, and the
user must pay the price (and then some).
Having vented my wrath, I have a suggestion for
Apple (who is on the NET, right?):
Form a review board of users to comment upon the
design at various steps. Keep honest reviewers,
and don't get rid of the strident voices. (As
a public service, I reluctantly volunteer :=)
To the Apple apologists on the net: What Apple doesn't
need now is a pat on the back. They have made several
obvious mistakes both in design and support. Only a
mass outcry and consumer boycott can penetrate their
smugness.
mike eve
--
Mike Eve Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve
Andrew T. Schnable
This is using the same 256K chips. I belive that if you
buy a new unit with the 1Meg option, it is only
$1000 extra.
Maybe Teletype should raise their prices to compete, eh?
andy ihuxf!schnable
Andrew Koenig
much for a product or service, DON'T BUY IT. The only
thing that makes it possible to charge anything at all
is CUSTOMERS. It is silly to charge $500 for a product
if you can sell all you can make for $1,000.
Mike Ward
Why is it that any sleezy, slimy, dirty action by a corporation
is excused as the corporation's obligation to it's stockholders?
Are there no decent owners of stock in this country? Is it really
a businessman's ethic to be a greedy, moneygrubbing SOB at the
expense of his customers?
For some reason, I thought Apple was a little different. Note
the past tense.
I paid list price because when I got mine that's all there was.
If I had thought the $2400 machine I was buying would devaluate ~$1000
in six months, I can assure you that I would have waited.
But then if I and all the others who bought in the first 100
days had waited, all the rest of you would have been able to
pick up the Mac for $100 - and you would have said no, thank you.
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
Doug Gwyn <gwyn>
Also, what do the internal switches do?
When is a tech manual going to be available??
Ron Natalie <ron>
the list price you are overly naive. You could have expected
it to drop 20% alone from list as soon as the distribution got
set up such that they were fairly available. Technology in this
industry marches fast and now Apple has a new computer that they
can productively sell for a comparable price as the old one. This
is the only way a company can stay in business in this market. DEC
will be in this boat if they don't come out with a newer computer
soon, they are getting walked all over by people with brand new
fast and cheap minis that beat the shit out of the 780 family.
What would you have had Apple do? Inflate the price of their new
product so it would devalue the existing products selling price?
-Ron
Mike Ward
>What would you have had Apple do? Inflate the price of their new
>product so it would devalue the existing products selling price?
I would have Apple recognize that those of who bought early,
at list price, were a little freindlier than the Pournelles who
waited. I would have Apple give us a break on the price of the
upgrade.
I agree that I was just incredibly naive to think that Apple
was any different than any other money-grubbing corporation.
I hope Apple realizes what they've given away when the Japanese
drive them out of business.
John Bass
charging a FAIR price for the FAT MAC requires a defense.
TESTED 64k DRAMs are under $3.50 each in volume ... TESTED 256k DRAMS are
still floating around or above $30.00 each and the price market COULD easily
suffer the increases caused by heavy demand as people switch from 64 to 256
parts .... just as the prices on 64k parts soared in 1981 as people switched
from 16k parts.
simple math is 18*$30 = $540. Dealers discounts are typically %40 off list
so an expected dealer can recieve the upgrade at about $999*0.6 = $600.
The remaining $60 plus or minus $50 is not enough to cover the paper work
and testing/restocking of old digital boards ... which CAN NOT be simply stuffed
into a new machine (used parts in new equip is against the law I understand).
Apple is going to end up with a lifetime supply of spares on the 128k mac
boards.
In realistic terms Apple is probably EATing $300-500 dollars by offering
the upgrade at near componet costs ... and may eat a lot more if the
price on 256k parts soars back above $40.00 a part.
The upgrade price is the nearest thing to a free lunch I have seen ... in
an industry where multiples of x2.5 to x3.5 are min list prices above
costs .... thus a fair price for the upgrade today would be above
$30 * 18 * 3 = $1,620.00 plus installation labor and a restocking charge
(and testing) for the old board ... a real value of closer to $2,000 even.
Apple is both VERY kind to its installed base ... and praying that the
prices of the rams drop before it looses it's shirt on both the upgrade
and the NEW price for the 512k MAC.
Go try to by 256k parts on the salvage/hobby market ... about $50 a chip
including tax/shipping is common for untested parts. 18 * $50 = $900 ...
take a batch of those and do your own upgrade ... hope it works ...
John Bass
A.Freed
of a boring machine, the IBM PC. At least Apple did not produce another
PC compatible. The macintosh is a good bit-mapped graphics show-piece.
It is not easy to get that much code working that reliably.
I think it is a mistake to buy a nice machine and a bunch of promises.
If you want a machine to help you get some work done, there are probably
other people already doing similar work with an old machine with
fulfilled promises.
The exciting thing about the Macintosh is that people are seriously thinking
how to build systems with good user interfaces and which are well
integrated as well as modular.
I think we will see alot of nice bit-mapped graphics machines around
in the next few years. What will be the standard bit-mapped operating system?
Who will define it? A big corperation or someone working in their garage?
How can we write portable bit-mapped software?
In the meantime, the Mac. is not a bad terminal to my favourite
operating system and it is food for thought. Can anyone figure out
how their Icons can be non-rectangular and how to do a non XOR mouse?
A good exercise in bit-map arithmetic.
The above views are my own.
Phil Ngai
as a design engineer in a division which makes single board microprocessor
products, John Bass's numbers look reasonable to me. I know what we
pay for 256K rams and what our required markup to pay for overhead is
and actually, we'd charge a lot more than Apple is asking for the upgrade.
Does anyone remember the HP-35 and how it cost $395. HP dropped the
price on it and didn't offer discounted upgrades to anyone, I recall.
--
Phil Ngai (408) 982-6554
UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!phil
ARPAnet: amd!ph...@decwrl.ARPA
Toby Farrand
money on the upgrade, you are sadly mistaken. I wish we were -- I own
stock. If you want to complain to someone, try the dealer you bought
your Mac from. They are the only ones making money on the upgrade.
Actually, you might try Japan inc. as well, I believe they are making
money on this as well.
Sorry to disappoint you all, but you'll have to think of something else
to flame at Apple for. Think hard, something will come to you.
These are *my* views and they do not represent those of my employer.
toby
Ray Simard
>heard so much: the Macintosh, with 512K. It has been released and is
>on its way, delivery date approximately three weeks (or thereabouts;
>delivery dates haven't been Apple's strong point lately).
>
> I also received news about its price.
>
> Brace yourselves.
>
> $995. Yes, you read right: that's nine hundred ninety-five big ones,
>to be removed deftly from your wallet and placed just as deftly into theirs.
>All that on top of the $2495 (or $2195, if you happened to get it in one
>of the recent sales that have started to spring up here and there) which all
>us Macfans have already shelled out.
Question: is the item worth $995? If it isn't few if any
persons will pay it. If it is, what's the gripe?
> [Background: My friends and I who purchased Macs are not the
>businessmen-types that the Mac seems to be aimed at. We are but simple
>college students, not fortunate enough (or rich enough, as the case may be)
>to attend one of the schools in the Apple University Consortium, and get
>our Macs for dirt cheap.
Ok, that's the gripe. This thing is priced at its presumed value,
rather than what those who would like to have one can afford.
> Well, they sure got it to us, all right. For the measly sum of
>damn near a thousand bucks extra, we plebes can get ourselves the system
>that should have come out in the first place. So now Apple has us all
>over a barrel. We all sprung our $2995 for the Mac and the printer, and
>shortly afterwards realized that the thing was absolutely useless without
>the second disk drive. So, another $495 went down the drain. Next comes
>the realization that with the basic 128K, the user is left with too little
>memory to accomplish anything significant. So, another $995 down the tubes.
>Thus Steve Jobs' vision of the computer that anyone can use has become the
>computer that no one can afford, because a workable system sells for $4485.
>What a bargain!
