Thread
The Price of an SE/30 in 1990?
Does anyone know what a basic SE/30 would have cost in the first half of 1990?
apple-history.com has $4,369 in 1989... presumably the price wouldn't have changed much by 1990.
That's what I'm not so sure about. The SE/30 got canned in Oct. 1990 after only being introduced in Jan. 1989. I figure by May/June of 1990 Apple knew where they were headed with this model and it would have been discounted in order to clear out inventory by the time it was discontinued.
Anyone know if that was true or not? Was the price stable until it was discontinued?
Anyone know if that was true or not? Was the price stable until it was discontinued?
One need only reference old MacUser or MacWorld magazines during that period to determine price and price stability from debut to EOL. I have those magazines at my parent's home in California, but unfortunately, I do not have access to them now that I am in Japan. Therefore, one of you who also retain such old magazines will need to look.
But what I can say for now is that the SE/30 WIKI and EveryMac cite an introductory price of $6,500:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE/30
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_classic/stats/mac_se30.html
The Old-Computers.com museum cites the $4,400 price mentioned by luddite above:
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=162
This article gives pricing by model (hard drive size and RAM):
http://www.vectronicsappleworld.com/macintosh/se30.php
But what I can say for now is that the SE/30 WIKI and EveryMac cite an introductory price of $6,500:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_SE/30
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_classic/stats/mac_se30.html
The Old-Computers.com museum cites the $4,400 price mentioned by luddite above:
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=162
This article gives pricing by model (hard drive size and RAM):
http://www.vectronicsappleworld.com/macintosh/se30.php
Ah, thank you for that insight. I hope I can find an online database that contains those magazines or if someone here has access to an issue of either publication around the middle of 1990 they will be kind enough to give a quick glance and reply here.
I've got access to the following volumes at the library here:
MacUser
v.4(1988)-v.13(1997 Oct)
v.3(1987 Jan)-v.3(1987 June)
v.1(1986)
MacWorld
v.7(1990 Jan)-v.16(1999)
v.3(1986 May)-v.6(1989 Sept)
(and all newer ones too, of course)
I can have it by later today.
I got 1990 issues of MacUser requested from the storage facility an hour ago, and should have them in 3 hours from now. Hang tight.
That was the published date. The SE/30 stayed on the books into 1991, in part because it was such a strong seller. It was in such demand, that Apple kept manufacturing it into 1991 (according to some who reported late manufacturing dates), which means Apple more than likely capitalized on the demand keeping the price high, so as to push customers toward the new models instead, but reluctant to give up on a cash cow. These were some of the greediest years at Apple after all.
Excellent! Thank you so much for your efforts with regard to my query.
The discontinuation date of both SE models is a topic that has caused much confusion in the vintage Macintosh community.
The SE/30 remained in production until October 1991. In fact, it was in Apple's sales literature from the first half of 1991 as an integral part of the lineup alongside the Classic, LC, IIsi, IIfx, IIci, and Portable. Check out the sales brochure on Mac Mothership where the Classic, IIsi, and LC are first introduced--the SE/30 is there. This advertising was used until the Quadras, PowerBooks, and Classic II came out in October 1991.
Also, bear in mind that the Classic II replaced the SE/30. The Classic II was introduced in October 1991 at the same time the SE/30 was discontinued.
Many publications list the SE/30 as being discontinued in October 1990. These are incorrect, as they are confusing it with the supposed date of discontinuation of the SE (SuperDrive model). Apple's own literature confirms that the SE/30 was alive and well past this date, as do old catalogs and books (plus the personal testimony of people who used Macs in 1991).
In 1990, rumor had it that the Plus was pulled from production in the latter half of the summer, not in October, when the model was formally discontinued. This would make sense, as Apple probably wanted to clear out inventory of an old model that didn't use the same components as the other Macs in the lineup (namely non-ADB input peripherals). This can be confirmed by the third edition of the Macintosh Bible. Also, the Classic started production prior to its October 15, 1990 introduction date. I have proof of that--the Classic sitting directly to my left has an August 1990 manufacture date.
The SE was also said to have been discontinued in October 1990. We've discussed it on the forums before and have found SEs with production dates as late as January 1991, possibly even a few from February. As Mac128 said in his post, cash was a factor. The SE cost more than the Classic at any time during its run, even when it was being liquidated from store shelves. There may have also been back orders or even a demand from some customers for a machine with the expansion slot.
Neil Salkind's Big Mac Book, 2nd Edition, actually states that Apple was hoping to sell certain numbers of Macs in 1991. The number for the Plus was pretty low, probably to cover old inventory, but the SE number was over double that, making me believe Apple did intentionally make SEs and perhaps offer them to dealers into 1991. I'd imagine they would continue to sell for about the same price as an SE did in Summer 1990, maybe a little less since the model was in its final days. I used to have a 1991 production SE SuperDrive but sold it to a fellow MLAer about a month ago.
Mactracker now has the correct discontinuation date of the SE/30, by the way. I know some sites do not have the correct date, but EveryMac has the exact, correct date (10/21/1991). Ironically, Apple's own site is wrong. They have the correct month and date, but not year. In fact, October 21, 1990 was a Sunday--not a day for introducing or discontinuing products, let alone going to work (especially back then, when fewer businesses had Sunday hours and operations).
This goes to show that even Apple can be wrong about their own products--and that they care little about their heritage, neglecting it so much to report an inaccuracy about one of their most beloved models of all time.
The SE/30 remained in production until October 1991. In fact, it was in Apple's sales literature from the first half of 1991 as an integral part of the lineup alongside the Classic, LC, IIsi, IIfx, IIci, and Portable. Check out the sales brochure on Mac Mothership where the Classic, IIsi, and LC are first introduced--the SE/30 is there. This advertising was used until the Quadras, PowerBooks, and Classic II came out in October 1991.
Also, bear in mind that the Classic II replaced the SE/30. The Classic II was introduced in October 1991 at the same time the SE/30 was discontinued.
Many publications list the SE/30 as being discontinued in October 1990. These are incorrect, as they are confusing it with the supposed date of discontinuation of the SE (SuperDrive model). Apple's own literature confirms that the SE/30 was alive and well past this date, as do old catalogs and books (plus the personal testimony of people who used Macs in 1991).
In 1990, rumor had it that the Plus was pulled from production in the latter half of the summer, not in October, when the model was formally discontinued. This would make sense, as Apple probably wanted to clear out inventory of an old model that didn't use the same components as the other Macs in the lineup (namely non-ADB input peripherals). This can be confirmed by the third edition of the Macintosh Bible. Also, the Classic started production prior to its October 15, 1990 introduction date. I have proof of that--the Classic sitting directly to my left has an August 1990 manufacture date.
The SE was also said to have been discontinued in October 1990. We've discussed it on the forums before and have found SEs with production dates as late as January 1991, possibly even a few from February. As Mac128 said in his post, cash was a factor. The SE cost more than the Classic at any time during its run, even when it was being liquidated from store shelves. There may have also been back orders or even a demand from some customers for a machine with the expansion slot.
Neil Salkind's Big Mac Book, 2nd Edition, actually states that Apple was hoping to sell certain numbers of Macs in 1991. The number for the Plus was pretty low, probably to cover old inventory, but the SE number was over double that, making me believe Apple did intentionally make SEs and perhaps offer them to dealers into 1991. I'd imagine they would continue to sell for about the same price as an SE did in Summer 1990, maybe a little less since the model was in its final days. I used to have a 1991 production SE SuperDrive but sold it to a fellow MLAer about a month ago.
Mactracker now has the correct discontinuation date of the SE/30, by the way. I know some sites do not have the correct date, but EveryMac has the exact, correct date (10/21/1991). Ironically, Apple's own site is wrong. They have the correct month and date, but not year. In fact, October 21, 1990 was a Sunday--not a day for introducing or discontinuing products, let alone going to work (especially back then, when fewer businesses had Sunday hours and operations).
This goes to show that even Apple can be wrong about their own products--and that they care little about their heritage, neglecting it so much to report an inaccuracy about one of their most beloved models of all time.
I've got the December 1990 issue of MacUser to my left. In the introductory article for the IIsi, LC, and Classic, there's a table of the "New Mac Family"
The following prices and configurations are listed for the SE/30:
$3,869: 1 MB, SuperDrive
$4,369: 1 MB, 40 MB
$5,569: 4 MB, 80 MB
(As an aside, there's also an article on hard drives. The cheapest model, in terms of cost per Megabyte, is the MacProducts Magic 380 at about $4.20 per meg)
The following prices and configurations are listed for the SE/30:
$3,869: 1 MB, SuperDrive
$4,369: 1 MB, 40 MB
$5,569: 4 MB, 80 MB
(As an aside, there's also an article on hard drives. The cheapest model, in terms of cost per Megabyte, is the MacProducts Magic 380 at about $4.20 per meg)
Thank you very much for your efforts and this info. A friend of mine is working on constructing a comprehensive timeline/graph of mac models and prices over their respective lifetimes and one of the models he couldn't find any reasonable info for was the SE/30.
I owe him a beer, I wasn't even close to correct.
Once he's finished with his pet project I'll be sure to share the final product here.
I owe him a beer, I wasn't even close to correct.
Once he's finished with his pet project I'll be sure to share the final product here.
No need to look for proof, Steve Jobs is on record about how little regard he holds Apple's past, which is surely full of bad memories for him, but goes against his stated philosophy of only looking forward. We are fortunate that when he stumbled into the ad hoc museum store-room at Apple after his return, that he donated the entire lot to Standford rather than have it carted off to a landfill like the ignominious fate of the Lisa.
Is it just me, or is the "quote" button missing from our forum today?
Anyway...
The Classic II was noticeably slower than the SE/30 thanks to Apple having used a 16-bit data bus versus the SE/30's 32-bit bus. Moreover, someone must have consulted Steve Jobs on the design of the Classic II (I say this tongue-in-cheek) because Apple also removed the "E" in SE (the PDS "Expansion" slot) while improving the exterior aesthetics. Regardless of how much love we give the man for his more recent contributions, 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. The lack of expandability in the first Macintosh 128k and Jobs own public statements give evidence to that. And so, it is truly interesting indeed that one of the most beloved compact Macintoshes of all time, the SE/30, is not a Macintosh that Jobs would have allowed to appear on the market.
But even without Jobs, Apple later axed "expandability" in the compact Mac series coinciding with the release of the Classic II. Yet Apple did not bring death to the SE/30 to satisfy a personal creed like the Jobsian "keep it Fisher Price Simple." No, the axing of SE/30-style expandability in the compact Mac series was most likely done to please Apple's Bottom-line Man (as Ron Wayne labels common CEOs in the "Welcome to Macintosh" documentary). Remember it was also John Sculley who prevented the Mac 128k from making its market debut at a sub $2,000 price point, rocketing the price $500 higher to pay for the 1984 commercial. Jobs is not a Bottom-line Man insofar as he does not hold to the "profits are paramount" mentality of CEOs like Sculley. And yet, under Jobs, Apple is now more profitable than ever. This shows that Bottom-line men, however many MBA's they may hold, are not necessarily the key to long-term corporate success. Nevertheless, under Bottom-line Sculley, the SE and SE/30 were at least given the chance to exist.
The SE/30 is special and remains loved among vintage Mac enthusiasts today, because it was built with an open-mind toward expandability and because it was not "old technology in a prettier box." Just imagine what the Classic II could have been technologically speaking, if those design principles had been the foundation of it.
Anyway...
Scott was of course speaking about "replacements in time." But there's more to the story. It's important to clarify that the Classic II was not a "true replacement" as most of us define such today. That is to say, the Classic II was not an overall improvement over the SE/30 to warrant being a replacement. If anything it was a nicer-looking plastic case housing inferior technology. A "successor" yes, a "replacement" no.
The Classic II was noticeably slower than the SE/30 thanks to Apple having used a 16-bit data bus versus the SE/30's 32-bit bus. Moreover, someone must have consulted Steve Jobs on the design of the Classic II (I say this tongue-in-cheek) because Apple also removed the "E" in SE (the PDS "Expansion" slot) while improving the exterior aesthetics. Regardless of how much love we give the man for his more recent contributions, 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. The lack of expandability in the first Macintosh 128k and Jobs own public statements give evidence to that. And so, it is truly interesting indeed that one of the most beloved compact Macintoshes of all time, the SE/30, is not a Macintosh that Jobs would have allowed to appear on the market.
But even without Jobs, Apple later axed "expandability" in the compact Mac series coinciding with the release of the Classic II. Yet Apple did not bring death to the SE/30 to satisfy a personal creed like the Jobsian "keep it Fisher Price Simple." No, the axing of SE/30-style expandability in the compact Mac series was most likely done to please Apple's Bottom-line Man (as Ron Wayne labels common CEOs in the "Welcome to Macintosh" documentary). Remember it was also John Sculley who prevented the Mac 128k from making its market debut at a sub $2,000 price point, rocketing the price $500 higher to pay for the 1984 commercial. Jobs is not a Bottom-line Man insofar as he does not hold to the "profits are paramount" mentality of CEOs like Sculley. And yet, under Jobs, Apple is now more profitable than ever. This shows that Bottom-line men, however many MBA's they may hold, are not necessarily the key to long-term corporate success. Nevertheless, under Bottom-line Sculley, the SE and SE/30 were at least given the chance to exist.
The SE/30 is special and remains loved among vintage Mac enthusiasts today, because it was built with an open-mind toward expandability and because it was not "old technology in a prettier box." Just imagine what the Classic II could have been technologically speaking, if those design principles had been the foundation of it.
Great points, JDW!
A comment worth pointing out about the SE/30--according to the fourth edition of the Macintosh Bible, Apple was rumored to have been thinking about re-releasing the SE/30. This would have been early-to-mid-1992. My guess is that a re-tooled SE/30 would have used a 25MHz '030, been 32-bit clean, and had a new ROM, probably 512K in size. Essentially, it would have been IIci power in a compact case. (I think all of us would have loved a machine like this--but what could we have called it? The SE/30 II? This may have been a possibility since Apple had a Classic II and LC II that year, not to mention a IIci, IIsi, IIfx, IIvx, and IIvi).
Also, it would be fun to imagine the iMac (any generation) under Sculley (and maybe also Jean-Louis Gassee). Would there be two slots on the machine? Would it have still used a fan? How much would it cost? Would it be more like a Classic, an SE, or a IIci? And even more importantly, would there be three distinct classes of Macs like there were in, say, early 1991? (This was when there was a low end/high end desktop in the entry-level, midrange, and high-end segment--the Classic/LC, SE/30 / IIsi, and IIci/IIfx--plus later in the year three models of laptop with a distinct entry level model, midrange model, and high end model).
Again, an excellent analysis, JDW!!!
A comment worth pointing out about the SE/30--according to the fourth edition of the Macintosh Bible, Apple was rumored to have been thinking about re-releasing the SE/30. This would have been early-to-mid-1992. My guess is that a re-tooled SE/30 would have used a 25MHz '030, been 32-bit clean, and had a new ROM, probably 512K in size. Essentially, it would have been IIci power in a compact case. (I think all of us would have loved a machine like this--but what could we have called it? The SE/30 II? This may have been a possibility since Apple had a Classic II and LC II that year, not to mention a IIci, IIsi, IIfx, IIvx, and IIvi).
Also, it would be fun to imagine the iMac (any generation) under Sculley (and maybe also Jean-Louis Gassee). Would there be two slots on the machine? Would it have still used a fan? How much would it cost? Would it be more like a Classic, an SE, or a IIci? And even more importantly, would there be three distinct classes of Macs like there were in, say, early 1991? (This was when there was a low end/high end desktop in the entry-level, midrange, and high-end segment--the Classic/LC, SE/30 / IIsi, and IIci/IIfx--plus later in the year three models of laptop with a distinct entry level model, midrange model, and high end model).
Again, an excellent analysis, JDW!!!
JDW, be that as it may, I think we tend to lose a little perspective around here, due to our nostalgic love for these little B&W compacts.
I was around then, and 9" B&W monitors were the last thing serious computer users wanted in late 1991. Huge 15" color monitors were in! NuBus slots were the craze! 68040 processors were the must have! And Apple saw it coming.
There's a reason there was never a 68040 compact. Too expensive a technology for bottom line Sculley vs. how much they could charge for it. By 1991, even the consumer saw B&W as old news, which is what spurred the Color Classic. But in 1992, even before it was released, Scully saw the CC prototype and declared the screen was too small to use! So he demanded a larger version immediately, and as soon as they rushed the hideous LC 520 to market in a case IDG had already panned, they canned the CC, as the 520 was far more successful. But the Classic II and CC still had crippled 68030s, and it took the LCs a year to finally get a 68040 – forcing a clearly defined consumer vs. professional price point. Afterall the Classic was discontinued a year before the CC II which became the new entry level model, despite being leaps and bounds superior to the 68000 Classic. Maybe the SE/30 could have sold to 1993, until the Color Classic came out, but that's not where computers were headed. The early 90s were about bigger, better, faster, or at the other extreme: smaller, lighter, more portable – and that's where the money was. I doubt the SE would have lasted another year at the price-point and volume it enjoyed between 89 and 91 (and for the record, January 89 to October 91 is a damn long time in the lifespan of any computer model). The SE/30 was the last of the classic compact design, and the cost to update it for the amount of money they could have charged based on demand was simply prohibitive. So Apple wisely targeted the 9" compact to schools, students and entry level computer users – how could they possibly then charge several thousand more for the same package, regardless of how powerful it was? Apple wanted to sell more expensive CPUs, and more expensive color monitors, because that's where the demand was. Moreover, by 1991, even high school kids were starting to get credit cards, and parents were starting to deficit spend us into the current financial dilemma the world finds itself in today. Apple could finally sell computers directly to kids, who were rapidly defining the market for what a consumer entry-level computer needed to be, which was color and CD-ROM.
The SE/30 had a solid almost 3 year run. But let's be real ... sure Sculley likely quashed the more powerful successor to the SE/30 based on the bottom line, but seriously, its days were numbered. Screaming fast 9" B&W monitors were simply not something people were willing to pay a premium for anymore – and don't forget Apple was also competing with Microsoft and and explosion of cheap PCs most of which came standard with color monitors in 1991. Heck even my secretary had a 15" color monitor in 1991. All romanticism aside, the compact Mac was on the way out. By the time the SE/30 was discontinued, the Qudra was already the new king of the mountain, and a person could get a deal on a screamin' IIfx or IIsi instead for the same money as an SE – with a color monitor.
