Home
Directory
Frontier
DaveNet
Mail
Search
Guestbook
System
Ads

News and commentary from the cross-platform scripting community.
cactus Mail Starting 9/3/97

From: peter@gameworks.com (Duke, Peter);
Sent at 9/3/97; 7:07:36 PM;
The next insanely great thing...

You've helped me out a lot.

You helped me separate what I like about computers from Apple.

There are a lot of other interesting things happening on the Internet that don't have anything to do with Apple or HTML.

There is a little company called id, that is run by a guy who thinks like you, named John Carmack.

Instead of publishing a web site with his ideas, he uses the UNIX finger protocol.

You can use "Finger" on the Mac and check him out, johnc@idsoftware.com or Planetquake has an http front-end that you can read his finger archive here.

He makes really coool software called Quake, it's a game, it's a community, and it is becoming a medium.

While a lot of people were waving there arms about VRML and standards, id quietly released Quake, a real-time 3d rendering engine, and if you poke around, an authoring environment.

They have sold 500,000 units.

In fact, if you buy Quake, you can do what ever you want with it, as long as you pay id 12.5% of your net profit.

There are about 50,000 people who play Quake on the Web every week.

There are dozens of shareware applications to help you modify and find games, and chat with your friends and opponents.

It's client-server and all of the source code, with the exception of the engine is freely available, from id!

It's a lot of fun, but beyond that, it (the engine) has the promise of becoming the next insanely great thing.

The current version has a lot of blood and mayhem, but if you dig a little, the engine can support a lot of ideas.

Carmack has a great battle going with Microsoft right now... OpenGL vs. Direct 3D.

He may win this one.

Check it out!

http://www.idsoftware.com/
http://www.planetquake.com/
http://www.bluesnews.com/

From: toru@mindspring.com (Toru Kawate);
Sent at 9/3/97; 9:48:53 PM;
Re:Conversation with Steve Jobs

I don't buy many computers, so I really don't know exactly why people chose Power Computing machines over Apple's. I am assuming that the better price was one of the main reasons, but I wonder if that was the most important. I am sure that it has been ver y nice for many users to order a PowerMac built to his/her specifications.

For me, it has been nice to see alternatives when Apple machines weren't available or had serious quality problems. I am looking at all the desktop PowerMacs currently available from Apple, Power Computing, Motorola, and others. Now, I am checking the sel ections of PowerBooks. It is a lot better than when we were stuck with PowerBook 5300s, but I don't think there are enough variety of PowerBooks even now. This is, of course, due to lack of PowerBook clones. Once we are spoiled with more choices, it is ha rd to go back to the limited choices. Same with the lower prices, obviously.

There is one great use of the Power Computing's client list by the Apple management, even if it hardly includes any new names (I heard that something like 99% are the current or former Apple customers). I hope that the Apple management will talk to as man y of them as they can right away, and find out why they bought Power Computing machines instead of Apple machines. Then, I hope that Apple will produce PowerMacs that WE all want to buy. I know it is rather simplistic to say, but ... if Apple had given us products that are far superior to clones, Power Computing wouldn't have mattered that much to Apple. I am not just talking about specs--it includes other elements such as superior marketing and better purchase experiences.

P.S. I hope that Apple will produce defect-free PowerMacs and forecast the users' demand correctly. If we are stuck with shortages or quality problems with little alternatives from clone-makers, nobody will defend Apple for sure.

From: gkawasaki@macway.com (Guy Kawasaki);
Sent at Wed, 3 Sep 97 09:58:41 -0700;
Guy's Perspective on the PowerComputing Deal

The bottom line on the clone issue is this: our greatest barrier is the public's perception that Apple is going to die, so it is afraid to buy Macintoshes. Short-term profitability has become not simply a financial issue but a marketing one!

Thus, it's crucial to return to short-term profitability not only for the cash but also for the comfort level of customers and potential customers. Basically, our clone business was so badly implemented that we were literally losing money with each one that was sold. Surely this wasn't the only thing we did wrong, but it was a big part of our problems.

By buying some of the core assets of PowerComputing (ie, the license), we cleaned up the biggest part of the clone issue, and we hope that this will help lead to short-term profitability which will lead to greater "comfort" in the marketplace which will lead to more Macintoshes being sold in the future which will lead to Apple returning to the forefront of innovation.

Had we not bought the license back we would have continued to lose money, and therefore the public's confidence that we would survive. And Apple would have died--taking all the clone manufacturers with us. Now at least we have a shot.

So the decision was very difficult and not without great risk. But continuing along as things are was just as risky, IMHO. Up to the very last moment we were trying to negotiate a mutually beneficial arrangement...but it did not come to pass.

