ComputerWare/Elite Chain Throws In The Towel

An anonymous reader writes "ComputerWare, a ComputerLand-like chain of stores specializing in Apple computers, went out of business in 2001. Thinking he sees an opportunity for expansion, the guy who owns Elite Computers, the long-time independent Apple computer store literally across the street from Apple HQ in Cupertino, bought the CW name and leased and reopened the SF Bay Area stores as 'ComputerWare by Elite Computers.' In 2003, Mr. Elite realized the reason the original ComputerWare owners got out -- Apple's engaging in 'unfair competition' -- and announced he is closing the chain along with his original store."

Comments

Colored Logo

[bjb]

I remember seeing this store the one time I drove to Apple in Cupertino. It was my first time in California (I'm a NYC native), and while driving down from San Francisco through the Valley, I was given the choice of one place I could stop and be a geek for a few minutes. Cupertino. Apple.

I was so thrilled to be there, though I had just missed the 5pm closing time of the gift shop, so I could only drive around in an infinate loop ;-).

Anyway, I remember seeing this Apple dealer across the street (well, go out the front of the complex, make two rights, and make a sharp left across the street). They had a large colored Apple logo (the old "rainbow" style, which I am sentimental for), even though every other Apple symbol around was the new metal/steel/aqua or whatever they call it. I found that strangely comforting that even though Apple changed their logo, their old one was always staring them right back into the doorway of the gift shop. I was glad they didn't change their sign.

Anyway, silly nostalgia and memories.. go back to your own business..

Re:Colored Logo

[Alan Partridge]

"so I could only drive around in an infinate loop"

You know, I've always wondered about the name "Infinite Loop" because it rather seems to me that ALL loops are infinite...

Re:Colored Logo

[MacDaffy]

Anyway, I remember seeing this Apple dealer across the street (well, go out the front of the complex, make two rights, and make a sharp left across the street). They had a large colored Apple logo (the old "rainbow" style, which I am sentimental for), even though every other Apple symbol around was the new metal/steel/aqua or whatever they call it. I found that strangely comforting that even though Apple changed their logo, their old one was always staring them right back into the doorway of the gift shop. I was glad they didn't change their sign.

Unless they've changed it since I was last there (Christmas, 2001), the multi-colored Apple symbol still sits high above Apple's front door at Infinite Loop One.

Re:Colored Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

ALL loops are infinite, YOU stop somwhere within...

Re:Colored Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

for (int i=0; i < Math.INFINITY; i++) {
// Is this loop infinite?
}

ComputerWare

[Stigmata669]

was in trouble long before the Apple retail stores opened. They weren't making enough money to even keep their Palo Alto store open... It's a Radio Shack now and has been for a few years.

Still, it's sad to see small retailers go.

Re:ComputerWare

[chia_monkey]

Sadly enough, it doesn't really surprise me. I lived down the street from the Capitola store and was always annoyed that they didn't have a website. A simple thing like that could have helped draw customers to that location instead of having to drive over to the Apple Store over the Hill. It WAS fun having new Apple stuff within walking distance. They just didn't have decent business sense.

Re:ComputerWare

[Ioldanach]

was in trouble long before the Apple retail stores opened.

From the article, I can't comment on what things were like before Apple opened up its retail stores, but the business was purchased by a company doing pretty well until they touched this. If the allegations are correct, and Apple shipped product to its own stores significantly in advance of competitors and then used registration to lure customers to the branded stores, then this smacks of anti-competetive behavior. Apple may not have a monopoly on desktops, but they do have a monopoly on Apple products. By selling their products both in their own storefronts and to competing storefronts, they need to be treating both as equal stores. Otherwise, there could be legal repercussions, like this one.

Now, I'm not convinced yet, but I want to see how this pans out.

Re:ComputerWare

[rograndom]

Apple may not have a monopoly on desktops, but they do have a monopoly on Apple products.

Really? Somebody should do something about this. I mean, it's not like Dell has a monopoly on Dell computers or anything. er, wait...

Re:ComputerWare

[bpbond]

>Apple may not have a monopoly on desktops, but they do
>have a monopoly on Apple products. By selling their
>products both in their own storefronts and to competing
>storefronts, they need to be treating both as equal stores.
>Otherwise, there could be legal repercussions, like this one.

What?!? By this definition of "monopoly," every company has a monopoly on all its own products. This makes no sense. What legal repercussions? Unless Apple signed an explicit contract with these guys, promising equal access to their products, why shouldn't they be able to ship first to their stores, for example? I'd certainly like to know about the grounds of Thomas Armes' "unfair competition" suit.

Could someone with more legal knowledge than I comment on this?

Re:ComputerWare

[Hard_Code]

Dell does not have a monopoly on PC hardware. Duh.

Re:ComputerWare

[Anonymous Coward]

My problem with their complaint is they're only putting forward one possible explanation for their failure. The Apple Stores are a stunning example of what to do right in a store. Computerware in the last few years have been run by a dodgy unhelpful group of people not interested in customer service, or bringing people into their store. That makes all the difference, even before issues like stock availability. I doubt it would matter how Apple handled them, they would have went out of business just as quickly the way they were being run.

Truth be known, if I were Apple I'd want stores like ComputerWare to be as far away from my name as possible, they certainly don't do it a service.

Re:ComputerWare

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither does Apple. Duh.

Re:ComputerWare

[rograndom]

I never said they did, but they do have one on Dell branded PC hardware.

