>From: "C.W. Otto Sohn" <oky_at_avalon.net>
>To: newtontalk_at_newtontalk.net
>Subject: Re: [NTLK] Apple's TIL retired
>Date: Tue, Aug 7, 2001, 12:09 PM
>
>
> Bill,
>
> The problem is not that Apple "updated" its "Knowledge Base", the problem
> is that TIL is retired altogether. The nice thing about TIL was that you
> had STATIC URLs fo specific articles which you could just include on your
> website (just like the FAQs do). Now with Knowledge Base and the Knowledge
> Archive you can only search and NOT BROWSE, retrieving only a fraction of
> the articles that were available on TIL. And: the whole thing (Knowledge
> Base) returns dynamic URLs.
Actually, it's only a problem for newer products. According to the Knowledge
Base, information for products released before 1997 is in the "Knowledge
Base Archive" which is apparently analagous to the old TIL archive.
Interestingly, the KB Archive differs from the KB in two important respects:
1) It doesn't seem to require a login
2) It does return static URLs.
> I've been thinking about this "retiring" of TIL and I honestly believe that
> that was an extremely unreflected and hasty move. You know, there are tons
> of independent websites and mailinglists, dealing with and supporting Apple
> soft- and hardware, who make frequent reference to articles that used to be
> accessible on TIL via static URL. Now all these helpful sites and people
> can say is:
>
> "Go ahead and poke around on Apple's Knowledge Base and try to find that
> information you're looking for yourself. I know it should be there
> somewhere but I can't give you the direct link."
>
> Honestly, with the static URL based TIL you'd just make a link on your
> website that points EXACTLY at the "nxxxxx" article that answers that
> specific question.
What it hurts are sites like MacFixIt that try to report the latest info on
the latest systems. OTOH, info on the Newton or pre-G3 Macs can still be
supported the old way. (I think it may even be possible for webmasters to
map TIL Archive URLs to KB archive URLs since I think they use the same
document numbers.
>>Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 10:05:00 -0500
>>From: "Bill davis newton" <newton_at_mail.ecity.net>
>>Subject: Re: [NTLK] Apple's TIL retired
>>
>>(...)
>>
>>No, it's NOT shortsighted. It's the right move. If you don't have a
>>G3 by now, then it's time to upgrade. Most people seem to keep their
>>Macs longer than they keep their cars. A lot longer.
I suspect that there is a TCOO issue there related to the fact that you are
comparing a mechanical device to a (largely) electronic one.
OTOH, I see an awful lot of mid-80's Japanese cars on the road (and would
probably see more if I didn't live in a high-rust area).
>>The long useful life of Macs (and Newtons) is a "plus" to us as
>>customers....but I think a detriment to Apple and even it's
>>developers.
>>
>>Think how many times Windoze users typically upgraded their PC's in the
>>time period between your Plus and your PPC. Think of all the money the
>>PC companies made.
>>
>>Now think of all the money Apple DIDN'T make because you didn't switch
>>from a Plus to something newer until the PPC's came out (7-10 years).
Gil Armelia makes a similar comment in his book about his term as CEO.
Basically, he talked about how people would come to him and say wonderful
things about how they are still using 7yr old Macs. He felt very mixed
emotions since, while it was something to be proud of, he realized that
Apple had missed a chance to sell that person two newer systems.
>>But this long life sure doesn't happen much with PC's (except maybe
>>small-time server machines). It's called planned obsolesence, coupled
>>with technology advancement. And it's what drives the PC market.
>>Apple didn't participate in the planned obsolesence part....and thus is
>>penalized in market share, sales, etc. Sure, they made some stupid
>>decisions here and there too (such as not licensing the OS for years)
>>but I think people using their Macs for a lot longer than a typical PC
>>gets used has something to do with Apple not being #1.
As a person who straddles both worlds, I think that the problem may not be
planned obsolesence as much as lack of P3I (pre-planned product
improvements). Intel and the other PC chip manufacturers are constantly
releasing bigger/better/faster hardware; meanwhile, Microsoft is constantly
adding features to the core OS and the major entertainment software
manufacturers are constantly announcing more hardware-intensive applications
to the point where, at any moment, the OS currently being beta'd by MS and
the most highly anticipated games will only run well on *next years*
commodity platform.
By comparison, the Mac had a long period where new titles where not being
ported to it. Debacles such as the ill-fated Copeland project didn't help
since they kept the core MacOS relatively unchanged for too long a period,
shielding users from the need for at least one round of hardware upgrade. In
that regard, MacOS 8.5-X have probably done more to sell new Macs than 7.6
or 8 ever did.
Also, Apple's philosophy of "the computer for the rest of us" works to
somewhat of a disadvantage in that an application is less likely to be
bloatware. Case in point, several models ship with AppleWorks, a decent
home/small-office productivity suite. By comparison, Microsoft's idea of a
"home essentials" package includes MS-Works, an equivalent package, plus a
full copy of Word.
<<<john>>>
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sun Sep 09 2001 - 19:46:49 EDT