So the issue was very complex, and the decision was made with a lot of gnashing of teeth, but it's done, and we're moving on. I hope this provides some clarification. I close with this thought: Doubt is not the opposite of faith. Doubt is part of faith.*

Thanks,

Guy

* I wish I could claim that I thought of this saying, but I stole it from a sermon at Menlo Park Presbyterian Church.

From: AFCSpad@aol.com;
Sent at 9/3/97; 7:10:52 PM;
Thoughts about your column

Hello! You don't know me from squat, but your column today really touched a nerve with me, and a sore nerve at that. With the confirmation that Apple has effectively killed all outside innovation in the CHRP platform and 3rd party notebooks, plus outside G3 development, I'm in a real mental funk. For the first time since 1985, I've really been discouraged by Apple. A Macintosh "ecosystem"? Get real. The apparent fear that Apple was losing their market share to clones due to the aggressive approach Power Computing had indicates to me that Apple is only seeing a market being lost to a poor internal marketing policy. Does Apple really feel that Power users will *want* to be welcomed back to the "Apple fold"? I think not. Clone buyers bought for technology and price, not the hoity-toity cachet of the Apple name. What most power users wanted was... power. The ability to do more productive work with a more efficient user interface. Plain and simple.

What bothers me now, is that for the first time in quite a long time, I can no longer see a future for Apple. The denial of clone licensing for cutting edge technologies and OS8 usage goes beyond any per-CPU pricing for OS licensing-- it strongly indicates that Apple as a corporate entity is afraid of competition. Instead of being in-yer-face about the advantages of using the MacOS, Apple has always relied on the "privilege" of being part of the old boy club... "We know it's better, but please don't tell anyone else; it's our secret, old chum".

Specifically, I see a world of benefits coming to the MacOS user-- Rhapsody, new CPU architectures and more object-oriented applications. Yes, all of these are still forthcoming, but I am truly upset that Apple has decided to control how *they* decide that *I'm* ready for it. I always thought that the consumer drove market development. I guess I was wrong.

Right now, I'm writing a dental practice software package for my wife, who plans to open her office this Winter. Today, I have not written a line of code, since I'm realizing that I can buy a decent Wintel machine ($1500) and a commercial software package ($5000) for much less hassle than writing a custom vertical-market application on a $4500 G3 machine (since no one will pay me at present for this development time). The scary thing? Buying Wintel is starting to make sense... and *that* is the true tragedy of Apple's decision.

Anyway, I just realized that I'm babbling... venting... frustrated to hell. I hope that some things I wrote have some connection to your feelings-- I appreciated the way you wrote about a truly depressing conversation-- somehow, I hope that we all keep the faith. It would be the greatest crime to see the window of a new beginning slammed shut in our faces as MacOS users.

From: FDrake3335@aol.com;
Sent at 9/3/97; 5:55:20 PM;
Re Time to quit?

Sad to say, your reputation with a crystal ball ranks high in my house this week. 1. You said Steve Jobs couldn't be trusted. Too true. 2. You in essence said Apple would kill the MacOS. Right about that one too. Woe, alas. For us all.

Never again! The famous two words of the Jewish experience in the twentieth century now take on much the same meaning in the Mac Diaspora. The next great OS _must_ be in the public domain (Linux?), forever out of reach of Apple Computer, Microsoft and all their spawn.

Time to quit? I say it's time to begin. Begin crafting solutions that belong to no one, that is to say, to _everyone_.

Something good _may_ come of this. If so, I hope it comes during our lifetimes.

From: pjackson@fibrcom.com (Philip Jackson);
Sent at 9/3/97; 4:43:54 PM;
Apple / Conversation with Jobs

Your report of the phone call with Steve was almost as distressing as the actions taken yesterday. I have often pointed out that I don't believe that Apple has ever listened to a customer, dealer or developer, and it seems the trend is holding steady.

Is there a conspiracy to destroy Apple because Steve was forced out years ago? Is it the childish impatience arising in Apple (or Steve) being unable to wait until the pot boils (a few more cloners, the G5 and CHRP which would really blow the doors off?) I just do not understand the WHY of it.

Perhaps this is the time for the cloner makers to sell the BE OS coupled with the System 7.6 which they can sell and try to create an "outside Apple" Apple clone. I am fairly sure that Macwarehouse would sell me System 8 if I called. I believe that the licenses provide for the machines. Perhaps making the CHRP capable of running the OS and shipping with the BE OS...but I dream.

Having lost thousands by Apple's ability to project demand in my retail store, and having been suckered along by Apple all these years, I gotta ask: why? And, when's it gonna stop?