The question remains: what was the basic Mac system worth? If
is wasn't worth the $2995 it cost, why did anyone buy it? If it was,
what's the gripe?
$995 for 384K of memory doesn't strike me as exorbitant.
> Looks like Steve & Co. are standing by to rake in the big bucks; The
>Rest of Us can all bend over and grab our ankles. It's coming in dry, folks;
>no Vaseline on this one.
>...Apple has shown that, in the end, they're not that much
>different from any other computer company, that they don't really give a
>damn about the end-user, and that the final arbiter is, as we all suspected
>but hoped against hope was not true, the bottom line on the ledger books.
Looks to me a bit like the old "I want it, I can't afford it,
therefore those who sell it at the price I can't afford are money-grubbing
hogs" line. I am sure of one thing; the author of this complaint will
eventually depend on some business institution for his bread and butter
(he does now, but perhaps doesn't realize it). If that company prices
its products higher than their worth (to the market that buys them),
they won't sell, and someone will come up with the same thing at a better
price and capture the market. On the other hand, if it sells at prices
that do not respect that "bottom line", they won't exist; and this
person will find his employer bankrupt.
Businesses (including Apple) exist ONLY because they are able to
market a product at a price that satisfies that market and produces
revenues sufficient to pay its bills, its employees and management,
and produces with some regularity a profit for the owners of the
business. If you want to get something for less than it costs
to produce it, who are you expecting to take up the loss,
to subsidize you?
If you believe, as you indicated, that the price will drop, then perhaps
the thing to do is to wait until that time. Until then, I can't see
any basis for criticizing Apple.
--
[ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ]
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
Ray Simard
>excused as the corporation's obligation to it's stockholders? Are there no
>decent owners of stock in this country? Is it really a businessman's ethic to
>be a greedy, moneygrubbing SOB at the expense of his customers?
What do you mean by sleazy? If you mean that you think everyone in those
glass towers is another J. R. Ewing, you're entertaining a myth. If you mean
that the management won't sell something unless the sale is profitable then
that is not sleazy, it's inevitable, and desirable.
There is a word for businesses that are not run that way: bankrupt.
> For some reason, I thought Apple was a little different. Note the past
>tense.
No, it follows the same rules. You can tell because they are still in
business.
> I paid list price because when I got mine that's all there was. If I had
>thought the $2400 machine I was buying would devaluate ~$1000 in six months, I
>can assure you that I would have waited. But then if I and all the others who
>bought in the first 100 days had waited, all the rest of you would have been
>able to pick up the Mac for $100 - and you would have said no, thank you.
Most new items are placed on the market at a price gauged by the manage-
ment to be appropriate. When sales figures arrive that show the decision was
inappropriate, adjustments are made. Sure it's annoying to see the sale price
drop after you've paid the higher price, but consider this: if the price had
not dropped, would you now be any richer? What would the cost be? You must
have felt that the item was worth what you paid for it, otherwise you'd not
have made the purchase. Has the item changed?
Neither Apple nor the company you work for can exist without engaging in
profitable enterprise. Your paycheck attests to that. If it were not for
"moneygrubbers", you'd be out of work.
John Gilmore
parity. This makes it $30 x 16 chips, not 18 chips. Not a big diff.
Considering the volumes they're buying in (hopefully they are not
paying $30/chip like the rest of us), Apple might not LOSE money on
the deal but they sure aren't going to make much.
And if you think issues of upgrades and dropped prices and old versus
new customers and dealers are easy to deal with, read:
Hypergrowth: The Rise and Fall of Osborne Computer Corporation
by: Adam Osborne and John Dvorak
(Berkeley: Idthekkathan Publishing Co. He had to print it
himself because it's so revealing that major publishers would
not print it for fear of legal action.)
ISBN 0-918347-00-9.
Costs about $30 and worth it, if you are in a growth company, invested
in one, or thinking about it.
Orion The Hunter
about how Apple is shafting America.
The thing with Apple is that the managers there may not be
producing macintosh's at the optimal point, ie. where
the rate of return on investment equals the market determined
rate of interest.
(Apple lovers please send Flames to
/dev/ULTIMATE-NULLIFIER)
-non-economist.
Orion The Hunter
companies in America. At least it doesn't make up some inferior
computer like and try to sell it at exorbitant prices, like some
well known PC manufacturer, and let's face it...
The mac is one of the most powerful PC's on the market today,
certainly superior to a 4.77 (haha) mhz HAL PC (and all other
HAL imitations).
A content Apple owner. (And macintosh's are cheap!!!!)
-ORION...The near omnipotent residing in /dev/ULIMATE-NULLIFIER.
Wayne Knapp
Apple being kind? Come on who are you trying to fool. Apple
is out to make a buck on EVERYTHING they do!
The MAC doesn't use 18 memory chips, Apple is too cheap to put
parity checking in its computers. MAC has only 16 memory chips.
Also I really doult if Apple is paying $30 a chip! But even if
they do pay that much, 16*$30 = $480 dollars. Looks like a lot
of room for some profit.
Lets keep all the facts straight. Apple exsists only to make
money and you can be sure that everything that Apple does is
to make more money.
I hope people will forget all this nonsense about Apple being
kind. Otherwise the next thing we will hear about is how IBM's
great social virtues took it to the top.
Russell Shilling
I agree that this is a free country, and that the ultimate choice rests
with the purchaser, but didn't someone at Apple have the ambition to
make the computer for the Rest of Them ?? (I wouldn't think that anyone
on the net could be included in the 'Rest of Us' part of their Ad.)
Apple Computer may be selling all they can make right now, (since they
have just introduced a new product,) but the really important thing
to Apple will be the sales of the Mac in two to five years. The durability
of a micro is influenced more by the NUMBERS of units out there than by
the quality or friendliness of the product.
(Have you ever used a Commodore 64 ?? There must be zillions of those
suckers around by now. If you have used a C64, you should understand what
I mean by 'friendliness' or lack thereof.)
How much *GOOD* software will be written for a Mac if the developers have
to buy a Lisa, (see some of the other articles for a few flames about those)
and cannot get software or hardware for a reasonable price; and then after
all that, their market is ~10% of the size of the IBM PC market. If you
were a developer, which would you buy:
a $5000 Mac with nothing, plus an $8000 Lisa with very little;
or
an $8000 IBM PC/XT system, with available software for *ANY*
development task ?
(* Prices approx. *)
I would like to see the Macintosh succeed, and make another standard for
IBM, et.al to copy. But I don't see it happening now that IBM and the
cloners have been dropping their prices to realistic levels for the
performance they deliver; (and what of the IBM AT? upward compatibility ??
Where is Apple's successor to the Lisa ?)
That's almost enough for now. Just so there's no misunderstanding of my
micro-preference, I own an IBM PC, but I prefer the Macintosh *DESIGN*,
and abhor the *MARKETING*. I guess you can't please everyone.
Brad Templeton
Unless I miss my guess, Apple is taking a LOSS selling those boards at
that price. Is there something I am missing?
Normally, hardware products cost at least 5 times their parts cost at
the retail level. Even if Apple is paying only $20 per chip they are
in bad shape. They have to replace the complete board, as I heard.
Now if you want a real gouge, take the original Mac. That costs less
than $200 in parts, and they sell it for $2500 in the USA. I guess they
sold it for this high price to help pay for the cost of the upgrade.
In other words, get the upgrade, you've already paid for it!
--
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
John Bass
change the numbers much ... since I omited the tally of costs associated
with taking in the return, issuing credits, testing, stocking, repair ...
which certainly over $60.
For those who think that Apple can just name a price they want to pay for rams
... think again ... the semi producers will sell them for the highest bid.
The fact is that the semi producers are coming online faster than the customers
RIGHT NOW (and just like 1981 and 64k parts) ... but who has been shipping
256k parts in real volume (not just ramp up volumes) ... NOBODY!
Who wants to be shipping product with 256k parts ... ALMOST EVERYONE.