As for Jobs concern for the bottom line, he may be more flexible than Sculley on that point, but he would not be pursuing the NetBook market so aggressively with the iPad if he didn't smell money, despite his previous opinion on the subject.
I was around then, and 9" B&W monitors were the last thing serious computer users wanted in late 1991. Huge 15" color monitors were in! NuBus slots were the craze! 68040 processors were the must have! And Apple saw it coming.
There's a reason there was never a 68040 compact. Too expensive a technology for bottom line Sculley vs. how much they could charge for it. By 1991, even the consumer saw B&W as old news, which is what spurred the Color Classic. But in 1992, even before it was released, Scully saw the CC prototype and declared the screen was too small to use! So he demanded a larger version immediately, and as soon as they rushed the hideous LC 520 to market in a case IDG had already panned, they canned the CC, as the 520 was far more successful. But the Classic II and CC still had crippled 68030s, and it took the LCs a year to finally get a 68040 – forcing a clearly defined consumer vs. professional price point. Afterall the Classic was discontinued a year before the CC II which became the new entry level model, despite being leaps and bounds superior to the 68000 Classic. Maybe the SE/30 could have sold to 1993, until the Color Classic came out, but that's not where computers were headed. The early 90s were about bigger, better, faster, or at the other extreme: smaller, lighter, more portable – and that's where the money was. I doubt the SE would have lasted another year at the price-point and volume it enjoyed between 89 and 91 (and for the record, January 89 to October 91 is a damn long time in the lifespan of any computer model). The SE/30 was the last of the classic compact design, and the cost to update it for the amount of money they could have charged based on demand was simply prohibitive. So Apple wisely targeted the 9" compact to schools, students and entry level computer users – how could they possibly then charge several thousand more for the same package, regardless of how powerful it was? Apple wanted to sell more expensive CPUs, and more expensive color monitors, because that's where the demand was. Moreover, by 1991, even high school kids were starting to get credit cards, and parents were starting to deficit spend us into the current financial dilemma the world finds itself in today. Apple could finally sell computers directly to kids, who were rapidly defining the market for what a consumer entry-level computer needed to be, which was color and CD-ROM.
The SE/30 had a solid almost 3 year run. But let's be real ... sure Sculley likely quashed the more powerful successor to the SE/30 based on the bottom line, but seriously, its days were numbered. Screaming fast 9" B&W monitors were simply not something people were willing to pay a premium for anymore – and don't forget Apple was also competing with Microsoft and and explosion of cheap PCs most of which came standard with color monitors in 1991. Heck even my secretary had a 15" color monitor in 1991. All romanticism aside, the compact Mac was on the way out. By the time the SE/30 was discontinued, the Qudra was already the new king of the mountain, and a person could get a deal on a screamin' IIfx or IIsi instead for the same money as an SE – with a color monitor.
As for Jobs concern for the bottom line, he may be more flexible than Sculley on that point, but he would not be pursuing the NetBook market so aggressively with the iPad if he didn't smell money, despite his previous opinion on the subject.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I still cannot find the quote button in this forum. Did it get eliminated for some reason? I've opened this forum in FireFox and Safari but I still cannot see it. Am I simply losing my mind? It surely was there before.
Mac128, you are correct about my nostalgic love for B&W compacts. And your analysis about why things panned out as they did is quite logical and businesslike. Thank you for that perspective.
Even so I cannot help but feel that, when viewing the entire line of "compact B&W Macs" in retrospect, the SE/30 is the machine that shines most brightly. It had a small screen, yes. That was limiting and frustrating at times. But that small screen made the overall machine a "compact Mac," freeing more physical desk space for those of us who required such.
The critical point though is that the SE/30 was the most "Expandable" of all the B&W compact Macs, yet it remained the same size as the cute-looking Mac 128k, in stark contrast to the much larger Mac II series at the time. The SE models also avoided being too compact, which would have put an even tighter limit on its performance scalability. The SE/30 hit that sweet spot in terms of size versus expandability, considering the technology available in that day. The SE/30 didn't have 6 Nubus slots, but it didn't need that. However, the Mac 128, 512 and yes even the Plus did need something extra -- the tiny bit extra that the SE and SE/30 offered, a single yet flexible slot for expansion (i.e., user customizability). But as I said previously, such expandability would never have existed under Jobs, the grim reaper of expandability.
"Basic expandability, in a sexy and compact form factor" is still highly sought after today. As I type this on my Nov. 2009 iMac Quadcore, my hand caresses the onboard SD card slot. Such a small thing, yet so pleasing. I don't mourn the loss of PCI slots in my iMac, yet I would think less of the machine had it no SD card slot. Funny how that is. And when I think about it, how much more pleased would some be if the iPad had an internal SD card slot (or even a camera)? I for one surely would be more pleased. Perhaps if demand for such is sufficiently high, a future model may bring us those "fundamental" and quite nearly "ubiquitous" features -- features that in no way would make the iPad "overly complex" or "too expensive" or "like a desktop computer" or a "security risk."
Jobs may not have intended the iPad to be anything more than a glorified iPod Touch -- another cash cow to be milked for the sake of boosting AAPL into the stratosphere. But in the long term, it's what is most pleasing to the user that endures.
As buyer of electronic devices, I most often seek something attractive looking and compact, yet fast and customizable/expandable, and priced realistically. I currently do not own a single iPod, iPod Touch or iPhone. Yet the iPad intrigues me for some reason. Perhaps it is because it more suits my needs than those other devices. And really, what suits my needs is what it's all about.
So while there is a lot of political jockeying among corporate executives and Bottom-line CEOs, and while some are willing to accept the Jobsian utopia of "you can get your kicks with Fisher Price simplicity," there are those of us who long for a little more. No, not a lot more like a midrange Mac tower or that sort. Just a little more. For the era in which it was sold, the SE/30 is the only "compact Mac" model that comes close to satisfying that longing. It brings "just a little more" to Job's original Macintosh. That little bit extra was enough to bring satisfaction to many (to those who could afford it at the time).
It's a similar situation with the iPad. The current iPad is a first in many ways -- a Mac 128k, if I can be so bold. But I long for an iPad SE -- basically the same device, but with just a tiny bit more in terms of expandability.
With all this said, expandability alone isn't everything. If it was, my vintage Mac collection would be focused primarily on IIfx's, Quadra 840AVs and Apple Network Servers. No, what's really neat is a great performance plus basic expandability, attractively housed in a small-yet-usable form factor. That's what the SE/30 represents to me. Even after 20 years, the overall design still intrigues me. It hits the sweet spot.
It's rather easy for me to give such an evaluation now in the "buy it for $100" EBAY era. I lusted after the SE/30 when it retailed for thousands of dollars 20 years ago, but I knew I could never afford one then. So obviously, cost is important in the day in which a product is new and still being manufactured. But over time cost becomes irrelevant and we can more freely judge a product on its technological, aesthetic and usability merits. I find it interesting that an SE/30 can still be useful today, even to the level of getting on the internet via Ethernet. But its important to consider that usability results from a single PDS expansion slot -- irrelevant to and perhaps even hated by Steve Jobs, but very useful and pleasing to me.
Mac128, you are correct about my nostalgic love for B&W compacts. And your analysis about why things panned out as they did is quite logical and businesslike. Thank you for that perspective.
Even so I cannot help but feel that, when viewing the entire line of "compact B&W Macs" in retrospect, the SE/30 is the machine that shines most brightly. It had a small screen, yes. That was limiting and frustrating at times. But that small screen made the overall machine a "compact Mac," freeing more physical desk space for those of us who required such.
The critical point though is that the SE/30 was the most "Expandable" of all the B&W compact Macs, yet it remained the same size as the cute-looking Mac 128k, in stark contrast to the much larger Mac II series at the time. The SE models also avoided being too compact, which would have put an even tighter limit on its performance scalability. The SE/30 hit that sweet spot in terms of size versus expandability, considering the technology available in that day. The SE/30 didn't have 6 Nubus slots, but it didn't need that. However, the Mac 128, 512 and yes even the Plus did need something extra -- the tiny bit extra that the SE and SE/30 offered, a single yet flexible slot for expansion (i.e., user customizability). But as I said previously, such expandability would never have existed under Jobs, the grim reaper of expandability.
"Basic expandability, in a sexy and compact form factor" is still highly sought after today. As I type this on my Nov. 2009 iMac Quadcore, my hand caresses the onboard SD card slot. Such a small thing, yet so pleasing. I don't mourn the loss of PCI slots in my iMac, yet I would think less of the machine had it no SD card slot. Funny how that is. And when I think about it, how much more pleased would some be if the iPad had an internal SD card slot (or even a camera)? I for one surely would be more pleased. Perhaps if demand for such is sufficiently high, a future model may bring us those "fundamental" and quite nearly "ubiquitous" features -- features that in no way would make the iPad "overly complex" or "too expensive" or "like a desktop computer" or a "security risk."
Jobs may not have intended the iPad to be anything more than a glorified iPod Touch -- another cash cow to be milked for the sake of boosting AAPL into the stratosphere. But in the long term, it's what is most pleasing to the user that endures.
As buyer of electronic devices, I most often seek something attractive looking and compact, yet fast and customizable/expandable, and priced realistically. I currently do not own a single iPod, iPod Touch or iPhone. Yet the iPad intrigues me for some reason. Perhaps it is because it more suits my needs than those other devices. And really, what suits my needs is what it's all about.
So while there is a lot of political jockeying among corporate executives and Bottom-line CEOs, and while some are willing to accept the Jobsian utopia of "you can get your kicks with Fisher Price simplicity," there are those of us who long for a little more. No, not a lot more like a midrange Mac tower or that sort. Just a little more. For the era in which it was sold, the SE/30 is the only "compact Mac" model that comes close to satisfying that longing. It brings "just a little more" to Job's original Macintosh. That little bit extra was enough to bring satisfaction to many (to those who could afford it at the time).
It's a similar situation with the iPad. The current iPad is a first in many ways -- a Mac 128k, if I can be so bold. But I long for an iPad SE -- basically the same device, but with just a tiny bit more in terms of expandability.
With all this said, expandability alone isn't everything. If it was, my vintage Mac collection would be focused primarily on IIfx's, Quadra 840AVs and Apple Network Servers. No, what's really neat is a great performance plus basic expandability, attractively housed in a small-yet-usable form factor. That's what the SE/30 represents to me. Even after 20 years, the overall design still intrigues me. It hits the sweet spot.
It's rather easy for me to give such an evaluation now in the "buy it for $100" EBAY era. I lusted after the SE/30 when it retailed for thousands of dollars 20 years ago, but I knew I could never afford one then. So obviously, cost is important in the day in which a product is new and still being manufactured. But over time cost becomes irrelevant and we can more freely judge a product on its technological, aesthetic and usability merits. I find it interesting that an SE/30 can still be useful today, even to the level of getting on the internet via Ethernet. But its important to consider that usability results from a single PDS expansion slot -- irrelevant to and perhaps even hated by Steve Jobs, but very useful and pleasing to me.
JDW, isn't it interesting what goes around comes around? Everything was bigger, better, faster, then as technology allowed desktop power to be miniaturized for a price, it became about being smaller and more portable for everybody. Now I'm seeing a trend where folks are getting frustrated with laptops and iPhones and want some kind of larger interface, be it a monitor they can attach or accessing their files on a full sized computer or device.
Just to correct your perspective about the iPad, Jobs has long since learned his lesson about expandability. The iPad will initially have accessibility to a USB digital camera, or flash card via a dock interface. Apple has already approved serial device implementation on the iPhone, so I would expect to see it on the iPad too. This means, there is a direct way to tap into the processor. So the hooks are there, and jail-broken, likely capable of anything a developer desires. The iPad also grants direct disk access to networked computers allowing files to be directly transferred from a users desktop, which also opens the door for screen sharing, and thus access to a remote computer's hardware. And keep in mind, most of what the expansion slots on the SE family were used for is built-into the iPad already. And Bluetooth is another method for integrating hardware wirelessly. So, the iPad is already leaps and bounds ahead of where the 128K started (despite having the exact same screen dimensions). What Jobs is doing this time around is controlling the software, while opening the hardware up to be versatile enough to do anything, something that could not be done as inexpensively on the 128K. Jobs couldn't control hackers in the 80s, so he locked them out of the ability to easily modify the hardware. Today he does it with licensing and controlling access. It certainly hasn't stopped the hackers, but they have to constantly battle Apple on every update to maintain their freedom. More trouble than it's worth for me.
And to be fair, I don't think Jobs was anti-expandibility as much as he wanted to control the expansion. He didn't want people to be able to add anything to directly access the CPU which might cause instability with the experience. If the expansion can be controlled, then he seems to have always allowed it. What I find truly interesting though is that the same formula he used with the 128K that was frowned upon by the engineers, is being gobbled up by the masses: devices with fixed RAM! You can't even upgrade the storage capacity as you could on the 128K. It's classic Jobsian philosophy, when the user is ready to upgrade, they don't expand, they just buy a new one ... and it is working!! It wouldn't be possible without the explosion of the middle-class credit card consumer who evolved during the 90s. Man talk about a guy ahead of his time.
