-
Hello MLAers! We've re-enabled auto-approval for accounts. If you are still waiting on account approval, please check this thread for more information.
128k Mac - What were apple thinking!
- Thread starter gavo
- Start date
Just to add some extra info into the mix, it wasn't Steve Jobs who originally wanted the Mac to be a sealed unit. Jef Raskin (original Mac project head before being ousted by the black-turtle-necked one) originally called for a self-contained box which users wouldn't be able to open up, expand or upgrade (his philosophy being that it (the machine) should do everything that was asked of it). Whether Stevie J wanted to go down this path for philosophical or financial reasons though is another question...just not one that's very hard to answer 
Mr. Coffee, The M0001 Registry is certainly not MY database, it belongs to the entire Mac community, I simply am the guardian for it at the moment. It will definitely pass into good hands at some point.
TheNeil, here is the actual document you reference from the horse's mouth: http://library.stanford.edu/mac/primary/docs/bom/anthrophilic.html
The link is accessible from Folklore articles, as well, but always best to have it on hand. One thing to point out, Raksin wanted these things to simplify computers for the masses. However, this article is of interest: http://library.stanford.edu/mac/primary/docs/bom/memory.html
because he specifically address the criteria for RAM. Raksin, knew there had to be "sufficient" RAM to make a closed model a success. Jobs didn't seem to get that. When Raksin urged a single RAM configuration, it was for ease of use. I'm sure he never considered in order to meet a price point the RAM would be the first thing to go.
TheNeil, here is the actual document you reference from the horse's mouth: http://library.stanford.edu/mac/primary/docs/bom/anthrophilic.html
The link is accessible from Folklore articles, as well, but always best to have it on hand. One thing to point out, Raksin wanted these things to simplify computers for the masses. However, this article is of interest: http://library.stanford.edu/mac/primary/docs/bom/memory.html
because he specifically address the criteria for RAM. Raksin, knew there had to be "sufficient" RAM to make a closed model a success. Jobs didn't seem to get that. When Raksin urged a single RAM configuration, it was for ease of use. I'm sure he never considered in order to meet a price point the RAM would be the first thing to go.
Indeed, Raskin almost certainly would have argued for some combination of a lower price and more RAM. Even Jobs was advocating a sub-$2000 price, but Sculley juiced that up by 25% at the last minute (because he thought the market would bear it).
Thanks for linking to those docs, Mac128!
Thanks for linking to those docs, Mac128!
Having 128K of RAM was a resonable amount of memory for a charater based computer. Z80 and 6502 computers had 64K limits (most had ways to bank switch in 16K or 8K blocks) so having 128K of linear memory on a 68000 seemed good.
I was using a Sinclair ZX81 that I had expaneded to 64K (16k ROM and 48k of user memory). I was running my business with it with an application I had wrritten in BASIC (invoicing and inventory control). I even had a floppy drive (160K) cobbled up to the ZX81. But I was running out of memory.
I bought the 128k Mac with the intent of porting my application to it. I bought Microsoft Basic for the Mac and went to work.
Big problem!!!! On a 128K Mac with MS Basic interperter loaded there was only about 30K of user memory left! 8-o My ZX81 had more user memory (48K) than the 128K Mac did! That's when I decided to do my own upgrade to 512K. MacWrite & MS Plan all worked well on the 128K but my custom application didn't.
It was a big deal NOT to ship a home computer with BASIC at the time. I have always thought that the real reason that Jobs didn't include BASIC with the 128K Mac was when they realized that the 128K MAC running a BASIC interperter would have less memory than a Trash 80 or a Commodore 64 that they would get trashed in the press for it. The party line was that the Mac would not be programed by a user.
I did dump MS Basic and went to ZBasic for the Mac (and FutureBasic) as it was a compiler and worked well.
I was using a Sinclair ZX81 that I had expaneded to 64K (16k ROM and 48k of user memory). I was running my business with it with an application I had wrritten in BASIC (invoicing and inventory control). I even had a floppy drive (160K) cobbled up to the ZX81. But I was running out of memory.
I bought the 128k Mac with the intent of porting my application to it. I bought Microsoft Basic for the Mac and went to work.
Big problem!!!! On a 128K Mac with MS Basic interperter loaded there was only about 30K of user memory left! 8-o My ZX81 had more user memory (48K) than the 128K Mac did! That's when I decided to do my own upgrade to 512K. MacWrite & MS Plan all worked well on the 128K but my custom application didn't.
It was a big deal NOT to ship a home computer with BASIC at the time. I have always thought that the real reason that Jobs didn't include BASIC with the 128K Mac was when they realized that the 128K MAC running a BASIC interperter would have less memory than a Trash 80 or a Commodore 64 that they would get trashed in the press for it. The party line was that the Mac would not be programed by a user.
I did dump MS Basic and went to ZBasic for the Mac (and FutureBasic) as it was a compiler and worked well.
Scarily the Mac was originally intended to be a sub $500 machine. Given what Apple were asking of it in 1984 (both in terms of technology and mark up) it's hardly any wonder that its price shot up five fold. Thing is though, even at a quarter of the price of the Lisa, it was still stupid money and out of the grasp of most users so, while sales were often seen as being better than the Lisa, it wasn't the immediate 'smash hit' that many people believe it to be (the oft quoted 'more Macs sold in 100 days than Lisas sold in total' is true but the Mac sales took a while to gain momentum). Indeed sales were slow when it was first launched and it was often the case that customers would arrive at a showroom to look at a Mac and end up walking out with a Lisa.
Definitely agree that Raskin's push for a 'sealed unit' had more to do with keeping things simple for the user rather than jacked up prices. Sadly though, that's not how business works.
BTW great links Mac128
Definitely agree that Raskin's push for a 'sealed unit' had more to do with keeping things simple for the user rather than jacked up prices. Sadly though, that's not how business works.
BTW great links Mac128
Phil B. recently alerted me to the following info, that really captured my attention:
Suffice it to say, I've been searching everywhere in vain to secure that 9/85 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal. And when I happened to see Aoresteen's post today, I was reinvigorated. If you have the 1/85 issue, would you also happen to have the 9/85 issue as well? If so, is there any way you could scan some relevant articles?
This is one of those times I wish I were back in the states, where I could visit a local library and review some of these old publications. But alas, there's nothing like that here in Japan.
If any of you reading this ever visit your local library in the states, I would certainly appreciate it if you could lookup the Dr. Dobbs issue I mention in my previous post above (containing an article about a homebrew SCSI Interface for pre-Plus Macs) and make a photocopy (and scan). I would do it myself, but I live in Japan without access to an English library. I tried Access My Library this evening, but it didn't find that article.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't forget that the industry was beginning it's departure from the 8 bit era and 128k was still a common memory configuration. With a 16 bit processor, though, it is very limiting. They also had to get the Mac on it's feet as soon as possible because Lisa clearly wasn't going where Apple wanted it to and the IIe was losing it's edge to the PC. Delaying the launch until memory prices came down might have been the death of the Mac and Apple.
You are assuming that they had to choose between delaying launch to enable more memory, and launching quickly with 128K. There was a third option: Launch on time with more memory, and accept lower margins. As discussed earlier in this thread, they would not have lost money by any stretch of the imagination. They would have made handsome margins, in fact, but Sculley wanted more than handsome.
And the Mac team knew full well that 128K was inadequate for their GUI-based machine.
Sculley already overruled Jobs on the pricing of the Mac, tacking on something like $500 more than was originally planned, but for Apple to launch the Mac with a lower margin might not have worked because like I said, Lisa and the IIe were largely being superseded by PC's. Apple needed a machine with a high margin to pay the bills or they wouldn't have survived.
Needless to say, high margins per se do not necessarily translate to large profits. It's not at all a solid argument that (over)pricing the Mac was essential to saving Apple from declining income. It's really a question of market elasticity. If a drop in price (or larger memory, say) increases your market disproportionately, then profits may actually increase. So, the real question is whether Sculley's pricing by fiat was self-defeating. The rapid flattening of Mac sales suggests that it was. A strong case can be (and has been) made that introducing the Mac with 512K without a price increase would have enabled developers to offer compelling applications sooner, and thus make the Mac a truly useful computer, rather than having it be the lovely toy that the 128K essentially was.
According to the folklore, the jump from $500 to $1995 was pretty much because of RAM prices, the decision to go with the 68000 instead of the 6809, the Sony FDD that cost more than the Twiggy, and so on. That $500 target started before the Mac was nothing more than an idea, and the requirements grew pretty quickly.
Supposedly Scully raised it another $500 to $2495 to pay for extra marketing, and Jobs eventually backed down.
So it doesn't sound like $1995 would have been possible for anything more than 128K.
Supposedly Scully raised it another $500 to $2495 to pay for extra marketing, and Jobs eventually backed down.
So it doesn't sound like $1995 would have been possible for anything more than 128K.
In engineering, 500 is one of those special round numbers. It rarely emerges from a mathematical calculation, and so one might suspect it was just made up. Well, there's no need to speculate. Apple enjoyed industry-record margins of ~60% on the 128K Mac at its introduction. That's a fat margin, thanks to Sculley's $500 brainstorm. And those margins only increased over time.
Spot prices for 64kbit DRAMs at the end of 1983/beginning of 1984 were between $2 and $4, depending on volume and negotiating power (by 1985, 64kbit DRAMs were selling for one-tenth that, as the Japanese came on strong). Even if you pessimistically assume Apple could do no better than to pay at the higher end of that range, we're looking at about $60-$65 of memory for the 128K Mac. So, there's no rigorous justification for the statement that Apple couldn't have afforded to sell the Mac for less. It would have been trivial for Apple to lower the price to improve market share. Alternatively, they could've kept the price high, but offer more RAM, enabling apps writers to provide compelling programs to entice users to the new platform. To do so with the 64k generation would have been cumbersome, but eminently possible, and would have added only $100-$200 in cost above that for the 128K model (again, depending on what assumptions you make about Apple's ability to negotiate).
It's hard not to conclude that the pricing was at best a weak function of hardware cost, and that ordinary greed was a more operative factor. I'm hardly against capitalism, but I am for an accurate telling of historical events.
