StarDestroyer.Net BBS

We all know that Apple used to allow clones of Macs back in the 1990s. They later killed that competition as they were bleeding Apple dry. Power Computing was killing them on the low end and UMAX and Daystay Digital were killing them on the high end.

Secondly, Apple's corporate culture was, to put it bluntly, shitty. There was no vision or focus and corporate resources were frittered away on badly managed projects. Then there were fiascos like Copland, Pink, Rhaphsody, etc.

The most damning aspect of Apple is that ten years ago or so, they had more revenue than Microsoft and Dell combined. $8bn versus $4+2bn or so. Now? Microsoft has revenues in the $40bn range with Dell half that or so. Apple? $6 billion. Yes, they contracted.

So here's a thought for the board. What if Apple allowed cloning in 1989? Yes, way back in the day. Would they have a greater marketshare? Would it have been killed by cost-cutting? Or would the great AMD/Intel speed war leave Motorola in the dust?

Been reading Mac.Ars, have we?

I personally think that the Mac OS would be the dominant OS had Apple licensed their operating system to clone makers. They clearly had the better user interface at that time, but people just didn't want to pay the premium. Had Mac become the dominant computer platform, Motorola probably would've gotten its act together with regards to chip manufacturing because they'd have a lot more to gain from it. In 1989, it was basically anyone's game in terms of PC's. Microsoft made the cheaper (albeit far inferior) GUI and licensed it, which made it accessible to more people, hence their dominance in the market today. I still don't know what Apple were thinking when they decided that people would destroy their budgets just to get a nicer-looking word processor.

Of course, if that was the case, we'd have a completely different Apple today. Being the underdog, Apple have become one of the most innovative companies on the planet. Their desperate need for marketshare spurred them to embrace open standards and basically become an industry leader for style and innovation. I like the Apple of today a lot. I bitch and moan about their shortcomings, but ultimately, I think that Steve Jobs has done a spectacular job with the company. He's got the ability to look at a technology, see the problems with it and then fix them. He did it with the iMac, iPod and the iTunes Music Service. Basically, I'd prefer the Apple of today to an Apple that has a dominant marketshare.

On the other hand, Microsoft might have been forced to innovate more, allowing for real competition in the OS world. (Linux will probably be less affected). On the hardware front, Intel will also get some serious competition early, with all the other x86 CPU makers in the fray.

I'm not so sure about Motorola, though. Good, yes, but enough to win once the inevitable x86 speed war starts up?

I dont pay as much attention to hardware as I should considering my work in IT, (mainly customer service focused) however I do have an opinion. If Apple took a route where they allowed clones and the clones could build generic peripherals like joysticks, video cards, printers, etc then maybe the would have had chance.

I remember when I was a kid I had a TI-99/4a. For me using that computer was much more intuitive than my C-64, but the C-64 won in the end because all software, hardware, and extras for the TI-99 had to approved by TI. That just killed it for me. I could buy and Atari joystick for like 20 bucks for a C-64 and the joystick for the TI was like 50 bucks. Apple brings the same frustrations for me , too much of it is proprietary.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:I dont pay as much attention to hardware as I should considering my work in IT, (mainly customer service focused) however I do have an opinion. If Apple took a route where they allowed clones and the clones could build generic peripherals like joysticks, video cards, printers, etc then maybe the would have had chance.

Actually, third parties had been making add-ons since the Apple II days and that carried over to the Mac. There were a few barriers:

1. Apple had their own Apple Desktop Bus (ADB) for peripherals. It could not be hotplugged until the PowerBook G3 came out, but you could daisy-chain it (unlike it's PC counterparts).
2. The Mac used RS422 for its serial port, where most of the rest of the world use RS232.
3. Apple was an extensive user of SCSI, which was (and remains) more expensive than IDE.
4. No standardized expansion options. NuBus was used on the high-end until PCI came out, but the other machines had a LOT of different ways to add things. RAM was much the same way - many different sizes and timings.

This is an interesting question, but I think that the Apple of today wouldn't exist if they did. Cloning certainly didn't help IBM did it? They aren't even in the home PC sector anymore.

Anyways, I think Apple's greatest strength over x86 is their industrial design and closed software. If they opened it up to cloning they would lose a great deal of their control over their product and they would have trouble justifying keeping prices so high and thus their design aspects would suffer (I mean, if there was an alternative, would you really give Apple a $500 premium just for a pretty case?). From a business perspective it was probably a good thing and they may have lower sales now, but they have carved themselves out a nice niche in the PC sector that, although I don't use their product, I both like and respect.

You're forgetting that Apple did both hardware and software. Cloning would have no effect on their software other than allowing them to sell more of it.

Crayz9000 wrote:You're forgetting that Apple did both hardware and software. Cloning would have no effect on their software other than allowing them to sell more of it.

At the time they didn't do too much software - mostly the operating system. IIRC, they had already spun off their consumer software division into Claris (who was later brought back into the fold).

Apple of 1989 isn't like Apple of 2003, the latter of which has a good number of software titles.

phongn wrote: 2. The Mac used RS422 for its serial port, where most of the rest of the world use RS232.

That is interesting to learn. Heck, my last company used RS232 ports to comunicate with the cards they produced. You could also talk to them via ethernet but since RS232 is so prevelant it just made sense. Not to mention you dont need blazing speeds to talk to something via a telnet session.

The two formats could be converted, but that kept the Macs out of a lot of places. Apple now uses RS232 for their XServe line, but perversely have not front-mounted that port, choosing to shove in back (and on a rackmount no less!)

Durandal wrote: They clearly had the better user interface at that time

Nope. Naw.

*points to two button mouse on PC, vs Single button mouse on Mac*

EDIT: Graphically, they may have been ahead of Windows 3.11, or whatever
the hell M$ was using back in '89, but their single button mouses were
dinosaurs from the early 80s.

Look at the companies that are succeeding:

-Microsoft: They'd be nothing without Windows, a single product.

-Dell: They build computers. Only recently have the started making their own software, and the software garners almost zero attention.

-Nvidia/ATI: They built their success on graphics cards.

-Creative: Sound cards, primarily.

All successful companies started out by SPECIALIZING their product base, rather than trying to do everything at once, as Apple did. Apple was, in essence, the Jack of all trades, Master of none. They stay alive today mostly because of a stable OS.... they lost the speed wars, they REALLY lost the price wars. Aside from stability, all they have is purdiness, and looking at some of the computer cases and monitors you can get for PC, they don't have a lead in that category, either.

MKSheppard wrote:

Durandal wrote: They clearly had the better user interface at that time

Nope. Naw.

*points to two button mouse on PC, vs Single button mouse on Mac*

MKSheppard wrote:EDIT: Graphically, they may have been ahead of Windows 3.11, or whatever
the hell M$ was using back in '89, but their single button mouses were
dinosaurs from the early 80s.

Which is why most sane people bought mice with more than one button System 7 was far and away more advanced than the Windows 3.X series, the latter simply couldn't compare.

SPOOFE wrote:Look at the companies that are succeeding:

-Microsoft: They'd be nothing without Windows, a single product.

Initially, Office was their real cash cow. Not much could compete with it - WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 fell behind the race and died. Windows would come later - Microsoft could have easily survived without Windows.

All successful companies started out by SPECIALIZING their product base, rather than trying to do everything at once, as Apple did. Apple was, in essence, the Jack of all trades, Master of none. They stay alive today mostly because of a stable OS.... they lost the speed wars, they REALLY lost the price wars. Aside from stability, all they have is purdiness, and looking at some of the computer cases and monitors you can get for PC, they don't have a lead in that category, either.

Back in 1989 or so, the Mac was the undisputed speed champion and would remain so until the PPC604e days. The G3 and early G4 era was of parity; today they have just barely regained performance parity on the high end and in the laptop arena. What is not recognized is that they were master of virtually all in their heyday.

But you're also somewhat correct - Apple had a huge tendancy in the 1990s to fritter away resources on stuff rather than concentrating like they should have. Furthermore, they never had enough inventory (months-long backlog on machines that would have sold in a heartbeat) and like Compaq, scuppered their sales team in 89-90 on the false assumption that corporate computer sales are 'impulse' buys.

Apple will never really die though, because real Macintosh zealots are the most fanatic and maniacal people there are. They redefine "corporate loyalty".

phongn wrote: But you're also somewhat correct - Apple had a huge tendancy in the 1990s to fritter away resources on stuff rather than concentrating like they should have.

cough...Apple Newton....

Bah, I liked the Newton. It just couldn't compete with cheap alternatives coming out - namely Palm. I'm still tempted to get an old MessagePad 2100 off of eBay and use it for taking notes. At the very least Newton saw the light of day - Apple had many projects that were never to be seen.

As for Apple zealotry, that alone cannot keep them afloat.

MKSheppard wrote:

Durandal wrote: They clearly had the better user interface at that time

Nope. Naw.

*points to two button mouse on PC, vs Single button mouse on Mac*

EDIT: Graphically, they may have been ahead of Windows 3.11, or whatever the hell M$ was using back in '89, but their single button mouses were dinosaurs from the early 80s.