And finally, the SE had an expansion slot, but the paucity of cards available for it then and now, demonstrate exactly the market position it held. People who bought the SE were entry level power users, or small businesses, with en eye for expandability ... but no real intent to do it, and most didn't. By the time they needed Ethernet, they were ready for more power. The SE/30 on the other hand was truly powerful enough to justify the investment in expensive expansion cards. It replaced the compact application in professional environments, or full sized professional application in budget environments. If anything, I would say what killed the professional compact was the PowerBook. By the time the Duo came out in 1992, PowerBooks were running 68030 chips on a bus as fast as the SE/30, and the Duo offered the same expansion via a PDS direct slot, as well as color expandability, in a smaller format with a larger screen. The installation of many of the popular expansion cards on the SE/30 were made far more elegant in the form of a variety of micro, mini, and full-sized docks. The Duo remains my favorite Mac after the compact form factor. If you had the money and wanted portable the Duo was the answer, leaving compacts for kitchen cabinets, or students desks and limited use applications.
And why is it these tiny devices are finally taking off? The technology has been around for a while. It's the ability to enlarge the screen! Why is it 640x480 seems tiny on a Color Classic, when 1024x768 is perfectly acceptable for the iPad of the same dimensions? Because it can be scaled quickly and easily as needed. That's why these tiny devices are suddenly being embraced. Now you can have it all, compact, stylish and powerful, and don't need to put on your jewelers glasses to use it. You need it bigger for presentation or tired of pinching and stretching? Just plug it into your LCD TV.
Just to correct your perspective about the iPad, Jobs has long since learned his lesson about expandability. The iPad will initially have accessibility to a USB digital camera, or flash card via a dock interface. Apple has already approved serial device implementation on the iPhone, so I would expect to see it on the iPad too. This means, there is a direct way to tap into the processor. So the hooks are there, and jail-broken, likely capable of anything a developer desires. The iPad also grants direct disk access to networked computers allowing files to be directly transferred from a users desktop, which also opens the door for screen sharing, and thus access to a remote computer's hardware. And keep in mind, most of what the expansion slots on the SE family were used for is built-into the iPad already. And Bluetooth is another method for integrating hardware wirelessly. So, the iPad is already leaps and bounds ahead of where the 128K started (despite having the exact same screen dimensions). What Jobs is doing this time around is controlling the software, while opening the hardware up to be versatile enough to do anything, something that could not be done as inexpensively on the 128K. Jobs couldn't control hackers in the 80s, so he locked them out of the ability to easily modify the hardware. Today he does it with licensing and controlling access. It certainly hasn't stopped the hackers, but they have to constantly battle Apple on every update to maintain their freedom. More trouble than it's worth for me.
And to be fair, I don't think Jobs was anti-expandibility as much as he wanted to control the expansion. He didn't want people to be able to add anything to directly access the CPU which might cause instability with the experience. If the expansion can be controlled, then he seems to have always allowed it. What I find truly interesting though is that the same formula he used with the 128K that was frowned upon by the engineers, is being gobbled up by the masses: devices with fixed RAM! You can't even upgrade the storage capacity as you could on the 128K. It's classic Jobsian philosophy, when the user is ready to upgrade, they don't expand, they just buy a new one ... and it is working!! It wouldn't be possible without the explosion of the middle-class credit card consumer who evolved during the 90s. Man talk about a guy ahead of his time.
And finally, the SE had an expansion slot, but the paucity of cards available for it then and now, demonstrate exactly the market position it held. People who bought the SE were entry level power users, or small businesses, with en eye for expandability ... but no real intent to do it, and most didn't. By the time they needed Ethernet, they were ready for more power. The SE/30 on the other hand was truly powerful enough to justify the investment in expensive expansion cards. It replaced the compact application in professional environments, or full sized professional application in budget environments. If anything, I would say what killed the professional compact was the PowerBook. By the time the Duo came out in 1992, PowerBooks were running 68030 chips on a bus as fast as the SE/30, and the Duo offered the same expansion via a PDS direct slot, as well as color expandability, in a smaller format with a larger screen. The installation of many of the popular expansion cards on the SE/30 were made far more elegant in the form of a variety of micro, mini, and full-sized docks. The Duo remains my favorite Mac after the compact form factor. If you had the money and wanted portable the Duo was the answer, leaving compacts for kitchen cabinets, or students desks and limited use applications.
And why is it these tiny devices are finally taking off? The technology has been around for a while. It's the ability to enlarge the screen! Why is it 640x480 seems tiny on a Color Classic, when 1024x768 is perfectly acceptable for the iPad of the same dimensions? Because it can be scaled quickly and easily as needed. That's why these tiny devices are suddenly being embraced. Now you can have it all, compact, stylish and powerful, and don't need to put on your jewelers glasses to use it. You need it bigger for presentation or tired of pinching and stretching? Just plug it into your LCD TV.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I still own and love my SE/30, G4 Cube and Newton 2100.
What do you think we'd have as the next Mac instead? Anyone predict?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All I can say is Jobs is better at getting people to believe his bullshit then most CEOs.