I can't tell you why Apple didn't go color on the Macintosh earlier since I was not an engineer then and there. (nor here and now) I suspect it had something to do with the serious infighting between Mr. Jobs and Mr. Scully. When one is on the road less traveled, or in this case, when one is making their own road, the team can spend some time sitting still, evaluating the next logical leg of the journey. Especially if there is a dichotomy of opinion!
At that time, there were the typesetters, which did not bother with graphics at all. They used language programming for the typesetting function. The output to the typesetter was the proof. Then there were the engineering workstations, which delivered high resolution graphics. Both types of machines were VERY EXPENSIVE! Much too high for the average Joe to buy. The color graphics on PCs at that time were somewhat primitive by today's standards. 16 color block graphics. And 256 color high resolution graphics. But, the only major use at the time was for playing games.
But remember! When Apple did put color on the Mac OS, it was unlike anything available for Intel OS's. That was due in part to the GUI that never yielded to an 80 column text screen. Without low, medium and high rez modes, the Mac's display started at 256 colors and went up with available memory. And, because of the square pixel, the Macs displayed scanned color images with what appeared to the untrained eye as photographic quality, something unheard of on the Intel iron.
Yes the Wintel inventory bloodbath continues! While Apple tightens its dealer channel to lower expenses, improve inventory control and protect the operability of dedicated dealers within the channel, The Wintel side of the market is doing its own channel tightening through market forces. It sorta gives me the feeling that Apple's current management is well tuned to the sector forces at work.
Another force at work here is one that you and I have discussed here before. Saturation. Computers only appeal to a certain type of person. There are many people who watch the passing technology parade and prefer not to become swept up in the frenzy of enthusiasm. The consumer market is well saturated at this point. Rate of declines in market growth over the next few years will depend greatly on and be inversely affected by the level of repeat buying and consumer upgrading. This is the underlying iceberg effect of the entire sector. New leading edge technology snows down on top of the build up of old hard pack used computer iron. Remember! Most of these machines will run for a long time before they give out. The flow of new technology drives upgrades which in turn is fueling a secondary market of used machines. The secondary market competes with the under $1K Compaq and others. THAT is why the attempt to drop margins and sell on volume FAILED!
The only sales model which will work, with under $1k new computers competing with under $1k used hard pack built up in the market, is a sales model in which the new product differentiates itself from the old product with SPEED and DESIGN elements that give the consumer an impression that he is keeping up with the technology and not lagging. IMHO the iMac fills this niche nicely. It dangles out there at just a couple of hundred more than the slow bland merchandise, whether new or used. It beckons with the promise of avoiding the programmed obsolescence penalty, with their sizable investment, for several years instead of buying into the obsolescence today for only slightly less money. It impresses the neighbors. That is worth $200 more to the Jones'.
Re: Online Auctions
I got sucked into buying a monitor through one of the online auction sites. I would advise anyone to avoid their ILK.
Enjoy your weekend,
HerbVic |
