From: Jon Glass (jonglass_at_usa.net)
Date: Sat Aug 14 2004 - 02:25:55 PDT
On Aug 14, 2004, at 1:40 AM, Sean Luke wrote:
> The machine had no hard drive, very poor networking, no color, no
> keyboard, poor printing support, no memory support for large
> applications, limited QuickDraw facilities, no memory protection or (at
> the top level) preemptive multitasking, no external media support, and
> NO FILE SYSTEM.
>
> Here was the MP2100's Powerbook competition:
> http://www.apple-history.com/frames/body.php?page=gallery&model=3400
> http://www.apple-history.com/frames/body.php?page=gallery&model=pg3
>
> Doing word processing, spreadsheets, etc. on a Newton very much has the
> feel (and speed) of doing them on a Mac Plus. Not even the same class.
>
You have unwittingly proved the opposite of what you wished to prove.
How so?
Well, here I am in the market for a laptop. I have limited funds. What
I want is a computer that is with me at all times, in the restaurant,
hotel, car, airplane, has good battery life, doesn't cause hassles,
etc. Yet, I also need to be able to write and print letters and write
and read email. Here are my choices: The top-of-the-line PB 3400 for
how many thousands??? and the Newton. This was a choice I faced years
before the 3400 existed. Back then, we were still in the 1x0 series of
PowerBooks. Capability-wise, much closer. For me, it was a no-brainer.
I could buy a Newton and a printer for less than the price of a
Powerbook alone. I went for the Newton. When the 2100 came out, it
could also do full-blown word processing and spreadsheets, with minimal
capabilities to work on desktop files. For me, even five years later,
the choice would have been obvious--the Newton. Capability isn't always
the single determining factor. Price and portability also play a part.
For Apple, which _already_ has a limited market, they were shooting
themselves in the foot! They were competing against each other for the
exact same market. It's not like you could expect your average Apple
customer to buy _both_ a Newton _and_ a laptop. It was an either-or
situation. I know I wasn't the only one who saw my choice as anything
but an either/or choice. Years later, I made the choice to go to a
laptop, but at that point, my needs had changed, and the Newton was
already killed by Apple, so my choice was limited. An almost dead
Newton didn't and couldn't compete with a G3 Pismo. (Besides, I already
had the Newton) ;-)
I personally think it was a valid argument, and certainly played into
Apple's (read Steve Jobs) decision to axe the Newton. Of course, it's
also worth reading the article I posted on NTLK in another email, as it
hints at this very issue, but from a different perspective--that of
leveraging technologies already developed into new technologies. In
this case, Apple, instead of leveraging the Mac System, created
another, completely new system that did _not_ leverage off the Mac OS.
He didn't say it outright, but the iPod is a good example of how it
should have worked--seamless integration with the desktop. Instead, the
Newton was a reluctant partner, grudgingly "sharing" data with the Mac
OS, thus creating a separate entity that, in the end, competed for mind
share, and worse, share of capital--money from its customers. Not a
good business plan. Now, on the other hand, had Apple made it a good or
excellent Mac OS citizen, freely sharing data, like the Palm did, they
probably would have created a success, but instead, they create a
product that competed, not complemented. That, I believe, is the simple
truth.
-- -Jon Glass Krakow, Poland <jonglass_at_usa.net> -- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 14 2004 - 11:30:01 PDT