Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site plus5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!plus5!eric
From: eric@plus5.UUCP (Eric W. Kiebler)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: obsolescence: what gives Mac its value?
Message-ID: <616@plus5.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Mar-85 13:27:26 EST
Article-I.D.: plus5.616
Posted: Fri Mar  1 13:27:26 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Mar-85 04:42:55 EST
References: <4295@glacier.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: Plus Five Computer Services, St. Louis
Lines: 98

> Anybody who thinks that the presence of this or that wonderful new computer
> is going to seriously impact the value of a Mac does not understand where
> that value comes from.
> 
	.
	.
	.
> I am quite confident that on February 26, 1990, five years from today, I
> will still be getting useful work done on my Macintosh, and that there will
> still be reasons why I am reluctant to switch from it to the then-favorite
> computer. I am equally confident that on February 26, 1995, ten years from
> today, that there will be quite a number of people worldwide who are still
> getting useful work done with their Macintoshes. I probably will have moved
> up by then.

One can still get useful work done with an ASR33, but their utility has been
seriously diminished by the advancing sophistication of text formats.  First,
who could ever want more than 5 bits of information?  Then 6 bits (for you
DEC-10 fans).  Then 7 bits.  Then ANSI rendition selections.  Now, MacFonts.
Now, PostScript language.

Technology advances often provide opportunities for new approaches to old
problems.  As the new approaches become standard, the less capable machines
*gradually* loose their utility.

Different markets demonstrate different characteristics of people.  Some want
the newest and best because it is newest and best, others because they simply
can't find anything that meets the cost/performance criteria.  Others simply
want to join the club, and are satisfied with what they have, and enjoy
sqeezing a machine to the limits to get it to do what someone else can
do with little difficulty whatsoever.  Others simply can't afford an new
machine.  The list is endless.

With all this in mind, I predict Mac's will become obsolete.  IBM's are
obsolete in a purely technological sense, but people still get plenty of
work done with them (PC's, I mean).

I bought my Mac because I know that icon-based programming is going to be
prevalent for about 5 years at least, and the Mac was the cheapest way to
get into the area fast.  I expect to upgrade my Mac as fast as possible as new
machines in the line are introduced (Mac XL excluded) just to make sure that
I understand the issues involved with the machines at all levels of their
operation.  Should comeone come out with a MacVoltron, I expect the software
to be based on previous concepts, as opposed to actual original concepts.

> 
> This is why I am not worried about this or that new computer having much
> impact on the value of my Mac. While the Mac is not perfect, not
> state-of-the-art, not as good as it could have been, it probably would not
> have been as successful if it had been better. The Mac has succeeded in
> raising the consciousnesses of a whole generation of Americans about what
> computers can do; until the Mac came along, most people thought that the IBM
> PC was a good computer. Now they know better.

	They don't know better.  They still buy them.  Can't hardly get
	an AT delivered, and when they start selling VM on a really small
	box, there will be little competition.  COBOL folks don't want
	to learn C -- they want to make COBOL win.  

> ... If the Mac had been 40%
> "better", or 50% "better", it might not have had the impact that it has had,
> and therefore it might have been a failure even though it was "better".

	Then again, I have seen people buy computers because one was
	3-5% faster than another!  "I don't write programs, so I don't
	care."  "I don't use the programs, I just want the compiler to
	run fast.  Screw the users." 

> 
> If you read the history of computer design and computer sales and computer
> company failures, you will see this happening over and over and over again.
> The best computers are not the ones that are most technologically advanced,
> they are the ones that are suffiently advanced to be worth switching to, but
> not so advanced as to be cut off from the (changing) mainstream of
> technology.

I agree almost entirely:  "...state of the art in technological design
expertise."

Also, service is a big deal in both the home and business markets.  Most people
have the "washing-machine" mentality even though they are buying something
completely different.  "Can I get it fixed" is a good question.  What they
don't think about is "Can I get it fixed in 4 years, and if so, will it
really matter?"  People hang on to washing machines for years and years, and
they expect them to remain useful forever.  Computers are just not like
that yet, and people want them to be.  Apple has come a long way in making
people understand the technical issues of using computers, but they have
not (and probably should not be expected to) educated their customers
concerning long-term computing strategy.  If they did, they wouldn't be
able to sell a machine with a serial interface to a disk drive.

eric

-- 
..!ihnp4!wucs!plus5!eric	
..!ihnp4!plus5!eric
(314) 725-9492