As per the title. What changes would be necessary to make the Apple III reasonably successful financially for Apple, and what effects would that have on the future of Apple, IBM, and the world more generally?
AHC/WI: Successful Apple III?
- Thread starter Workable Goblin
- Start date
Tallest Skil
Banned
Are we assuming that it was still designed by the marketing department and a success, or that it was designed by the engineers?
That's sort of a big turning point.
That's sort of a big turning point.
Will Kürlich Kerl
Banned
You basically butterflied away the iMac, and possibly even the iPod and the iPhone because this Apple might stay out of the phone market.
That's why it's an AHC/WI, not just a WI...which do you think would be more plausible for Apple to do at this time and which do you think would be more likely to achieve the title goal?
I would say this has more to do with the fact that, 1, the iMac was introduced more than 10 years after the Apple III, 2 the iPod and iPhone closer to 20 years later, and 3 the Apple III was targeted for a more business-oriented environment, so implicitly an Apple with a successful Apple III will be more business oriented than Apple IOTL.
On the gripping hand, you had the Newton, and Jobs was...well, Jobs. A more successful (and business-oriented) Apple might enter the market sooner, but with a more Blackberry-type product, perhaps.
On that note...if the Apple III is successful, Sculley might not become CEO of Apple and Jobs might simply stay with the company rather than having his "years in the wilderness". This could mean no NeXTSTEP and no Pixar. The former in particular would have an incalculable impact on the world by today (recall that Tim Berners-Lee was using NeXT hardware when he developed the Web...!), and the latter would have a significant cultural impact (or lack thereof).
Well, let's identify the problems with the Apple III:
1. The inside was basically a convection oven which caused chips to unseat themselves from the motherboard and resultant catastrophic failures;
2. It cost $5,000 to $8,000;
3. It wasn't fully backwards-compatible with the Apple II -- specifically, it ran in a weird emulation mode that caused any Apple II program addressing more than 48K of RAM not to work properly;
4. Nat Semi's internal clock chip -- which was soldered to the motherboard -- didn't work properly; and, finally
5. At it's core, the Apple III was still a 6502A-based machine, which is to say that it was not a major upgrade in terms of hardware over the rest of the 6502 market.
So, with those flaws in mind, it seems to me that the best bet here is to have massive delays in the Apple III project (before it's even announced) so that (a) engineering will discover the cooling problems; (b) Congress can pass regulations lessening the need for heavy RF shielding; and (c) Apple can take advantage of the major price drop in the marketplace for both the 6502 and for 16K RAM chips. Oh, and they can make the thing fully backwards-compatible while they're at it.
A redesigned Apple III that came out in early 1982 with 128K RAM, the cheaper 6502B, a plastic case with vents and active cooling, and SOS (the only really good feature of the Apple III, IMO) -- and selling for, say, half OTL's price ($1,999) -- would probably dominate the market until 1984.
1. The inside was basically a convection oven which caused chips to unseat themselves from the motherboard and resultant catastrophic failures;
2. It cost $5,000 to $8,000;
3. It wasn't fully backwards-compatible with the Apple II -- specifically, it ran in a weird emulation mode that caused any Apple II program addressing more than 48K of RAM not to work properly;
4. Nat Semi's internal clock chip -- which was soldered to the motherboard -- didn't work properly; and, finally
5. At it's core, the Apple III was still a 6502A-based machine, which is to say that it was not a major upgrade in terms of hardware over the rest of the 6502 market.
So, with those flaws in mind, it seems to me that the best bet here is to have massive delays in the Apple III project (before it's even announced) so that (a) engineering will discover the cooling problems; (b) Congress can pass regulations lessening the need for heavy RF shielding; and (c) Apple can take advantage of the major price drop in the marketplace for both the 6502 and for 16K RAM chips. Oh, and they can make the thing fully backwards-compatible while they're at it.
A redesigned Apple III that came out in early 1982 with 128K RAM, the cheaper 6502B, a plastic case with vents and active cooling, and SOS (the only really good feature of the Apple III, IMO) -- and selling for, say, half OTL's price ($1,999) -- would probably dominate the market until 1984.
Tallest Skil
Banned
The former is more plausible, the latter is more likely to achieve the goal. That's why I asked.
Which also means the Internet will be ludicrously different.
Tallest Skil
Banned
Yes, as I pointed out
What would it be like, I wonder… Probably created heavily by Microsoft…
Where's the "the horror" emoticon… ah, this emoji should do.
What would it be like, I wonder… Probably created heavily by Microsoft…
Where's the "the horror" emoticon… ah, this emoji should do.
??? Apple being stronger should make Microsoft weaker. How do you think it would be stronger?
Especially since this would strike directly at IBM's computer business (and therefore the IBM clones which were the basis for Microsoft's business) and Apple OTL introduced a major early networking protocol...