From: david@sternlight.com (Sternlight);
Sent at 9/3/97; 2:34:10 PM;
Interview with Steve Jobs

Your comments on your interview with Steve Jobs aren't very good economics. Since cloners use Apple-developed motherboards and the ROM, Apple's costs that they must fairly share include applicable research, development, and demonstration, not just the obvious direct administrative and out-of-pocket costs. These costs are, of course, Apple's business except as they're required to disclose them by the SEC. We know on inspection that they must be very substantial.

Without that full fair-share cost recovery, Apple is paying for the clones, and will eventually spiral down a black hole--faster and faster as the clones underprice them more and more. And the underpricing cannot be attributed solely to some Apple inefficiency. Cloners have a lower cost base because they don't have to fully pay for the Apple RD&D they use; because they can cherry-pick the market; because they can use components based on opportunistic smaller volume purchases (some of which are proving incompatible with Apple software--see the failure of the OS8 CD to boot on some cloners CDs for an example).

The only economic case that might be made in the alternative would be if the cloners have so increased Apple's own market share in new markets that the incremental increase in Apple's total market more than offsets the unpaid-for RD&D costs by the cloners. Not only wasn't that the case, but Apple lost market share. It is futile to discuss whose fault that was--the result was that it was costing Apple for every clone sold.

Finally, one cannot even argue "sunk costs" of Apple's RD&D since the marginal revenue to Apple from the cloners cannot offset the lost Apple profits the cloners take--most clone sales are sales to Mac users and a substantial portion (perhaps the bulk) would have gone to Apple absent the clones.

I accept Jobs' claim in his letter to Apple employees that they tried to get cloners to agree to higher license fees to offset this fair share of RD&D costs and failed.

That left Apple with only an honorable way out. They could have simply refused to go beyond Power's existing license. That instead they bought out the assets (some if which might be valuable if they're recoverable--note the resignations of Power's many key people a week or so ago) shows Apple's ethical attempt to resolve the dilemma.

As to the future, a failure to recover full fair-share RD&D costs since the original licenses (assuming earlier costs sunk) would justify Apple's withholding any associated new technology (not already covered by clone licenses) from cloners, including Rhapsody, CHRP, newer mother board and chip designs, and ROM designs in or out of hardware.

From: danallen@microsoft.com (Daniel K. Allen (Visual C++));
Sent at 9/3/97; 1:59:56 PM;
Re:Is it time to quit?

When Unix was going downhill a few years back, they made a standard out of the APIs, called it Posix, and the various Unix manufactuers claimed (to various degrees) Posix compatibility. Then Linux came along and made a great free version of Unix, or nearly free. Unix seemed to prosper when we all thought it was going to die.

There are so many of us around that wish we could have the MacOS as we know and love it in System 7.6, add true pre-emptive multitasking, etc, and have that be the Posix-Mac standard, as it were...

Too bad there are not enough people with spare time to write from scratch an OS that had the most important Mac APIs (we can skip things like GX, Publish & Subscribe, AOCE and other big time losers), write the toolbox in a pre-emptive way, do an HFS-Plus compatible file system, and away we go, a Mac OS without Apple! We could do a new development environment (like MPW), a new browser (the best of IE and HyperCard blended) and write everything in straight C. Then we could do 2 versions: one for Pentiums, one for Power PCs. Or maybe just Pentiums since we know that they will be around.

Maybe this is too much like the BeOS, except that they did their own DIFFERENT toolbox. What if Be made a set of APIs that were Mac source code compatible, things like DrawText and NewWindow and HiliteMenu and so on? They run on Pentiums and Power PCs, and if they had a Mac source code compatible toolbox with their solid Unix-like OS underpinnings, maybe that's where the Mac community should go...

From: johnww2@apple.com (John W. Williams II);
Sent at 9/3/97; 12:30:10 PM;
Clones, Doomsayers, Know-it-alls

First the obligatory disclaimer: I am a lowly Apple employee, working as an SQA tester in customer support related diagnostics. I have no special knowledge direct or indirect that would shape what I will write below. (not counting all the great information I read on scripting.com!!!)

My two-cents on the current clone issue outcry:

Come on guys, are you not all gathering around the latest crisis again and wailing and crying and once again proclaiming that this is it, the last straw, now you've had it...again! It's like a broken record!

This situation is still fluid, and here is why I believe so:

Why isn't anyone talking about Intel machines as competitors against Apple Hardware? This will be the case when Rhapsody comes out, no? A giant, vibrant world of clone companies. Who knows whether they will have to suck up to Apple to run Rhapsody on their machines. If they do, then the whole "cross platform" thing will become a joke and maybe "THAT" will be "IT". If they can run Rhapsody (after some driver issues and the like are ironed out) then Apple will suddenly have a whole new host of competitors.