Spot prices for 64kbit DRAMs at the end of 1983/beginning of 1984 were between $2 and $4, depending on volume and negotiating power (by 1985, 64kbit DRAMs were selling for one-tenth that, as the Japanese came on strong). Even if you pessimistically assume Apple could do no better than to pay at the higher end of that range, we're looking at about $60-$65 of memory for the 128K Mac. So, there's no rigorous justification for the statement that Apple couldn't have afforded to sell the Mac for less. It would have been trivial for Apple to lower the price to improve market share. Alternatively, they could've kept the price high, but offer more RAM, enabling apps writers to provide compelling programs to entice users to the new platform. To do so with the 64k generation would have been cumbersome, but eminently possible, and would have added only $100-$200 in cost above that for the 128K model (again, depending on what assumptions you make about Apple's ability to negotiate).
It's hard not to conclude that the pricing was at best a weak function of hardware cost, and that ordinary greed was a more operative factor. I'm hardly against capitalism, but I am for an accurate telling of historical events.
The Apple II was a cash cow that carried Apple, and the Mac, into the 90s. The Mac did not become truly successful until the SE & Mac II were introduced in 1987.
I don't think anybody here advocated delaying a launch until RAM prices dropped. That would be foolish. Bill Gates would have released Windows 1.0 and no one would have anything else to compare it to and Apple really would have been dead, lawsuit or no. The argument as Tom Lee so astutely puts it is that Apple was and is a greedy company that was making far more than they actually needed to. They had more money than they knew what to do with at the time and would have done far better with the Mac had they sold it for less and targeted a wider audience. It did incredibly well for being as underpowered as it was thanks to Sculley's marketing campaign. But once the initial fascination wore off on the early adopters of this revolutionary technology, the bread and butter consumers avoided it thanks to the high price and poor reviews it was receiving. If it weren't for Apple's wise decision to get as many software developers on board from the launch, they might well have dried up and blown away by August '84. Between the huge selection of software and growing enthusiasm for the platform, they made it. Apple's investment in education really turned the tide, which ultimately saved them as students quickly embraced the Mac and bought them for themselves as soon as they had jobs. But, they failed to learn their lessons from Lisa, which was no matter how revolutionary if people can't justify the cost they will make due with something else. Yes RAM was expensive, yes it was hard to come by, but in the end, that isn't what kept the price artificially high for the underpowered 128K.
And it was only in education where the IIe was carrying it's weight. The IBM PC had pretty much pushed the Apple II's out of offices and competition from other makers of 8 bit computers like Atari and Commodore were taking the home users. The IIe had become a niche machine and the writing was on the wall for it. Jobs knew they wouldn't be able to depend on the IIe forever with PC's proliferating. Eventually the IIe's would have been pushed out of the schools which was why he got so into the Macintosh project. Mac was going to be the future of Apple when the IIe stopped selling. If the Mac failed, it would have been the end for Apple because the successors of the IIe (the IIGS, IIc and IIc+) all failed to achieve the same popularity.
Those early Macs had to have high prices to pay for the development costs as well as the advertising and promotion. If they had gone with Jobs pricing or upped the specification without a price increase, Mac would have dragged Apple down and might not have survived to 1987 when things started looking up to the point where Apple could think about dumping the Apple II and going exclusively Mac. Mac had to start recovering it's costs or the technology might have died before it achieved wide acceptance. Apple would be defunct and Macintosh would be nothing more than a blip on the timeline of computer history.
There's no argument that Apple needed to earn money from the Mac. However, you continue to make the assumption that high prices implies high profits. That could be true, but it is not necessarily true. By extension of your logic, Sculley should not have stopped at a $500 increase.
The flattening of Mac sales after the initial rush of purchases by early adopters ultimately led to Jobs' exile and ouster. It is not at all obvious that this flattening was inevitable. Indeed, in examining the conventional explanations for why sales saturated (e.g., high price for little capability), one can construct a coherent argument that the wound was self-inflicted (and therefore preventable).
Wow. I would really like to see some citations for this hypothesis. I've read almost every book about Apple there is and none of them painted this picture. Yet all of them make pointed reference to Apple's greed. Also, more sales balance out lower prices. It's basic economics. Period. The Mac did not have to be high priced to support Apple's R&D. It just needed to sell well, as I said before they had lots of money in the bank at that time. The fact it did both for the first 4 months is irrelevant. It certainly didn't help them survive the fall that resulted in Jobs dismissal. They were essentially hoist by their own petard.
I also question the validity of your statement that the Apple II was strictly a niche computer for education only. Hard to imagine releasing the IIc after the Mac, releasing the IIGS at ALL, updating the IIe in 1987, and redesigning the IIc Plus in 88, much less continuing most of the product line into 94 ONLY to support a niche and education market when the Macintosh had almost taken over completely by 1987.
The apple II was very useful for the (chemical) industry
It was easy to made custom cards (and the necessary software) to connect weighing units, things they couldn't do with the early macs
a part of my apple collection,some IIgs including the custom cards are acquired when the IIgs wheren't used any more .... in 2003
the metal inside is corroded but they are running smootly
