From: an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac dead?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 22:35:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au () says:

>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".
>
 I understand that Europeaners have a totally different mindset at times
than Americans- I have quite a few family members in Europe, so it is no
mystery to me. However, Europeaners are not a completely different species
than are Americans, and on the whole they'll want many of the same things
Americans will want. I think the difference is in economies mainly.
Commodore does very well because they pushed Europe from the beginning with
low prices. Apple came in relatively late with high prices and worked down
from there. 
>> 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?
>
 I did not intend to mean you represented Commodore's management, but your
posting dealt with Commodore's future based on repeat buyers. It seems that
with the current direction C= is going this is the mentality they're taking
up.

>> 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?
>
 Point is that there are lots of different ones to choose from. For $250 an
old 386 or 286 will do wordprocessing just fine. (Lord forbid we all jumped
onto clones, however). <grin>

>> 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.
>
 If CDTV is an example of how Commodore wants to diversify, I'll write it
off right now. CDTV is a fairly good idea at a bad time with a limited
market sold by a company that couldn't market it if it wished to. Of CD-I,
CDTV, or VIS, CDTV is the best of the three but I see no reason to buy one
over a CD-ROM, and even if there was a reason- what would one really use it
for? I think the entire multimedia/CD-ROM market is really blown outta
proportion, but we'll discuss that later. :-)

>> 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?
 Point of argument is that what COmmodore has is nothing so special that it
relies on Commodore. If Apple wanted to, it could release its next batch of
Macintohes with an AGA type graphics architecture, Paula and Agnus included
<grin>. 

>> 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.
>
 Ah- that's the BIG point. Will Commodore be able to last long enough or
sustain itself to keep these projects? Time will tell.


>           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.
>
-- 
Travis Grundke		   |If you would like to receive a FREE Trial issue
Contributing Editor,	   |of MacGames Digest, the best source for Mac games, 
MacGames Digest	 	   |news and reviews- please reply to this e-mail 
an780@cleveland.freenet.Edu|address. 1992-1993 MacGames Digest
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy