From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac dead?
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:52:08 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke) writes:
> In a previous article, bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au () says:
>>jkalanuk@bbs.draco.bison.mb.ca (Jeremy Kalanuk) writes:
>>> tempelma@cs.utwente.nl
>>>>
>>>> Not much discussion here... (at least compared to
>>> comp.sys.amiga.advocacy ;-).
>>>>
>>>> Mac dead?
>>>
>>> No, unlike Amigas soon demise.  Let's face it, only a few people buy
>>> amigas anymore.  They have like a 1 percent share of the computer
>>> marketplace!  The only people who buy amigas are either a) upgrading
>>> their old machine or b) brain damaged.  Which are you?

       [My comments about Europe deleted]

>>        What does this have to do with the Amiga? Brand loyalty. Many
>>of these C-64 buyers are going to stay with Commodore and buy an Amiga.
>>While this isn't going to make Commodore a giant of the personal
>>computer industry, the forseeable future of the Amiga is quite stable.
>>
>  Brand loyalty my rear end. Did the 20 million+ Apple II series users jump
> and buy Macintosh computers when Apple let the II series slide into
> oblivion (or even before they did?). Do the millions of IBM PC (1981)
> owners stick with IBM PCs after the introduction of the clone? Did millions

        In the case of Apple, I don't know. In the case of IBM, it's a bit
different. If you buy a clone, essentially you're buying the same box with
a different name on the front. There are too many clone makers to poke a
stick at. In the case of the Amiga, there are no clones. Another point is
that despite it's lack of cohesive management, C= has been able to offer
upgrade packages for owners of C= systems. C= has offered C-64 to Amiga
upgrade discounts and Amiga 1000 to Amiga 2000 upgrade discounts. When
was the last time Apple offered to give you a reduced price on a Mac II
system by bringing in the front cover of the owners manual to an older
Mac system. C= did this for Amiga 1000 owners who wanted an Amiga 2000,
if only for a limited period.

        I might also point out that Europeans aren't Americans with
funny accents, so you can't just impose an American mindset on Europe
and say, "this is how things are/will be".

> of Atari 800 owners stick with and purchase Atari STs, STEs, Mega-STEs and
> new Falcons? The answer to all (expect possibly the last pertaining to
> Europe) Is a resounding: NO! NO! NO! You CANNOT possibly say that brand

        Atari's chief problem was lack of applications development for
the ST family. Sure they have pretty much all of the same types of programs
available on other systems, but there are fewer programs to choose from in
a specific area (ie fewer word processors), except music production, which
is the ST's niche.

> loyalty will GUARANTEE Commodore's success. Did brand loyalty guarantee
> Ford would hold the car market in 1910? Obviously not. Is this Commodore's
> mentality- that brand loyalty will guarantee repeat purchases? After buying

        Where does it say in my previous posting that anything I said
represents the policy or opinion of C= management?

> a Ford in 1977 it has been the last one I've purchased- Buicks since then.
> I don't hold brand loyalty to much of anything at all. If Downy raises
> their price on detergent, I'll get Whisk. If Mr. Clean jumps to $4.00 a
> bottle, I'll get Lysol. If my toilet paper becomes too rough, I'll change

        Who gives a shit about detergent or toilet paper, they're all
the same so buy whatever saves you the most. If personal computers were
as different as detergents or toilet paper, we'd all be using clones, no?

> from Brand "X" To white cloud. If Apple's next computer series is bad- I
> WON'T BUY it. Now, I do agree COmmodore has a much stronger hold on the
> European market than the US market but also consider the fact that Apple
> *IS* making a very strong showing in Europe and Asia- about 45% of Apple's
> 1992 revenues came from overseas and sales are picking up quickly. Remember
> last year when Commodore's sales and profits plummeted: "Poor European
> Economy" they said. That's hogwash- poor management and lack of a clear
> vision is the reason. Commodore will not be able to survive as a multi

        C='s management structure has caused problems, but C= doesn't
operate under the plan that head office calls the shots and the national
offices tow the line. Each national office is given a wide lattitude of
freedom and is autonimous from any other national office.

> national or multi-continental corporation for much longer. Take a hint from
> Apple- I have just read their 1992 Annual Report: "Apple went from a $500
> million company to a $6 billion company in the 1980s by selling general
> purpose personal computing supplies. In the 1990s, Apple will expand into
> new areas and new centers of growth and markets- not just computers." (Not
> exactly a quote- but in so many words). Commodore has failed to provide
> itself with a future goal (besides survival), future product line and/or
> products which are far superior to anything someone else could

        Actually, they have. Admittedly, the main thrust of C='s future
development will remain in personal computers, but they have already
divulged details of development plans for at least 2 new generations of
the Amiga, not counting the systems that were released late last year.

> develop/release or copy today. Commodore has nothing special in the Amiga-

        Is Apple capable of developing something within the next 12 months
that noone else could match? This power-pc development deal with IBM
would suggest not. What's your point?

> everything they have will be available to Mac users and PowerPC users 12
> months or less from now. Commodore has a lead on those technologies, but
> they're nothing special. Commodore can cut the price of its Amiga line down

        If these "technologies" are nothing special, why would companies
like Apple and IBM publicly announce development plans for systems which
would be able to perform similar functions?

> to nothing and it won't do a darn bit of good until they get their
> managorial butt into gear. Selling 'computers' will become a thing of the
> past soon- to survive computer companies will have to become 'technology'
> firms.

        No argument on that point. C= has given itself technology goals
both in hardware and software, and a time frame to accomplish those goals.
Whether these goals and/or timeframe are sufficiant to maintain a secure
position remain to be seen.

           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy