"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Let me make it easier for you to understand why there is not more
software
for the older Apples and basically why Apple bassicly failed.

If 8 billion dollars a year is "failure".

When it could have easily been in the trillions. Yeah a failure, and had
Microsoft not bailed them out, probably the path of the Comodore. I wonder
what the Net profit is? Sales mean nothing if the cost is equal or greater.


Except that the CP/M community was even more open and IBM killed them
dead.
Is _any_ company that started out making CP/M machines still in business?

Still they were much more effective at marketing.

IBM was successful mainly because of brand recognition, not because of the
superiority of their product or their policies toward developers.

Did anyone dispute this? I do not recall reading that IBM was more
successful because of a better product. They were simply superior at
marketing. Hence, Apple fell way behind.


Kinda like comparing a Socialist economic system to a Capitalist
economic
system.

I think that's quite a stretch.

Socialism by definition,

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means
of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Basically Apple had the theory or system that produced, distributed and
controlled its goods by itself.

Capitalism by definition,

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are
privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the
accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

IBM used this method.

Again, only a comparison that describes why Apple got stomped by the PC
economy.