Re:ComputerWare

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't comment on the contract issues between Apple and Elite since I have no knowledge of them but I think there are many other factors at work in this situation that would lead to the closing of the Elite stores.

First, Computerware went out of business once before. They had a reputation of having helpful, well informed, sales people but very high prices in an extemely competitive market. Typically, they would sell ALL of their products at MSRP, this includes video cards, USB hubs, software, etc. You gotta keep in mind that they were a retailer that had several Fry's Electronics, CompUSA, and a MicroCenter, all less than ten minutes away in any direction from many of their stores (except Capitola). Each of these companies sells Apple computers and has a huge selection of peripherals and software, many work around the Apple MSRP by offering specials on other products when you buy an Apple computer. Computerware did not and subsequently went out of business.

Elite then bought out Computerware and implemented EXACTLY the same business model. Add to that the extremely high rent for commercial property in silicon valley over the last few years and you have a recipe for miniscule profit margins. To their credit, Elite re-hired many of the old Computerware staff but the high prices made it a place to buy only as a last resort. I remember going in there to buy a Radeon 9000 video card. They insisted on selling it at full retail so I went and bought it at Microcenter on sale and saved over $40. On another occassion, I went to buy a second battery for my G4 laptop and they had it sticker priced at $149 and marked down to $139 when I can buy it anywhere else (not just Apple) for $129 and this was after they had already announced that they were going out of business.

I am still unhappy to see them go since I think that fewer Apple retailers, even if they are high priced, is a bad thing but I don't think that the owner can blame Apple for all of these factors. He took a gamble on a failed chain, implemented the same sales plan, and expected a different result.

Re:ComputerWare

[happystink]

They definitely do grab all the best stuff for themselves when there's a shortage, I actually bought the imac I'm writing on now from an apple store 3 hours away from me a few weeks after it came out because it was the only place that had any in a 3 hour radius. All the local stores were saying they wouldn't have any for weeks and there were articles on cnet, etc. about the shortages because some retailers accused Apple of only shipping them to the Apple stores. So, I phoned the nearest Apple store, and sure enough they had tons of them, so I drove there the next day and picked one up. I dislike Apple for doing it, but what can I say, I am impatient ha!

Re:ComputerWare

[TheRaven64]

Well, I believe the US has a little law called 'anti-trust', which states that you can not use a monoploy in one area (such as producing Apple hardware) to gain a monopoly in a new area (such as selling Apple hardware). I seem to recall a case involving a software company a little while ago using this law...

Re:ComputerWare

[drunkenbatman]

My problem with their complaint is they're only putting forward one possible explanation for their failure. The Apple Stores are a stunning example of what to do right in a store. Computerware in the last few years have been run by a dodgy unhelpful group of people not interested in customer service, or bringing people into their store.

Admittedly I don't have personal experience with them, but being an Apple VAR (or selling their products in general) right now is a pretty bad experience all around. You hear about Apple's amazing 25-30% margins, but Apple's the only one who gets them... and then when they push all traffic towards the online store it was bad for local mac dealers, with the advent of the Apple Store it's even worse especially when Apple is going to be operating them at a loss for awhile.

See this post (6th point down) for more information.

Re:ComputerWare

[TeamSPAM]

You are correct that Dell has a monopoly on Dell computers as only Dell sells them. So there isn't a question of Dell favoring their retail arm over other retailers. I'm still waiting for proof that Apple is guilty of favoring their retail stores.

Re:ComputerWare

[Anonymous Coward]

But I can buy off the shelf parts and make a clone of a Dell, without buying anything from Dell. It will run like a Dell, maybe better.

Re:ComputerWare

[Llywelyn]

You care to make this argument for cars?

When was the last time you personally put together your own car?

Re:ComputerWare

[Anonymous Coward]

You rode the short bus to school, didn't you?

Re:ComputerWare

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate how Apple uses their monopoly on advertising Apple hardware to illegally get a foothold in the Apple hardware market.

I also think you are too kind to Apple by limiting their monopoly to just the production of Apple hardware. Apple's monopoly on the available employment opportunities at Apple Computer is the foundation of Apple's plan to dominate all old and new markets.

Re:ComputerWare

[turbod]

But in this case, producing it and selling it are the very same thing. Apple computers doesn't produce apples for free so that stores can sell them --- they produce to sell, either through the web, Apple stores, or 3rd parties.

Not sure what case you are speaking of, but MS was using monopoly advantage to keep other OSs off the shelves and off the shipped harddrives of manufacturers. They weren't giving MS stores a product advantage over 3rd party MS vendors. Geez.

TurboD

Re:ComputerWare

[turbod]

I think this the unfortunate dark side to the transition that Apple _had_ to make. At some point Apple realized they had the Lexus of the computing world, and that was what was going to sell the product. Unfortunately, their VARs were not all up to the task of selling and supporting the pricey machines. In response, Apple decided they had to bring the dealers up --- and the only way they could do it is to own the dealerships too.

The darkside is that unfortunately some of us are or know people who are Apple VARs, and it sucks to see them spiraling out of existance. But that is capitalism -- the strong ideas always win, thats what Americans have embraced since the creation of our gov't.

TurboD

Re:ComputerWare

[drunkenbatman]

I think this the unfortunate dark side to the transition that Apple _had_ to make. At some point Apple realized they had the Lexus of the computing world, and that was what was going to sell the product. Unfortunately, their VARs were not all up to the task of selling and supporting the pricey machines. In response, Apple decided they had to bring the dealers up --- and the only way they could do it is to own the dealerships too.