I haven't a clue about how the next generation of Intel processors will shape up, but it seems to be the popular press view that the PPC is running circles around anything out there now, or soon to be out there.

If that is the case, then being the one of the sole manufacturers of PPC hardware in a Rhapsody world would be a HUGE competitive advantage while still allowing for other players to run on the Rhapsody OS on Intel. (Maybe Apple will build machines with an Intel processor too? even more competition!) After all, Intel is the safer choice, so you'll have to decide between "safe" and "better/fast?"

Let's keep the faith. There are still lots of factors in this game that remain to be played out. Calling it quits means nothing if you have an interest in the outcome. If we want to see the Mac OS survive, we will have to dance with the leader (Mr. Jobs,) and push in the direction we want to go when we can. Armchair CEOs don't have all the facts, (and Real (de-facto) CEOs don't have all the perspective.) So, if you're leaving the floor then go, if you're still in the game, then watch for your opportunity.

From: weidl@intersites.com (Eric Weidl);
Sent at 9/3/97; 12:30:58 PM;
Thoughts on the cloning issue

I've been thinking a lot (too much, probably) about the Apple cloning issue lately. Some of my thoughts:

- Steve Jobs says Apple was losing 'a couple hundred dollars' for each computer a cloner sold. Since Power Computing sold approximately 200,000 computers last year, Apple figures it lost about $40,000,000. I would bet that Apple's own poor forecasting cost them that several times over.

- Apple says that one of the main things in gets in the Power acquisition is access to their customer database. Apple also says that only 1% of Power's customers were new. If that is the case, doesn't Apple already have, in essence, the Power customer database?

- Apple said it was acquiring Power to reduce competition in the market. It seems to me that they have *added* to the competition. After all, the real competition is the Wintel world, not the Mac cloners. If anything, the competitive market place for Macs is far worse today than last month because Power is a fast, reliable, responsive company (everything Apple isn't) and now they're selling PC's instead of Macs! Did one single person at Apple even consider the possibility that Power would remain a competitor even after they were pushed out of the Mac market?

- We need to buy a couple new machines. We usually buy from companies we've been happy with in the past. Power is such a company. We will continue to buy from Power, even though they will now (apparently) be selling PC clones.

From: mcg@halcyon.com> (by way of Brent Simmons (Michael C. Gilbert);
Sent at 9/3/97; 12:28:53 PM;
Overreaction and inconsistency

I am puzzled by the response of some vocal Mac users to the Power Computing deal and the squeeze that Apple is putting on clone makers.

Sure it's anti-competitive. Is that any reason to switch to the Wintel platform, the instrument of one of the most anti-competitive businesses around? This strikes me as holding Apple to an unreasonable standard and has the feeling of religious dissappointment. Apple is a business.

What's wrong with Apple getting a reasonable return on the MacOS?

CHRP was abandoned by Microsoft. Why is it so horrifying when Apple does it? Why is that ground for moving to the Windows platform?

Don't get me wrong. I hate anti-competitive practices and I love open systems. I'm a user and developer on the Linux platform as well as on the MacOS.

It's just that this is a little wierd to me.

From: InterMark_Consulting_Group@compuserve.com (Erik Sherman);
Sent at 9/3/97; 3:20:32 PM;
It's So Confusing

Unfortunately, Apple is still showing itself to have little grasp of some business basics. They complain, "Power Computing and the other clone vendors haven't increased the market! They just keep taking business from us! So we're going to take our ball and go home."

Wake up, Apple. Companies do not make markets - customers make markets. It isn't your game ball to take home; it belongs to your customers. And if you don't treat them right - and let other companies provide services that they want and you either can't or won't give them - they will go home, and you will be left with nothing.

From: john.brewer@autodesk.com (John Brewer);
Sent at 9/3/97; 11:57:52 AM;
Re:"Apple Subsidizing Each Clone?"

I'm surprised at the number of scripting news readers who have unquestioningly bought into DeLuca's statement that, "Every time a licensee shipped a clone, we were subsidizing the clone for several hundred dollars."

A quick surf to MacWarehouse/PC Warehouse shows a street price of $99.95 for the non-upgrade version of MacOS 8. (For comparison, a non-upgrade retail copy of Windows '95 runs $179 for the 3.5 inch disk version -- PC Warehouse didn't list a price for a CD version, but presumably it'd be lower.)