Anyone who can predict short run prices for 256k parts is a very valuable
person ... their are both those betting on fast fall and those betting on
a rise followed by a 12-18 month slow fall. Given pricing on other hot
semi products released in the last 4-6 years I lean toward shortages 3-6 months
out on 256k parts ... and the resulting flatness or rise in prices as
most major system houses come on line using the parts.
Sure the price will drop to around $3.50 a part within a few years ... but
that is not today.
Apple is in this market to make money ... for them to decide on shipping
product at zero markup (net loss) is VERY KIND ... for those who continue
to fume at this assertion please go back and look at Apples quarterly earnings
for the last year ... they have missed taking big losses by a hair or less.
Last Oct-Dec ... the big christmas sales ... they cleared a profit by
accident ... many of us expected them to follow the rest of the market and
declare sizable losses ... not yet but turning down profits on 100,000 mac
upgrades could do it.
As for the fella's from Fortune and Tektronics ... it's nice of you to collect
pay checks from companys that still price their 64k drams with the 1981 market,
and always ship product above a 2.5x multiplier ... it's truly nice to
throw rocks at apples profits when your own pay check comes from someone
taking what the market will bare ...
STOP BAD MOUTHING APPLE ... atleast it is still giving people jobs in
AMERICA ... and not over seas like Atari and a growing number of other
small computer makers.
If you want to set an example for charity ... start with your own pay check ...
give 75% of it to a good cause ... sell your home, computer, car, stero,
and color tv and donate the procedes to charity. Then you might have a cause
for asserting that others (like APPLE and its employees) should also be
revenue source for charity.
John Bass
The fair price for the upgrade today is $1500-$2000 ... enjoy the kindness
of Apple in pricing that IBM, DEC, Tandy, TEKTRONICS, and everyone else
aren't likely to give.
h...@loral.uucp
memory chips as the rationle for a lower price on the Mac
upgrade need to take a course in cost accounting. It is
not as cut and dry as labor and materials.
Jan Gray
be removing? Putting them in new cases and reselling them? Throwing
them away?
Jan Gray (jsg...@watmath.UUCP) University of Waterloo (519) 885-1211 x3870
Tom Haapanen [DCS]
> How much *GOOD* software will be written for a Mac if the developers have
> to buy a Lisa, (see some of the other articles for a few flames about those)
> and cannot get software or hardware for a reasonable price; and then after
> all that, their market is ~10% of the size of the IBM PC market. If you
> were a developer, which would you buy:
> a $5000 Mac with nothing, plus an $8000 Lisa with very little;
> or
> an $8000 IBM PC/XT system, with available software for *ANY*
> development task ?
> (* Prices approx. *)
$5000 Mac? I recall the Mac proces are down to $2195 US or so. This
is for a 128K Mac, which is what you want for development, because you
can't expect all your potential customers to have 512K Macs, and
anything that runs on 128K will run on 512K. $8000 Lisa? Aren't
Lisas available for $4000-5000? This would add up to about $7000
(plus serial cable) for a Lisa/Mac system... Not that bad.
The new BYTE has an ad (in the back pages) for 256K chips. They're
advertised as LOW PRICED, and are selling for $49.95. Sixteen of
those critters would cost you $800. So Apple is charging the Mac
owners a whole $200 more than the bare chips would cost, uninstalled.
What a rip-off! :-)
And no, I don't own any Apple stock and/or products.
Tom Haapanen University of Waterloo (519) 744-2468
allegra \
clyde \ \
decvax ---- watmath --- watdcsu --- haapanen
ihnp4 / /
linus /
Bernie Roehl
sell. They then start producing 512k Macs, and selling them to you for
$995 *plus* the trade-in on your old Mac. So they've sold you two Macs
for a total of almost $3500, and still have your old (128k) Mac to sell
again! They're in effect selling the same physical computer twice to
different people at $2500 a shot!
Pretty neat, from Apple's standpoint!
--
-Bernie Roehl (University of Waterloo)
...decvax!watmath!wateng!broehl
Jonathan Shapiro
reasonable quantities.
Jon Shapiro
Haverford College