I don't think I buy that analogy anymore- only in the sense that Apple doesn't make upscale x86 hardware (gasoline-burning car) but rather something very different (akin to a hydrogen burning car). If the VAR's aren't selling hydrogen burning cars, they're going to have to make a living selling something... and chances are it will be gasoline burning cars.

This absolutely killed them in the educational sector- Apple got rid of all the people selling Apple stuff to schools, and decided to do it themselves (sure it brings stuff up to snuff, but it also helps the balance sheet as more of the margin stays with Apple). Those VAR's didn't disappear for the most part, but rather started selling x86 machines to schools for competitors. Educational marketshare went from a very slow gradual decline to an all-out slaughter of Apple share.

It's not the whole story (there are a lot of pro-x86+wintel dynamics going on in that market... such as cost...) but it's part of it, as Apple admitted.

Re:ComputerWare

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention their monopoly on Apple hardware makes it so easy to maintain their near-monopoly on OS software that runs on Apple hardware!

You're fscking nuts. You're taking a law that's intended for macrocosms and trying to apply it to a microcosm. You're not a lawyer, you don't play one on TV, you don't have the slighting fscking clue what you're talking about.

That said, there are plenty of other laws that can be applied to Apple's behavior. IF, and this is a BIG IF, they actually engaged in illegal practices.

It's much more likely that ComputerWare, being a small retail chain, selling very small numbers of systems, was treated just like every other small retailer. Like all hardware vendors Apple has a tiered pricing and availibility structure, the more you sell, the cheaper your price, the easier it is to get your orders filled.

Re:ComputerWare

[MoneyT]

You can do the same with PPC hardware too. Maybe you should look into it.

Re:ComputerWare

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's not like Ford and GMcan decide who their cars. And Disney can't favor its sores over Target and and ToysRUs. O waitaminnit, you're just being an idiot.

Just so I know.

[chumpieboy]

::ready to burn karma::

I know this is one man's claim and all that, but I wanted to prepare myself for the rest of the thread.

Just so I know:
Is it OK on Slashdot for a computer company to engage in unfair business practices as long as it's name doesn't begin with an "M" and end with an "icrosoft"?

Re:Just so I know.

[Ioldanach]

Just so I know:

Is it OK on Slashdot for a computer company to engage in unfair business practices as long as it's name doesn't begin with an "M" and end with an "icrosoft"?

Some may think so, but I certainly don't. The thing you're overlooking is that the usual company we bash for unfair business practices is not only notorious but infamous for using them, so when a new instance is announced we don't feel the need to check over the facts yet again before rendering our judgement. They've used up all the chances we're willing to give them.

In this case, we have a business not really known for unfair business practices. They may have done a few unfair things in the past, I really don't recall, but most businesses have. Nobody's perfect. The point here is that I don't recall them, and therefore they don't have the reputation of being rabidly monopolistic.

What it boils down to is simple: I don't recall Apple doing this sort of thing recently, therefore I'm willing to reserve judgement until I see how they respond.

Re:Just so I know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are assuming right off the bat that Apple *is* engaging in unfair business practices?

I was a long-term customer of ComputerWare for many years, and they were an excellent place to look at, and buy, Apple-related equipment and software. Good staff, selection, service and all.

It was sad to see the plug pulled on them by a new owner from out of state, with no warning. Their sales *were* down, just like pretty much everyone else at the beginning of the economic downturn.

So it was good to see Elite pick up the name, some of the sites, and some of the original staff.

Unfortunately, Elite's approach wasn't the old ComputerWare. Selection and prices weren't as good, it looked as if they were trying to get by with smaller staff, and so on. It wasn't the same experience.

My guess is that the current economy has more to do with Elite's woes than any changes in Apple's relationship with them.

Too bad, and I really feel for the old ComputerWare people who came back to work under Elite, but it wasn't the same store, it just had the old name.

Re:Just so I know.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that it would be foolish to think that it's okay for Apple to use unfair business practices and bash M$ for the same thing. However, the Elite comments must be taken in context. The assertions made by Elite may be inaccurate. Even if they are accurate, there may be reasons that Apple did not ship as much product in as timely of a basis as they did to their Apple stores. Such reasons might include payment history, past sales experiences with selling their leading-edge products at the Elite locations, etc. I'm not naive enough to think that Apple would never engage in unfair business practices, but the allegations must be proven before we go off on apple for stifling competition.

Re:Just so I know.

[TheRaven64]

Just so I know:
Is it OK on Slashdot for a computer company to engage in unfair business practices as long as it's name doesn't begin with an "M" and end with an "icrosoft"?

In a word, yes.

Seriously though, at the moment we (that is to say those of us who are me) like Apple, because they manage to use a vertical monopoly to provide a damn good end user product. By eliminating some of their retail competition they are able to increase their vertical monopoly, and in theory provide an even better service. We like vertical monopolies because they result in good products, since they still have to compete with similar monopolies (e.g. Sun) or oligopolies (e.g. the Intel/MS/Dell cartel). If Apple had a raft of MS executives and Linux/*BSD kernel hackers assassinated, and took control of the OS market, then discontinued making OSes for anything other than the Mac platform then they would have a horizonatal monopoly (and a major FBI investigation, but nothing buying a few senators couldn't clear up...) and this would be bad.

In short, this kind of behaviour is okay because if you don't like it you can just not buy a Mac. Not buying a Windows PC is harder (hell, not buying a Windows toaster is getting to be hard).

Re:Just so I know.

[JJahn]

Not buying a Windows PC is harder? Let's apply your statement "this kind of behaviour is okay because if you don't like it you can just not buy a Mac". If you don't like PCs why not buy a Mac? There are alternatives out there to both MS and PCs. That is why I don't think MS is a monopoly. There always has been an alternative.

Sell few, not new!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is "sell as few Macintosh", not sell as new!

Apple monopolistic practices

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nobody's perfect. The point here is that I don't recall them, and therefore they don't have the reputation of being rabidly monopolistic"

Really? What would people say if Microsoft made it so Windows would only run on Microsoft-brand hardware? (similar to what Apple has done).

Not only is it a recent Apple practice, it is a current Apple practice.

Re:Apple monopolistic practices

[dhamsaic]

If Microsoft wanted to do that, that's perfectly within their rights. Apple can't be troubled to support every damn type of hardware or architecture out there, and no one can force them to. It's the same as Texas Instruments not letting Casio license their (arguably) superior calculator software, or Kodak not licensing the operating system of their cameras to other companies.

Irix only runs on SGI hardware. Boo hoo. It's hardly anticompetetive. It's just far easier to support, not to mention that Apple is a hardware company and selling machines is how they make money.

Re:Apple monopolistic practices

[Ioldanach]

Really? What would people say if Microsoft made it so Windows would only run on Microsoft-brand hardware? (similar to what Apple has done).

That's entirely their perogative. As long as they're the only ones that sell it, there's no real issue there. The issues would occur either if they allowed other stores to sell their product but refused to treat them equally, or if they used the new combination of hardware/software to undercut their competition significantly due to an availability of cash reserves to subsidise the operation until the other hardware/software competition goes out of business.

Though it isn't a very good analogy, since switching to that type of model would severly limit their user base at this time, since customers wouldn't want to purchase a whole new box next time they go to upgrade their system. Current versions of MS software would linger on for a while and other OS's would slowly replace MS on existing systems.

Not only is it a recent Apple practice, it is a current Apple practice.

Ok, I'm going to show my Apple ignorance here... when was it not an Apple practice? I don't remember ever being able to run Apple's OS-du-jour on anything but an Apple made product.

With any choice of software there's a certain set of limitations. I can't run OS X on my PC, but I also can't run XP on a Mac. So what? The availability of hardware affects my choice of software, but again, this is only a problem if the software manufacturer manages to use the system to maliciously damage their competitor.

Re:Apple monopolistic practices

[Alan Partridge]

"What would people say if Microsoft made it so Windows would only run on Microsoft-brand hardware?"

They'd say "Thank you Mr Gates, may I have another?" And then go out and buy more X-box games.

Re:Apple monopolistic practices

[Alan Partridge]

"I don't remember ever being able to run Apple's OS-du-jour on anything but an Apple made product."

There used to be a licensed Apple clone business - Apple ended it because the cloners only stole market share from Apple's own products rather than from Windows PCs. The termination of cloning REALLY pissed Motorola off - and Apple have been paying for that one ever since. Some words to search for - Starmax, Power Computing, CHRP and Daystar.

Re:Apple monopolistic practices

[Oriumpor]

*COUGH* Intellectual-Property-Theft *COUGH* *COUGH* XEROX *COUGH*

Re:Apple monopolistic practices

[MouseR]

*COUGH* Intellectual-Property-Theft *COUGH* *COUGH* XEROX *COUGH*

*cough* *cough* idiot-ignores-real-story *cough* licensed-ideas *cough*

The old rainbow Apple logo

[Anonymous Coward]

The old rainbow Apple logo meant something in the late 1970s, when Apple's rivals were monochrome (Pet, TRS-80). There was no reason to get rid of it when the Atari and C-64 came along and surpassed the Apple II.

However, there was no way they could keep this logo with the introduction of the first Macintosh. This was a significant step backwards as far as graphics went, being limited to monochrome. It even seemed primitive compared to the Vic-20 in this regard.

So Microsoft is not a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

so Microsoft, which dominates on the desktop platform it invented along with IBM, is not a monopoly either?

Re:So Microsoft is not a monopoly?

[nycroft]

Absolutely not. Don't get me wrong, I don't like M$ much either, but they aren't forcing people to buy a Microsoft computer to run Windows. Also, you can take any x86 based computer, take Windows completely off it, and put Linux or BeOS on it. The choice is up to the consumer to choose what operating system they want to use. That's why the government's antitrust lawsuits never amounted to much: because we still have a choice (to buy a Mac, or run Linux, BeOS, or whatever).

Re:So Microsoft is not a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confusing legal definitions with dictionary definitions. OJ may have killed his wife but he did not murder her. Se how simple it is.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monopoly?

[nycroft]

I'm not confusing anything. People still have a choice, legally or definitively. That's it. I choose Mac. Let's be fair, just 'cause we don't like M$, and just 'cause they have the major share of the market, that's no reason to throw the word monopoly around. Besides, there's no way that M$ could be a monopoly now. They were accused by several states for anti-competitive practices. That in no way makes them a monopoly because there are still other choices. Again, as a designer, I choose Mac. I could use Windows if I wanted to, but I choose not to. IT pros may choose Windows, Linux, FreeBSD or Unix. A family or school may choose Windows or Mac, or whatever they want. If M$ actually forced the competition out of business (which they will never do as long as Linux gains popularity), then they would be a monopoly, legally and definitively. But they are not.

BTW, OJ didn't kill or murder anybody. He was found not guilty -- legally.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, OJ didn't kill or murder anybody. He was found not guilty -- legally

We do not know if O.J. killed anybody, we only know he was not found guilty of murder.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monopoly?

[nycroft]

Thanks for confirming my point, Mr. Rendundancy.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monopoly?

[Melantha_Bacchae]

nycroft wrote:

Let's be fair, just 'cause we don't like M$, and just 'cause they have the major share of the market, that's no reason to throw the word monopoly around. Besides, there's no way that M$ could be a monopoly now. They were accused by several states for anti-competitive practices. That in no way makes them a monopoly because there are still other choices.

There is every reason to throw the word "monopoly" at Microsoft. They were found guilty in a federal court of law (upheld on appeal) of abusing their monopoly.

Just because the new administration's DoJ wimped out and settled for a wrist slap, doesn't negate these facts:

• Microsoft has a monopoly, by antitrust definitions.
• Microsoft abused that monopoly and broke the law.
• Microsoft has been found guilty.

If M$ actually forced the competition out of business (which they will never do as long as Linux gains popularity), then they would be a monopoly, legally and definitively. But they are not.

Where have you been? Microsoft has been ripping into one company after the other for many years, like a hungry T. Rex on a rampage.

This is a story from 1997, on just a few of Microsoft's crushed foes back then.

"Really, gentlemen, if that's the case, let's see the power of attorney given to you by Mothra."
Torahata "Mothra vs. Godzilla" 1964
IANAL, but I can sing a mean "Mosura no Uta". ;)

Re:So Microsoft is not a monopoly?

[nycroft]

If you want to nitpick about legal definitions, fine. If you wanna pull all sorts of articles off the Internet to prove your point, go ahead. Use your head and your common sense. If they were ruled by the government to be a monopoly, they would have been broken up like Ma Bell by now. Back in the early 80's there was no choice for local phone service. That was a monopoly for sure.

My point was M$ is not a monopoly because there are still viable (and better) choices out there. Anyone can use a Mac for their business. Anyone can use Linux from home. Relax. They will never force me to use their product. It sounds like they're not gonna force you either. And besides, for every company they go after for infringement, two more spring up in its place. Open Source scares the big M$, and it will take over.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monopoly?

[Dr Reducto]

Walk into Best Buy and point out the non-Windows machines for me please. Or, I'll make it easy for you: Go into compUSA and find the tiny back corner of the store where they sell Macs.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monopoly?

[nycroft]

Pretty much any machine can be a non-Windows machine. There's this really neat operating system out there called Linux. You can even build your own for less than half the price. And yes! You can play Unreal Tounament 2003 and run Open Office and all sorts of other goodies on them! Wow!

Like I said, you all have choices. And if CompUSA and Best Buy are the only places you get computers, I feel sorry for you. Best Buy sucks and CompUSA is for people who don't know any better. I wouldn't buy a Mac there even if it were an emergency! We seasoned Mac users buy our stuff from catalogs and web sites and Apple Stores.

CompUSA? Best Buy? JFC! Get a job!

Re:So Microsoft is not a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were ruled by the government to be a monopoly, they would have been broken up like Ma Bell by now.

You're joking, right? You can't really be serious, right?

Don't you ^&*(@#$@# remember the original judgement handed down by the original judge assigned to the (latest) antitrust case?

He ordered the breakup of Microsoft.

Due to the ensuing political brouhaha of handing down such a verdict, the case was taken out of his hands and given to another judge, who approved the (latest) hand-slap consent decree.

The point you're arguing over already happened. Politics, not law, is why they're not broken up right now.

Re:So Microsoft is not a monopoly?

[nycroft]

You need to read the next paragraph before you fire off a reply, dude, here it is again: My point was M$ is not a monopoly because there are still viable (and better) choices out there. Anyone can use a Mac for their business. Anyone can use Linux from home. Relax. They will never force me to use their product. It sounds like they're not gonna force you either. And besides, for every company they go after for infringement, two more spring up in its place. Open Source scares the big M$, and it will take over.

JFC I hate repeating myself. Of course I remember the original ruling. I'm saying they are not a monopoly because they aren't the only ones making operating systems! I'm not nitpicking legal decisions here. I'm emphasizing a broad, common sense observation. There is nothing to worry about, gentlegeeks. M$ is never going to take over because there will always be other operating systems out there. They are not broken up because the other judge may have made a political decision, but he also knows (and obviously you don't) that people are smart enough to make their own decisions. No one is forcing anyone to buy Windows. For the people who do buy it (and I feel for them, I really do), no one is forcing them to use only Internet Explorer, or Word or whatever.

You all need to chill. And stop replying as ACs. I give very little credence to anything an AC has to say. You all are just pissing me off this time with your pathetic crying: Oh help me! Microsft is evil. They're making my life miserable! Fix my broken wing! Get off the guilt trip and just don't use any of M$'s crappy software (or hardware, that means you XBox users), and you will be just fine. End of line.

Survival Tactics

[nycroft]

From the article: Mr. Armes says Apple delivered new products to its own Apple stores as much as a month before they would ship any to him. "We didn't get as much product as the Apple stores, and we got it later than the Apple stores," Mr. Armes says.

I don't see anything unusual about this. Apple has very strict price controls on its products. The reason why it puts them in its Apple Stores first could be to get the product out there in the market in case other retailers balk at the high prices.

We can be sure that Macs will probably never be seen at places like Staples and Office Max because they would not be allowed to put the product on sale. This is why when we do see Macs at larger stores such as CompUSA and catalogs such as MacZone, there are always special offers of extra stuff like printers ans scanners and the like. That's the only way for an Apple retailer to compete with the Apple Store.

It's not Apple's fault. Steve Jobs didn't force "Mr. Elite" to become an Apple retailer in the first place. Every type of "dealership" has its caveats because it has to follow a certain set of rules governed by the manufacturer of the product it sells. I say: "buy one directly from Apple's website." I bought my 17-inch PowerBook there. I was fast, easy, and I got my extra RAM put in by an Apple technician! What more could you want?

Re:Survival Tactics

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, nothing is Apple's fault. Motorola, Microsoft, IBM, 3rd party developers are all to blame. Maybe people will learn that it isn't a good idea to do business with Apple. It is a no win situation.

In the PC world there are options, don't like dealing with Dell? Go to HP, Gateway or any one of the other manufacturers. You will still be familliar enough with the product to effectively run your business. With Apple, What PPC based systems are you going to go to? None. If you are a devloper, Apple decides to bundle an app, that provides nearly the same function as your app, with their OS. What can you do, port it to x86 and hope for the best? It is likely you won't be as well known in those circles. So, you have to make a name for yourself, again.

Even if you are right, in the court of public opinion (the Apple zealots), you will be wrong. And these are the reasons why Apple is a no win situation.

Re:Survival Tactics

[nycroft]

No, you are right: If you are a devloper, Apple decides to bundle an app, that provides nearly the same function as your app, with their OS. What can you do, port it to x86 and hope for the best? It is likely you won't be as well known in those circles. So, you have to make a name for yourself, again.

That's life. Again, Apple never forced me to be a developer of Apple software. That would be my choice, not Apple's. Making a name for yourself is a constant struggle. You gotta look out for number one. You can't expect charity all the time. So you move on, go back to school, and become a Linux developer, or a .net developer. That's just the way it goes.

Re:Survival Tactics

[happystink]

Your "noone forced him" argument would make more sense if he was threatening to sue or something. Instead, he's just pointing something out: Apple is killing the independent retail outlets by hogging the computers themselves when there is a shortage, which there often is with new apple products. It's not in case retailers balk at pricing or anything like that, it's to make more money by selling it at their own stores. Legitimate business practice? Maybe. Lame considering they are screwing the retailers who believed in them for years and without whom they would have gone out of business years ago? Yes.

Don't get me wrong, I've shopped at the Apple Store, they're nice. You just have to ask, why are Apple competing with their own dealers like that, by grabbing all the hot product right away, it has nothing to do with independent apple stores wanting to put product on sale or anything.

Re:Survival Tactics

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps that was a bad example.

Any company should do what is in it's own best interest. I just think that the whole bundling of apps is an abuse of position, whether it is Apple or Microsoft.

Re:Survival Tactics

[Anonymous Coward]

being affiliated with an Apple Specialist I can first hand guarantee you that Apple is subtly and behind the scenes screwing resellers every chance they get, from price under cutting proposals to simply "not knowing" who the local reseller is, and then some....If Apple had to do it all over again I believe they'd follow the dell model and are inching closer and closer to that as it is.........It hardly even pays to sell Apple hardware and software with 8-10% margins.

Just my 2 cents...

Re:Survival Tactics

[MO!]

Perhaps the near-constant media hostility towards any and everything Apple does/doesn't do contributes greatly to this issue.

If Apple announces a new product/model, everyone looks first at the Apple Store to have it in stock. If Apple shipped limited supplies of a new line to independant Apple dealer's, and not to their own stores, clueless market analysts would drive their stock price into the toilet claiming they can't deliver what they've just announced.

To avoid this, it would make sense to be sure the Apple Store's have the latest announced product ready and waiting on the shelves.

This is, of course, pure speculation. But if I were an Apple exec, I'd definately make sure "we" had what "we" just announced, even if it meant "they" would have to wait a couple more weeks for additional shipments.

Re:Survival Tactics

[nycroft]

Maybe. But I hear what you are saying. The main point is, I think we all want to see Apple do well. More importantly we all want to see the people who depend on Apple do well. That's what this message board is all about. Hopefully, there's somebody influential at Apple reading these posts :)

Re:Survival Tactics

[pelorus]

why are Apple competing with their own dealers like that, by grabbing all the hot product right away

Because most dealers don't know how to market or sell Apple product - let's face it they haven't been doing a good job for the last decade.

Apple is taking things into their own hands - we know Apple sucks at marketing, just seems that Elite/CW sucked more.

Would you be happy if your future depended on these guys?

...their business...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple products are developed and produced by Apple. It's their business (literally) and if they want to sell their products in Apple stores only, they are free to do so. You can argue it's not fair or whatever, but it is up to Apple to decide who sells their stuff. So, in a way, they mind their own business.

Re:...their business...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that these retailers were sold dealerships back in the 70s and early 80s. They were supposed to be like car dealerships where you pay a large amount of money to get the dealership, but then you are the exclusive seller of that brand in your area.

The problem is that the business economics changed over time and the dealership model meant that Apple couldn't compete. So, they opened up Macs to mail order and then big chain retail outlets. The dealers screamed back then about it. Same with the Apple stores. The dealers are screaming foul and I don't blame them. However, what can Apple do?

Many of these dealerships survive by being repair centers and offering really good customer support to graphics professionals and to publishers.

Re:...their business...

[Alomex]

It's their business (literally) and if they want to sell their products in Apple stores only, they are free to do so.

1) That is generally not the case here. At least not when it comes to Microsoft

2) Where exactly does this consumer friendly reputation of Apple comes from? They sell overpriced computers, to unsuspected novices. They let their Apple ][ user base hang without an upgrade path, they screwed the Apple-licensed clone-makers and they now screw their distributors. There's friendly for you....

Re:...their business...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the OPENSTEP developers. And everyone who bought an early PPC based on their promise of OS X ("Rhapsody") support--they got ripped off they had to sue for restitution.

Colored Logo?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's African American logo, you insensitive clod!

Note: I am not making fun of black people. I am making fun of PC people.

Re:Colored Logo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean Apple American?

Re:Colored Logo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda funny to have a disclaimer for the racially sensitive in the very same post in which you claim to be making fun of political correctness. . .

The joke would be funnier

[Anonymous Coward]

if you could spell correctly.

OJ Simpson

[Anonymous Coward]

We know he killed two people. He is in reality guilty of that, regardless of the government saying he is not guilty.

Re:OJ Simpson

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't remember any eye witnesses coming foward. When did this happen? Or did he confess? I haven't really been keeping up on the situation. As far as I know, we strongly suspect he killed two people, but we don't know he killed two people.

Re:OJ Simpson

[Dr Reducto]

Your'e right, when I think Apple, I think OJ Simpson. I can not get over the fact that a chain of stores shut down because of Apple, and this somehow makes OJ not guilty or guilty of murder.

Can't save everyone, one victim better than two

[AHumbleOpinion]

Anyone take any life saving courses? Sometimes you can't save the person in trouble and it's better to have one victim than two (person in trouble and would-be rescuer). It sucks. It's not fair. Welcome to the real world. I think we are in a similar situation here.

I know some true believers are going to get upset but face it; Apple is in a life and death struggle. They are not as close to the edge as they were in previous years but "beleaguered" status is never that far away. The Apple Stores, IMHO, are an important part of Apple's long term strategy. Maximize profits by cutting out the middle man. As Apple is forced to cut its profit margins this becomes critical. On top of this these stores are incredibly important marketing tools. They are very strategically located and the couple I've visited always seem to have a lot of foot traffic. People may not be buying but they are getting the sense that Apple is a viable option today and not just a historical footnote. These stores are far more valuable than super bowl ads.

If it is necessary for Apple to screw small independent dealers in order to ensure its long term survival then so be it. If Apple were to become further marginalized and lose its image as a viable alternative these dealers would get screwed anyway.

Re:Can't save everyone, one victim better than two

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no illegality here, but it smells because Elite and ComputerWare were loyal retailers. Apple computers were their primary business, not a sideline. They stuck with Apple during the 'dark days'. There might not have been an Apple for Jobs to return to were it not for the sales contributions of these stores and others like them.

Punishing someone who has been loyal to you for a long time, even if they are now something of an inconvenience to you, is bad form, bad karma and a disincentive to further loyalty. If Elite's allegations are correct, Apple would have been better served by negotiating a buyout or terminating their agreement outright rather than making them an offer they couldn't *not* refuse.

On the other hand, IIRC, the original ComputerWare shut down as a direct result of Apple's decision to open their own stores. Perhaps Elite was unwise not to consider the inevitability of Apple's desire to favor its own stores over them.

If I were an Apple retailer smaller than CompUSA or Fry's, I'd be working on a plan to wind down my store or chain just about the time Apple decides to open its first store in my area. Because if I didn't, it is clear that Apple would be happy to do it for me.

Everything's Apple's Fault When Things Go Wrong

[GurgleJerk]

I happen to live within just a block of one of the ComputerWare stores and have watched it go out of business twice. The store did fair business. In visiting, there had been no time in the past several years that I was the only one in the store, and it was often crowded. If they didn't make money, it's because it was run poorly. They were always busy. Another local Mac shop had/has the same amount of foot traffic and remains open.

But let me also tell you a story of another place where I've lived, the Pacific Northwest. My family purchased three Apples (IIc, Mac SE, IIgs) over time from a chain called "The Computer Store." which has been in business there since the early eighties, and now is called "The Mac Store." They did a great job of presenting Mac in a clean and professional retail environment with knowledgeable salespeople. They probably still do.

The point is, that in opening retail stores, Apple initially opened bay area stores in Santa Clara and Palo Alto. That was the original plan, and it was fair. They put one near Apple's campus in Cupertino and another in a well-travelled shopping district in an affluent town.

But - they didn't put any stores in Oregon or Washington. Why? The Mac Store chain is doing very well selling Apple products, with satisfied customers. There was no great need for Apple to go into those areas. Apple just recently opened a Seattle-area store, and will likely go into Portland at some point. But they are being very careful not to but The Mac Store in trouble. They couldn't be more respectful of The Mac Stores' ability to stay in business.

In the Bay Area, ComputerWare was the only Apple chain, and when they went out of business (the first time), Apple suddenly a store into Emeryville (near Pixar HQ) and announced Burlingame and Walnut Creek stores. It was a solid, sensible move to retain customers. All the sudden here comes Elite, which had never given Apple much trouble before, and they spend tons of cash to rebuild the ComputerWare chain, putting stores into the same markets.

