The Price of an SE/30 in 1990?

[Quadraman]

Apple made a huge step backwards when they replaced the SE and SE/30 with the Classic and Classic II. The later machines were no where near as useful as the earlier ones and had a few weird quirks. By that time, the 8mhz 68000 was woefully outdated and a 68020 should have been the entry level with an even faster 030 in the up market model and they shouldn't have crippled how much RAM you could use or messed with the internal expansion.

 

[Scott Baret]

Ah, but the company wanted a machine that would be $999 as a starting point. The only way they could do this with the amount of proprietary technology they had developed was to basically re-issue the Plus (selling at $1600 or so by mid-1990) and try to cut down on the cost while modernizing it. This is why the Classic used the same chip that was sold nearly seven years beforehand, has only one ADB port, uses a lesser SCSI specification than its contemporaries, and has a weak power supply and compact motherboard. In fact, the RAM card didn't even come with the Classic if it was purchased with just 1MB on board.

There was so much outcry over the cost of Macs in 1990 that a low-cost model was practically necessary. Also, the entry level machine at the time was so hopelessly outdated that something had to be done, not just to bring down the price to that "magic" level, but also to give it internal hard drive support, a SuperDrive, and ADB.

The Classic II should have sold alongside the SE/30 (albeit a speedbumped SE/30). The newer SE/30 would have had a purpose as a server machine--it's a better option than tower machines because of its small form factor, internal display, and aesthetics. (Believe me, some users get intimidated by the concept of a "server" when they see a huge tower, especially among smaller computers).

I do think they kept the Classic (original) around too long. By September 1992, when it was finally discontinued, the 8MHz 68000 had enjoyed a run of eight years, nine months. To compare, look at the best chip from nine years ago today--a 733MHz G4. In less than three years, everything ran a faster clock speed (this also accounts for the discontinuation of the G3-powered computers). Sure, computers didn't progress as quickly in the 1980s and 1990s, but consumers knew dinosaur technology when they saw it--why else would new in-box Apple IIes made in 1992 and 1993 still be around today? I'm sure some dealers had Classics for years as well. I would have canned the Classic when the Classic II came out, maybe released a lower-end version of the Classic II for an entry-level model (20MB hard disk, 2MB RAM, maybe even a 68020 based on the LC), and kept producing the SE/30--it had a niche market and would have continued to sell, probably to the same folks who still swear by their SE/30s in 2010.

 

[Mac128]

the SE/30--it had a niche market and would have continued to sell, probably to the same folks who still swear by their SE/30s in 2010.

Yeah, because that small pool of people would justify keeping an entire manufacturing facility open to produce a Mac nobody else was interested in. Nobody wanted a black & white computer in 1993. And Apple couldn't justify charging the same amount for one as a new IIfx from which it would cannibalize sales as well as from the Quadra, nor could they afford to upgrade the technology to charge more due to the shrinking market. They did continue selling it for as long as it made financial sense after they announced it was discontinued. And nobody wanted a 9" Black & White monitor if they could afford better in 1993. The SE/30 was done after a healthy 4 year run. The entire form factor was abandoned in favor of the Color Classic, which due to the small size of its monitor did not sell nearly as well as the 520 released at the end of the year. It's just that simple.

Its the same reason Apple no longer sells the Cube despite the small niche market that would love to see it continued to have been made.

 

[JDW]

...the same folks who still swear by their SE/30s in 2010.

I still own and love my SE/30, G4 Cube and Newton 2100.

 

[yuhong]

if Steve Jobs had not left Apple in 1985 there likely would never have been a Macintosh SE as we know it, and certainly not an SE/30.

What do you think we'd have as the next Mac instead? Anyone predict?

 

[Unknown_K]

If Jobs never left Apple would have gone down the drain.

 

[Mac128]

If Jobs never left Apple would have gone down the drain.

Unknown_K, I disagree.

Sculley didn't trust Jobs, but the very things that have made him and Apple a success today were there then. Sculley made an even bigger mistake by putting Jean-Louis Gassée, a guy with an ego equal to Jobs, but none of the experience. He was a sales and marketing guy. And he was greedy. If anybody nearly killed Apple it was he and Sculley.

The single most important thing that Jobs brought to Apple was change and a forward looking philosophy. By 1985 with the introduction of the Laser Printer, the Mac's position in the market was solidified and would be unparalleled until Windows 3.1 stepped forward in the early 90s. Apple had over 8 years from which to capitalize on the market with huge profits while developing the next generation. But Gassee didn't have that vision and caused Apple to become a dinosaur, instead of an innovator by the time Microsoft became a real threat.

As soon as the Mac was out the door in 1984, Jobs began pushing for a Unix based system to control it all (Big Mac- which Gassee hated), going so far as Apple buying a $1 million license from ATT. He was also pushing for miniaturization, bringing in PowerBook-like prototypes to board meetings, something Apple resisted because there wasn't enough profit in it, and cost too much to develop.

So think about it, Jobs was preparing for the future, had he stayed at Apple, the Mac would have replaced the Apple II anyway as the cash earner if only in education, consumer and publishing industry. But more importantly, he would have migrated the Mac OS experience to a UNIX platform over a decade before OS X and blown Windows 3.1 out of the water in 1992, instead of a disappointing and buggy upgraded vis-a-vis System 7. Also, he would have pushed for the miniature laptop and probably bypassed the Luggable completely, blowing away the industry with the PowerBook much earlier.

No if Jobs had stayed, Apple would have made less profit, but as Jobs has repeatedly shown, that has ultimately been less important than its progressive innovation. Even after Jobs return he churned out his own Apple IIIs and Lisas (the Cube anybody?), but like those dinosaurs, the technology created was readily subsidized into products that blew away the industry. I've no doubt that had Jobs stayed, Apple would have done just fine and possibly be in a better position that it is today.

 

[Unknown_K]

The Mac exploded with the introduction of expandable machines (you know upgrade slots those things Jobs hated), not the closed dead end compacts. Jobs was big into killing off the Apple II which was all that kept the company afloat when the original compacts did not sell well.

Inovation is over rated (ask the original portable MP3 player makers, PDA makers, etc), people want something that works, looks decent, and at a specific price point. It costs a bunch to do something new, and then you go broke with the R&D expenses when some other company brings out a better version of what you spent a ton of money inovating.

 

[JDW]

I agree with Unknown_K. Apple needed some time without Jobs controlling everything, and Jobs needed time outside Apple to rethink things. And while I cannot help but thank Jobs for what he has done to my AAPL shares over the last 11 years, I also feel that another "temporary absence, and return" would benefit Apple again. It won't happen of course due to a number of factors, including Steve's age and health condition.

 

[Mac128]

Gentlemen, all I can say is Jobs was growing with the company and learning from his mistakes. I seriously doubt he would have killed something that was bringing in money for the company, i.e. the Apple II. I also seriously doubt he would have towed the anti-expansion line much longer either. On the other hand, he was on the forefront of where computers needed to be: UNIX and portability. What is a PowerBook but an expansion-less Mac? Without Jobs anywhere near it, Apple clobbered itself with the most expandable portable ever made. Give me Jobs' vision any day over Gassee's. Without Jobs pushing for UNIX, and Gassee milking the Mac OS for everything he could, he gave Microsoft the edge to take over the world and truly stagnate operating systems with shell after shell over an aging DOS base. Imagine Sun & Apple working together in those days.

The reality is you guys take the sensationalized headlines we all know about Jobs to be the literal truth. It's a shame that East Coast Old School Sculley couldn't control Jobs, or try. He strikes me as a button-downed guy who wasn't used to anyone behaving like Jobs did and didn't have a clue what to do about it other than get rid of him. People with MBAs just didn't behave like that. Now they all behave like Jobs. We'll never know for sure what would have happened, but I'm 100% certain Jobs would not have destroyed the company. I seriously doubt he would have done any more damage than Sculley & Gassee did, or the lame ducks which followed.

And JDW, Jobs did take a year away from the company. I doubt he was nearly as in control as we were led to believe after his liver surgery. He had basically been handed a death sentence prior to that. And I'm not sure exactly what you think would happen to Apple if he stepped away now.

I don't particularly love Jobs, but I do think Apple would have been much better off had they pushed the envelope 25 years ago instead of resting on their laurels, letting Microsoft dominate the market with poor copies of the Mac. Innovation is the key to survival in the micro-computing business. Microsoft has show us what happens to a company that fails to do it, with stale imitative flop after flop. What Jobs would have brought to the table then as now is fire. The guy will do what it takes to get what he wants, he doesn't seem to care about the money as much as the triumph.And that's where everybody else underestimates Apple.

 

[Unknown_K]

All I can say is Jobs is better at getting people to believe his bullshit then most CEOs.

 

[Jelly]

Funny how divers people are thinking about Apples development through the years. My first Mac was a Colour Classic with external Power CD (2499 and 699 dutch guilders new @ Correct in some sale) and from that moment things only got better. There was no Jobs at Apple, I believe Sculley was also gone and there were new models coming every now and then to suburban Holland. My country was, for Apple, in those days, a part of Apple Scandinavia, with very low focus. It changed later on by the way and Holland (Benelux) is a tier 1 country now, which means dutch is always in the first tier for software localization.

My second Mac was a 5500 black mac, zillion times bigger/faster, still not very expandable, and that is exactly what somebody before me wrote here: I had the money and expansion sounded complicated and expensive, buying a new one is only expensive, not complicated and fun!

After the 5500 I bought the first iMac 233. Also no expansion, also expensive and also a loads of fun.

Buying new Macs has always been fun for me, like I even like to buy old Macs now for fun. Apple = emotion, an old manager once told me, and that emotion is positive for most people.

Jelle