> I'm curious. Would anyone claim that Apple's recovery a) doesn't address
>whatever core problems were responsible for our earlier problems, or b)
>was not primarily driven by paying better attention to our customers.
>Neither iMac nor Mac OS X is fantastic new technology; it is old
>technology packaged in a far more useful or interesting fashion.
Well I personally feel Apple's recovery is based on a few things.
1) America lovers the underdog, and it's a romantic story. Prodigal son
comes home and gives it his best shot.
2) People realize just what shit Microsoft puts out. No matter how bad
MacOS ever was it's never been as bad as shipping Win95.
3) Apple finally created a decent line of computers. I can now buy a fast
maching to match my budget. Under Skully/Spindler et al: I was punished if
I didn't have enough money to buy the top of the line. If anyone wants to
argue this point I have a few words for you:
That said my main concern is Apple falling into the Ginzu Knife problem. If
you remember the first series of Ginzu commericals on TV ("that's a clever
Cleaver") they sold so many that they put themselves out of business trying
to keep up with demand. Clearly Apple is back logged in hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of equipment, while continuing to innovate new
machines. I'm hoping the production problems get worked out soon.
Nobody really cared if Apple tanked it,
but now if Apple tanks it, it also tanks NeXT,
and we're going to do everything in our power
to make sure that doesn't happen. ... anonymous NeXT employee
<> firstname.lastname@example.org <>