You've obviously never worked technical support, have you? There are plenty of people who I'd dread explaining the concept of a right-click to. While I have a 5-button mouse and love it, it's certainly not for everyone. Neither is a one-button mouse. Apple like to cater to the lowest common intellectual denominator, so they include a one-button mouse

And graphically, System 7 was light-years ahead of Windows 3.11. The gap closed significantly with Windows 95, and I'd say that OS 8.5 and Windows 98 were about on the same level. Right now, I personally like Jaguar much better than XP, but I think that XP is a solid OS both in terms of stability and ease of use (though I still detest Microsoft's network setup interface).

SPOOFE wrote:All successful companies started out by SPECIALIZING their product base, rather than trying to do everything at once, as Apple did. Apple was, in essence, the Jack of all trades, Master of none. They stay alive today mostly because of a stable OS.... they lost the speed wars, they REALLY lost the price wars. Aside from stability, all they have is purdiness, and looking at some of the computer cases and monitors you can get for PC, they don't have a lead in that category, either.

You're severely underplaying the advantages of having both hardware and software from one company. As a result of manufacturing every Mac shipped in the past 5 years, Apple can turn out new OS releases much faster than Microsoft (1 per year so far, with Panther and Jaguar being very significant upgrades). They stay alive because they know how to market to the sense of aesthetics and how to make work flow easier. When the first cutesy iMacs were debuting, it was about a pretty case. Now it's about something stylish, professional and fast. The G5's and Panther exemplify Apple's new philosophy.

And, if you don't think that Apple, as a company, are succeeding, then you're delusional. They haven't skipped a beat in turning a profit every quarter for the past few years, and the iPod is now the MP3 player benchmark.

Xisiqomelir wrote:Apple will never really die though, because real Macintosh zealots are the most fanatic and maniacal people there are. They redefine "corporate loyalty".

As Scott Adams would say, they are the rich, stupid market segment.

You're severely underplaying the advantages of having both hardware and software from one company.

And you're underplaying the DISadvantages of maintaining a proprietary format, rather than being compatible with the rest of the market.

And, if you don't think that Apple, as a company, are succeeding, then you're delusional.

If you look at the past four or five years only, yes, I will agree that they're succeeding. But if you look at the past twenty years, you'll be scratching your head wondering just how in hell Apple still exists. I guess managing to stay alive against all odds IS a success... sort of...

YT300000 wrote:

Xisiqomelir wrote:Apple will never really die though, because real Macintosh zealots are the most fanatic and maniacal people there are. They redefine "corporate loyalty".

As Scott Adams would say, they are the rich, stupid market segment.

Not really. "Rich stupid" types want what everyone ELSE is using.

I'd say that the real MacAddicts are:

1) People whose first computer was a Mac
2) People who used them in school
3) Specialist App users (DTP, DTV, Sound, Photoshop users)
4) PC converts from any era, but most especially from Windows 3.xx

SPOOFE wrote:But if you look at the past twenty years, you'll be scratching your head wondering just how in hell Apple still exists. I guess managing to stay alive against all odds IS a success... sort of...

Apple is great because it's stock is so cyclical.

Buy at $16, sell after $40.

SPOOFE wrote:And you're underplaying the DISadvantages of maintaining a proprietary format, rather than being compatible with the rest of the market.

Nice job of evading the point. You claimed that one company developing both hardware and software was contradictory to your hastily-assembled criterion of success (specialization) for the computing world. I said that there were advantages to that approach, which Apple have exemplified by their continued success in the market. What does not being able to build a cheap-as-shit Mac box have to do with anything?

If you look at the past four or five years only, yes, I will agree that they're succeeding. But if you look at the past twenty years, you'll be scratching your head wondering just how in hell Apple still exists. I guess managing to stay alive against all odds IS a success... sort of...

The company has direction and a good figurehead, has consistently set the baseline for consumer PC design for the last 5 years, won numerous design awards for their products in the past 5 years, turned a profit for the past 5 years, has $4 billion in the bank, successfully expanded into digital peripheral markets with their "digital hub" strategy, is shipping OS updates in a timely fashion, has a name that is virtually synonymous with "ease of use" in computing and has overall revolutionized the PC industry, repeatedly, through the early adoption of standards in both hardware and software. Where they point, the industry follows. I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that the fruity computer company who designs pretty boxes which 1337 g33kz0rs don't consider to be real computers has had a major influence on the computing industry throughout its existence, but that's the simple fact. What exactly is unsuccessful about them? The fact that they went through the Dark Ages with Gil Amelio?

Durandal wrote:What exactly is unsuccessful about them? The fact that they went through the Dark Ages with Gil Amelio?

Scully the Traitor selling the company jewels to the Redmond monster.