Presumably, OEMs get a bulk discount, and a fairly steep one, since they usually duplicate the CD-ROMs and manuals themselves. Even assuming that the full retail price of MacOS 8 is somehow subsidized by hardware sales, it'd be hard to peg a reasonable OEM price for MacOS 8 at much above $100.

Granted, that is a bit more than the reported $55/copy that clone makers were paying under the old license, but it doesn't look much like a multiple hundred dollar subsidy, either. And reliable sources (including Gil Amelio, who was CEO at the time, for goodness sake!) indicate that Apple and the cloners had agreed in principle to a higher licensing fee for MacOS 8 earlier this summer.

Why is Apple selling this "several hundred dollars" story? And why are people buying it? Am I missing something here?

From: mmcavoy@ix.netcom.com (Michael McAvoy);
Sent at 9/3/97; 11:43:55 AM;
Hundreds of dollars per machine?

Apple is supposedly subsidizing the clone makers to the tune of hundreds of dollars per machine. That's a neat trick, since MacOS retails for $99. The solution is easy--I want a hardware manufacturer who will put a really cheap powerful box on the market, with an empty hard drive. I'll go buy my own operating system. (Which is exactly why they are so leery of CHRP--it potentially won't even be necessary to license from Apple to take business from them.)

What Apple really seems to begrudge is seeing the hardware profits going elsewhere. The complaint about cannibalization is partly true, partly bogus. The cloners should have (and, to a certain extent, did) break into new markets. But Apple should have been the big winner in new markets... the complaint from many IS managers for years had been that Apple was a sole source supplier. As I remember it, licensing the OS was largely to allow Apple better penetration into the corporate world. Instead Apple flubbed it through a long series of mistakes that led to a loss of confidence, and now ends up turning snarling on the licensees who had made the earlier opportunity possible.

Of course many of the clone sales went to previous Apple customers. It was better equipment at better prices. Is Apple claiming dibs on all of us who supported it through the years? We'll make our own choices, thank you. And the choices CANNOT be taken away... I'm looking at Be, Linux and NT to decide which direction to jump if I ever get disgusted enough.

From: dbw11@cornell.edu (David Weingart);
Sent at 9/3/97; 2:11:30 PM;
A question I would have asked Steve Jobs

I would have asked him what Apple will do if Mac users start abandoning the platform because of his decision to kill cloning. What happens if this turns out to be the biggest blunder Apple has ever made?

I see that happening as we speak.

Why anyone would actually agree to be CEO of Apple is beyond me. Frankly, I don't blame Gil Amelio for demanding a large golden parachute. The reward should be proportionate to the risk.

From: starcity@sk.sympatico.ca (Glenn Hoppe);
Sent at 9/3/97; 10:57:05 AM;
Power -- Embraced and Extended

I'm confused, too.

I'm not sure what to think about Apple's acquisition of Power. I have noticed an irrational outcry that Apple has "lost it". Hmmmmm... When Microsoft buys out a competitor, it's seen as good business sense. "Embrace and Extend" the line goes. Why does this analogy fail with Apple?

I have been amazed at Power's attitude over the past few months. It seems to me they got a plum deal, at the expense of Apple bleeding red. Why couldn't they accept a more reasonable license fee? What am I missing?

On the other hand, competition in the Mac marketplace is a good thing for customers. I really hope it survives in some form. I'd like to see MacOS and Hardware divisions of Apple become independent, and CHRP designs from Motorola, UMAX et al.

Ric Ford posted on

"This will not help Apple. Instead, this will accelerate the migration of Apple's Macintosh customers and partners to other platforms. I can only conclude that Steve Jobs is crazy or that he has some secret plan, presumably related to "Network Computers," in which the Macintosh platform no longer matters."

I really hope he's wrong. I use both Win95 and MacOS every day. I'm eqaually adept at both. There is no doubt that I'm more productive and creative on the Mac than Win95. I don't want a crippled computer. I don't want a NC. I don't care if MacOS has "only" a 5% share, as long as it's a viable platform with killer tools. I hope this confusion lifts, and the end result is a better Mac in whatever form it takes.

From: cmh@greendragon.com (Chris Hanson);
Sent at 9/3/97; 11:32:44 AM;
The whole Apple deal

A lot of people I know who are big Macintosh fans have just decided they're not buying Apple machines any more.

They're next computers will be Intel-based. They may not run Windows on them -- after all, OpenStep runs on PCs *now* and Rhapsody will run on them too -- but they've given up on Apple for hardware.

Apple complains of "subsidizing" clonemakers, and in the same stroke kills CHRP. CHRP, which would have ended any theoretical subsidies by allowing clonemakers to design to a standard and not rely on Apple to spoonfeed them new motherboards. CHRP, which would have allowed clonemakers to truly innovate in the hardware arena and do something to broaden the market.

I agree with your other respondents -- yesterday will be looked on as the day that Apple died.

From: chanson@atc.ll.mit.edu (Chris Hanson);
Sent at 9/3/97; 12:14:27 PM;
Apple/Power

If Apple's statement that they were in effect subsidizing every clone sold by a couple hundred dollars, and that the demand for lossless (for Apple) fees from clone vendors was rejected, is true. Then in my opinion the cloners are to blame and not Apple for what happened; since if there is to be competition you certainly can't have one competitor paying for anothers low prices. However if this is Apple BS that they were subsidizing cloners than that line of reasoning is obviously flawed.

Apple started the clone game in a unrealistic hope that the cloners would meet the needs of customers that Apple did not target. I mourn the loss of choice, but I am not going to blame Apple for what they did if that choice was artificially low priced at the expense of Apple.

From: adamrice@crossroads.net (Adam Rice);
Sent at 9/3/97; 9:15:01 AM;
Power Computing deal

I bought a Power Computing machine, a PowerWave, a while back. This was the second or third model offered by the company, so it was before they had a well-established rep, and when cloning was new in general.

I didn't buy this computer specifically to avoid Apple: at the time, I thought that this was a good way to support the Mac community: Apple had worked hard to ensure that cloning in general, and Power in particular, would succeed. My purchase of a Power computer was my vote of confidence in the new company and in the concept of cloning. Although I've had a couple of minor tussles with Power, I haven't regretted the purchase. It's a good box.

There were some interesting quotes in MacWeek:

>De Luca added that while clone vendors have offered technical innovations, >"I can tell you that all the innovation you've heard about either came >from Apple or certainly exists at Apple. Macintosh customers should >certainly expect that we'll have better products."

Why? Apple hasn't been building the better product so far. Practically since day 1 of cloning, Apple has been behind the power curve on their hardware (pun intended).

When I bought my PowerWave, the Apple model it most closely corresponded to was a 7500. The 7500 had a 100 MHz 601 chip. Mine has a 120 MHz 604 chip. The 7500 came standard with some video-input circuitry that inflated the price, but that I had no need for. The choice was a no-brainer. Since then, Apple's gotten smarter about its configurations, but it still isn't keeping up.

Saying that all the innovation has come from Apple is disingenuous: Apple has forced (and will continue to force) its licensees to use its boards, leaving almost no chance for any innovation beyond tinkering.

>Anderson cited Power's sales -- including its estimated $400 million in >yearly revenues and database of 200,000 customers -- as key reasons for >the acquisition. "We believe that a significant percentage of [Power's >sales] will come to Apple as those customers return to the Apple fold," he >said. "We believe that acquiring exclusive rights to the customer base of >200,000 is really valuable."

This is a telling quote. Why do they think they have exclusive rights to us? Don't they think we can shop around? I know what he means (Power's database), but the way he talks about it is revealing.

Of course, on a certain level, we never could shop around: as long as we wanted a MacOS machine, we'd ultimately be getting it from Apple. On the other hand, there *are* other OSs out there.

I'll probably be looking to replace this computer in a couple years. Maybe less. If Macs are still being manufactured at that point (which strikes me as much less likely now than it did a couple days ago), and Apple is making one that I like at a good price, I'll be happy to buy from them. If there are still clonemakers offering a better deal, I'll buy from the cloner.

Otherwise I'll get an Intel box and load BeOS on it. In the meantime, I'm going to try to figure out a way to piss off Apple so much that they give me $100 million.

From: charlie@ichat.com (Charlie Wood);
Sent at 9/3/97; 8:53:21 AM;
www.scripting.com -- DNS not resolving

ns.conxion.net looks like it's having a problem, and since I'm dying to read what you have to say about the PowerCC buyout, I want you to call your ISP and make it go!

We're getting a "cold front" today in Texas (that means it will rain and only get up to 85), so life is good. If you're ever in town (Austin), I'd like to buy you a beer. I've been an avid reader for a long time.

From: markman@batnet.com (Markman);
Sent at 9/3/97; 3:54:08 AM;
rev 2. No competition for Mac? Heard of NT, maybe?

C'mon guys,

What kind of myth are you trying to build with this "no competition" for Apple line?

Apple's price-gouging days died the minute the key Adobe, Quark, and Macromedia apps showed up on the Wintel platform. Unless Apple can stay spec and price competitive with Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and Micron, etc. its hold on the remaining core markets (education and creative content) will blow away with the next stiff breeze.

Apple had the fantasist's habit of believing that writing a projected market share into a business plan would make it so. "Mac OS will grow to 20% share over the next three years." (Okay. If you say so.)

But there was nothing in Apple's plan to suggest how the Mac platform would win converts. Where do the new customers come from? What brings them over? If the pie were growing, a vigorous clone program might help the platform scale up rapidly. But increasing supply does not willy-nilly create demand.

Show me any credible scenario for Mac OS to make inroads against Wintel, and I'll support clones.

But the harsh reality that Apple has finally faced is that the pie is shrinking. And dividing up a shrinking pie is a strategy so dumb that only an actual Apple CEO might propose it. Smart guys like yourselves should know better. And, fortunately, (as Dave keeps reminding us) Apple is now running without the benefit of an actual CEO. So it's free to act rationally for a change.

From: wmajor@discoball.com (Wade Major);
Sent at 9/3/97; 12:49:12 AM;
From a journalist...

Dear Apple Management:

Regarding this entire licensing flap, please add my comments to the billions of others that will probaby disappear into your desktop trash in the coming weeks.

1. I own a Motorola clone. I love it. Had I not purchased it, I would have purchased nothing else. Apple offered me nothing I wanted in terms of features, warrantee, etc. Price was a factor. The base of Apple devotees do not love Apple. They do not love Apple computers. They love the Mac OS. Apple must eventually become a software only company. There is no other viable option. Surely Microsoft and Jobs' own experience at NeXT must have proven that. I hope, truly, that the plan with the clones is to build up the hardware side of Apple for a sell-off or a spin-off from which to then focus on becoming a software company, and nothing else. Mac fans long for the day when there are as many different boxes from as many different vendors with as many different configurations for as many different markets and needs and users as what PC buyers get. Dozens upon dozens upon dozens of choices. And only one company feeding them their OS.

2. Apple will slit its own throat if it doesn't live up to guarantees that all future upgrades that work on currently shipping Apple boxes will also work on clone boxes. I fully expect Rhapsody to work on my Motorola Starmax 4000/200 MT. This is responsible business. Whether or not the clones receive the license to ship future OS' with the machines is another matter. But they MUST be guaranteed Apple cooperation in making sure they support future OS'. Anything less is simply underhanded corrupt management unbecoming a company with a reputation for integrity. It would also smell of sour grapes, which this whole clone affair is starting to smell like anyway.

3. Powerbooks. I want to buy a Powerbook. I won't because Apple doesn't give me the choices I want. There are more Wintel laptops than I can count, but only three Powerbooks. And they are all inferior for my needs. I am a journalist. Here is what I want: The keyboard size and feel of the 1400 with the speed and power of the 3400 and the inverted-T cursor keys of the 2400 in a machine that can accommodate all the expansion bells and whistles of the 3400 (CD-ROM bay etc.) yet without the end-of-the-world cinderblock weight of the 3400. About 5.5 lbs would be nice. The 1400 is weak, based on old architecture and insufficient to my power needs. The 3400 is overpowered, overloaded and heavy. I'm a writer who'll use Quark and Netscape on the road. I don't do presentations. The 2400 has a keyboard for pygmies. I can't type on it. I'm a touch-typist. And I need the inverted-T cursor keys. I can't navigate quickly through my word processing and scriptwriting software without them. And I'd like all of this for less than $3000. Can Apple deliver this to me? If not, I will never buy a Powerbook. Read the word again: "Never." If Motorola or someone else can, I say let them do it so I can buy it and "expand" the market as Jobs et al keep yakking about. Otherwise, this "expand" the market stuff is hot air hiding arrogance and fear. Last I heard, this is precisely what Motorola had in mind to release in early 1998. A CHRP notebook exactly as I've described and for the price I described. Let them release it, please. Or at least release one of your own. But if you don't you are miserably missing a key segment of the laptop market. Right now you're serving only traveling salesmen, people who do corporate presentations and students. I'm none of the above, nor are most laptop users I know.

4. Rhapsody. If this thing is supposed to run on Intel boxes, thereby opening up the market for the OS, why keep it proprietary as far as PowerPC boxes? That's idiotic.

5. Lastly, on a similar front, what's the point of CHRP if you don't license it to cloners? The whole idea, as I understand it, is so people can make boxes to run the OS without running to Apple for proprietary hardware. If Apple holds on to the license, all it gains is a new design that allows it to make boxes without actually using any of its own proprietary hardware. Boy, that makes sense.

There. I've said my peace. Please get this company on track and cut some licensing deals that work. And get the hell out of the hardware business. Like many MacAddicts, I love your OS and hate your boxes. They are and always have been overpriced, poorly marketed, poorly designed bricks with a great OS in them. You've survived only because your OS so far outdistances your dismal corporate structure, horrific marketing and miserable boxes that people tolerate everything else. That's one hell of an OS to do that. Too bad you guys don't yet realize it.

Hopefully the justice department will come crashing down on you and force you to license CHRP and put us all out of the misery of having to forever depend on Apple for everything.

From: awillis@MIT.EDU (Albert Willis);
Sent at 9/3/97; 4:01:41 AM;
It's about the MacOS

First, Power Computing customers didn't chose Apple, but they did chose MacOS. That's very important. I'm a little surprised at your new business plan for Power. The people who chose Power didn't want Windows NT, or they would have bought a Wintel machine. All of the Power owners I know would gag at the thought of Power being the MacOS to Windows NT company. They didn't buy into that. They bought into the MacOS.

Second, I'm surprised that people aren't looking at the economics of the situation. This is about economic survival for Apple. If Apple is subsidizing the cloners to the tune of hundreds of dollars per machine, how do you expect Apple to make a profit? Since we all know how great MacOS is, why aren't the clone vendors willing to pay Apple what it's worth? This has to change.

Apple has finally realized that Apple is about the MacOS. It's the crown jewels of the company. They are finally going to treat it as such; that also means getting what paid what it's worth. Power wasn't paying what it was worth; it wasn't expanding the MacOS market.

Third, Apple has said that it will honor the existing arrangements that is has with Umax, Motorola and IBM. Choice is still available in the MacOS market.

People who are looking at this as the reason to jump ship from MacOS are missing an important point: MacOS is still better than the alternatives. Even if you believe that what Apple did was a bone-headed move, that doesn't change the fact that most of us are more productive on MacOS and that it works better than anything else right now, especially for content creation. Are people willing to let a spat between Power and Apple change their computing platform, especially when that platform just got more competitive? That doesn't make sense. In spite of Apple, my Mac continues to work great. No matter what happens in Cupertino, my Mac continues to work great--I bet everyone elses does as well. Even though Apple bought out Power, I'm sure those machines continue to do what they were bought for as well. Funny how that works--business decisions don't affect the productivity I get from the machine on my desk.

For people looking to jump ship because Apple decided it was easier to pay $100 million for the right not to compete with itself and not lose money by subsidizing a licensee to the tune of a few hundred dollars per machine is beyond me. We should be upset with the people who created the original licensing scheme; not with the current board who is trying to do something proactive to get Apple back into the black again.

Power was important for what is symbolized, but it's the not the only game in town. Again, there are other companies that will continue to make MacOS machines that aren't from Apple. And they will be faster and cheaper than what you can get from Apple, so the choice is still a part of this market and it will continue to be.

The bottom line is: if Apple goes out of business because it embarked on a licensing plan that bleeds money, we all lose. Yes, we know all about the mistakes Apple has made in the past. We should be glad that it didn't continue another one. In the MacOS ecosystem, Apple has to survive in order to have the other players have something to sell. Without Apple, things suddenly get pretty boring. Steve and the new board took a step to make sure that doesn't happen.

Finally, Rhapsody sounds like your user friendly interface on top of a multitasking kernel with slick networking done right. It should be interesting when DR1 ships later this month.

From: dances_with_pixels@yes.net (Kent Barrett);
Sent at 9/2/97; 11:31:28 PM;
Thin Ice

Unlike many respondants (apparently), I have no experience commanding a multi-billion dollar enterprise. So when I see something like this (the Apple/Power Thingie) I can only imagine that the best guess of the best-and-brightest is that after the howling stops that this, too, will blow over. After all, how many remember the strikes at the AV Roe aircraft company after the cancellation of the Arrow?

Of course, Avro is no longer, so perhaps it is an unfortunate example, but when to do nothing is to die for sure, well you just follow your instincts (or your Microsift Excel spreadsheets if you are wise), and you act accordingly.

Interesting times.

From: mgabrys@netherworld.com (Montgomery Gabrys);
Sent at 9/3/97; 1:03:48 AM;
now it can be told

If you want to read where this is all coming from - I'm writing a weekly column that has my biase'd take on Steve Jobs and what the hell he's up to and have been following Apple for the last 20 years closely, and have researched the whole shebang enough that I actually BOUGHT a NeXT. If you are in the dark as per "what does Apple think it's doing" you could do worse than amuse yourself at

http://www.netherworld.com/~mgabrys/clock

it's cynical - but then aren't we all?

See the directory site for a list of important pages on this server This page was last built on Wed, Sep 3, 1997 at 7:24:31 PM, with Frontier. Internet service provided by Conxion. Mail to: webmaster@content.scripting.com. © copyright 1997 UserLand Software.