>(I'm answering to Tonys mail, since I never recived Charles')
>
>I got a somewhat different momory on this topic. Back when
>the Mac was new, it was like a 180 Degree shift in Apples
>information policy. In my view Apple did anything to hinder
>developers. And that'S not only my opinion - back then I was
>part of a 'gang' of A][ freaks, and of course we where interested
>in the Mac, but beside the deadly high price for the Mac,
>the even higher costs of documentations and the lack of a
>real choice in programming language was prohibitive. With
>the Apple ][ you recived a full machine and OS description
>free of additional charge - for the Mac with a price, at least
>double to tripple the price of an A][ you go _nothing_, you
>rather had to spend again almost again the money for an A][,
>just for documentation and very minimalistic tools. And if
>this isn't enough, you had to sign a contract with Apple to
>get all the stuff - you know, they didn't want to sell just
>to geeks anymore. Only two of us did jump onto the Mac - all
>other stayed with the A][, and eventualy became IBM-PC guys.
>IBM did exactly the same as Apple with the A][ - give information
>to the people - yes, they charged, but way less than Apple,
>and you don't need to sell your soul - if your able to tell
>the Name of the document you got it. Well, yes, if we walked
>into the IBM store (Aeh, not store... royal dependance:) at
>this time, we didn't get the same 'audience' as 'real' customers,
>but we told what we want (i.e. an order number) and we get
>it fast and as we want it.
>
>And don't tell me about the complex informations etc. At this
>Time I was already doing some (truly small) jobs with Xerox
>systems - IMHO a way better integrated system as the Mac ever
>did become. It should have been the responsibility of Apple
>to give the developers info out the easy way.
>
>Gruss
>H.
>
>--
>VCF Europa am 29./30. April 2000 in Muenchen
>http://www.vintage.org/vcfe
>http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe
Well, since everyone on the list has thrown in their two (or more) cents, I
finally feel it is my turn.
Anyway, Hans has a good point going here, Apple did with the Macintosh what
TI tried to do when the TI-99/4A was out: try to block out third party
developers. What can we learn from this? Very simple, never try to tell
people they can't develop hardware & software for a machine, because that
will only give people the extra push they need to develop stuff for a
computer.
But this is something I have noticed: We all know how many PC manufacturers
are abound (maybe too many), by there are how many Macintosh clone
manufacturers? (I can't think of any off the top of my head)
And the Government is jumping in Microsoft's back for being monopolistic?
They might want to look on the other end of the spectrum. (Now I can
understand why IBM & Motorola are pissed off at Apple for not letting clone
manufacturers use G3/G4's in their Maclones.) If you ask me, (and so begins
my conspiracy theory) I think the Microsoft Antitrust Trial was a sham,
because why would CEO's of major software houses go against Microsoft when,
in most cases, their software is flying off the shelves? You do not bite the
hand that feeds you, unless the hand being bitten is not feeding you! If you
ask me, I think only one man had something to gain from this, his name is
Steve Jobs.
____________________________________________________________
David Vohs, Digital Archaeologist & Computer Historian.
Computer Collection:
"Triumph": Commodore 64C, 1802, 1541, FSD-1, GeoRAM 512, Okimate 20.
"Leela": Macintosh 128 (Plus upgrade), Nova SCSI HDD, Imagewriter II.
"Delorean": TI-99/4A.
"Monolith": Apple Macintosh Portable.
"Spectrum": Tandy Color Computer 3.
"Boombox": Sharp PC-7000.
____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Mon Apr 10 2000 - 17:48:46 BST