Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!apple!korn
From: korn@apple.UUCP (Peter "Arrgh" Korn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Commodore's handling of the Amiga  [was Re: Apple stumbles...]
Message-ID: <6848@apple.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Nov-87 21:17:10 EST
Article-I.D.: apple.6848
Posted: Sat Nov 28 21:17:10 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Dec-87 03:33:10 EST
References: <8711030308.AA01230@cory.Berkeley.EDU> <6613@apple.UUCP> <13812@felix.UUCP> <6086@ccicpg.UUCP>
Reply-To: korn@apple.UUCP (Peter "Arrgh" Korn)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, USA
Lines: 85
Summary: flame at Mr. Milne, who insinuates that I'm posting for personal gain

Keywords:

Disclaimer:  I wasn't hired to give Apple's opinions


[I knew it.  I shouldn't have posted my original posting.  I knew it would
generate flames, I knew it I knew it I knew it...]

In article <6086@ccicpg.UUCP> harald@ccicpg.UUCP ( Harald Milne) writes:
>>
>>  [several people chiding Mr. Milne about a quote in his response to my
>>   original posting, wherein he said that under NFS on his Amiga he could
>>   get a very large amount of storage space for about the cost of a small
>>   hard drive]  (please excuse minor inaccuracies; these details aren't the
>>   important part)
>>
>	This is VERY snipped up from my original reply to someone from Apple.
>What steamed me was the comment on how expensive NFS would be on the Amiga.
>Nothing like calling the kettle black. A slightly vested interest here. I
>couldn't dream of having a Mac II working the way I have my Amiga working
>currently for anywhere near the same price.

I feel compeled to respond to this, if only for the insinuation that my
original posting on the matter came out of any vested interest in convincing
a group of people in a Macintosh related forum that the macintosh is better
than some other machine (in this specific case, the Commodore Amiga).

As I stated in my original posting, there exists a relatively inexpensive
networking solution for the Macintosh that is relatively easy to set up,
maintain, and use; and furthermore that this solution is very widely supported
by nearly all of a relatively large Macintosh software base (including a
number of products specific to the network for such tasks as electronic
mail, file service, file transfer, shared hardware [modems and other serial
devices, not just a shared LaserWriter], etc.).

Additionally I said that the same cannot be said of the Amiga.  NFS costs more
than Appletalk, isn't very widely available in retail stores, requires far
more knowledable a user to maintain and use, and doesn't have nearly the
wealth of software to support it on the Amiga (not merely in the sense of 
'the software uses high level filing protocalls so it will work over the 
network', but in the sense of products designed specifically to work over it, 
like TOPS, or MacServe, or AppleShare, or InterMail, or InBox,...).

Lastly I cited this as a possible reason why the Amiga wasn't selling as
well in the business market as the Macintosh was.

Certainly if I'm only looking out for any vested interest I wouldn't be
trying to point out publicly areas in which I felt a competitor could improve 
it's market position.  Yet it seems that I stand accused of acting in my 
own vested interests in this matter.

I have said in another posting on this matter that clearly a NFS system at
Ethernet speeds is superior to an Appletalk system running on 200K baud 
cabling; I doubt that there is any debate on this subject (though perhaps 
I go too far with that statement...).  But let me state again that not 
everyone *needs* to go at that speed, and for those that don't, Apple has 
a solution that a competitor doesn't really have.  By saying this to a
group of people that include a large number of hardware and software developers
I'm to be interpreted as perpretrating lies or half-truths in an attempt
to increase Apple's market share?

Certainly an Amiga NFS system should cost less than a Macintosh II NFS system
(although why Mr. Milne assumes that A/UX would be required on the MacII
for NFS is beyond me).  I never stated the contrary before, though perhaps
there might have been some confusion on the part of someone who read more
meaning into my words than was genuinely there.

For the record, my original posting came from my experiences selling both
the Amiga and Macintosh in a retail store in Berkeley (in addition to Ataris
and PC compatibles), and my evaluation of the market share that each of
these machines took in the various different market areas that we sold to.
Certainly there was a lot of praise for the Amiga in my posting.  The Amiga
is a very powerful machine with quite a number of points to recommend it.
It is not a Macintosh, and doesn't do a number of things that the Macintosh
does; most especially it doesn't do the things that I need my Macintosh to
do, which is why I own a Macintosh and not an Amiga.  Reasoning similar to
mine is partly why (I feel) far more people own Macintoshes than Amigas (I
won't reiterate my reasons on this; this posting is long enough as it is).

Lastly, to lay the 'vested interest' issue to rest, let me state that I am NOT 
an Apple Employee.  I do NOT own any stock in Apple (foolish me), and my only 
interest in Apple's success from a monetary point of view is that they pay 
the company that I work for to do contract work for them; if Apple goes out 
of business than I will have to contract elsewhere.  However, at this point, 
the Amiga isn't a threat in that reguard, and certainly pointing out marketing 
faults isn't making it any less of a threat.

Peter "whew" Korn
-- 
 Peter "Arrgh" Korn    korn@apple.com   !hplabs!amdahl!apple!korn    "Hi mom!"