I never understood it - why would you invest so much money in competing with Apple in retail? Well it was pretty obvious that Apple was going to win that war, just on brand recognition. How could Elite ever earn the investment back selling low-margin Macs? They knew very well what they were getting into. Forget "unfair practices" - the ComputerWare stores were doomed, and Elite should have known it. It was a stupid move. Whatever they're claiming now is just legal cover for investors and future lawsuits.

Re:Everything's Apple's Fault When Things Go Wrong

[TheRaven64]

Everything's Apple's Fault When Things Go Wrong

No, everything's Microsoft's fault when things go wrong. Haven't you been paying attention?

Repeat after me:
Apple good, MS Baaaaad.

Re:Everything's Apple's Fault When Things Go Wrong

[Josuah]

After the Berkeley ComputerWare store reopened under Elite, the prices were too high. Things were just cheaper at the M.A.C. store which is only two blocks away. And ComputerWare didn't always have everything I wanted. Also, the original ComputerWare was better than the Elite ComputerWare, in terms of price, service, and availability.

Re:Everything's Apple's Fault When Things Go Wrong

[brarrr]

Well, apple is opening a new store in the university village shopping center, just east of the U of washington. it is slightly more than 1 mile directly east of Seattle's "the mac store" (formerly the computer store)

The bellvue apple store opened 2 weeks ago, and this u village store will likely open around christmas time. So, apple's respect for them isn't all that great.

Having just moved here, and having spent lots of time in cupertino, i look forward to the apple store nearby - the mac store is ok, but their sales people aren't that great

Re:Everything's Apple's Fault When Things Go Wrong

[Wyatt Earp]

Apple is putting stores in the Seattle Metro area and in Portland.

The Computer Store is alright, but they charge out the ass for RAM, game software and other add-ons.

Also, thier staff seems to be the best kind of know-it-all geek.

I've bought 5 or 6 computers from the Computer Store in Portland and Eugene as well as alot of software but in the last year I've stopped purchasing from them.

I'd bought a Firefly 1.8 inch Firewire HD from Apple Store and went to Computer Store Tigard OR for another one.

When I asked for a 5GB 1.8 inch Firewire drive I was told with a sneer "No one makes 5 gig drives anymore." I pointed at an iPod there and said, "Well Apple gets 5GB drives from Toshiba." I was told it wasn't a 1.8 because such a thing didn't exsist and shouldn't beleave the Internet about such things.

The Computer Store forgot something, that the Customer is always right.

Re:Everything's Apple's Fault When Things Go Wrong

[heidialyssa]

The Computer Store used to be the only game in town. Then came "Macforce" who brought in a clean, spacious building, but their attentiveness leaves a lot to be desired. I, for one, am anxious to have the Apple Store here in Portland. Periodically, Apple lowers prices or does specials that these other companies cannot.

I work at a Regional government office that supports around 50+ Macs. For all of the Computer Store's and MacForce's emphatic words that they could meet or beat Apple's prices for government, I have never seen that they could and so we buy directly from our Apple rep and get the product within a few days. If our computers go belly up (which is rare) I would rather be able to take it directly to an Apple store than to tap dance through the baloney that these other stores make you go through. It is evident that Apple has taken the bull by the horns to see their product is represented by those who will do so in the best possible light...namely, themselves.

Re:Everything's Apple's Fault When Things Go Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I went into the Berkeley Compuware several weeks after the flat-panel iMac came out.

They didn't have any pictures loaded into iPhoto, movies for iMovie, or MP3s for iTunes. So I couldn't get a demo.

Asked about device compatibility, particularly for external HDs. I.e. can I plug a Windows-formatted HD in and use it. Answer, "don't know". At the Apple store, they showed me how to download the OS X driver for my specific model.

I asked if they could honour educational prices, answer "no".

I suggested I might buy an iMac somewhere else but patronize them for other stuff, and was told "don't buy memory from us, it's way overpriced".

Seems like they could have done a lot better at in-store displays, sales knowledge, and pricing.

Re:Everything's Apple's Fault When Things Go Wrong

[tenton]

No, no, no, everything's Microsoft's fault even when things go right.

This hurts Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe what I'm hearing: "It's Apple's perogative to smash anyone trying to sell their products." While I'm sure this has advantages (price control and to maintain limited resources), it also can't help push sales! It seems less and less companies are selling Apple products. While you could argue that web + Apple Stores will fill the gap, I'm not so sure. The question here is exposure. At some point, we'd all like Apple and PC's to get equal shelf space (or more) in any heterogenous computer store, right? That is never going to happen is Apple treats it's resellers like this.

Many years ago I set up a reseller in Mexico. It was such a pain to sell Apple's stuff, that I just switched to selling PCs. Is that what we want every Apple seller to do?

I hope Apple starts correcting the problem. They must, unless they really are happy with the "elite" computer buyers willing to make a special effort (to switch in the first place, or even to drive out of their way) for their products and the 3% market share that implies. If that's true, I guess then their advertising and prime-time spots are wasted. Wasn't Apple the computer for the rest of us only a few years ago? The point being, Apple has got to match the availability of its products with it's wide public appeal due to it's superior design and ease of use. Limiting the purchase-points (especially in this back handed kind of way), is not the answer. If Apple Stores need an advantage over other non-Apple stores selling their own stuff to the point of running them out of business, something is wrong. I can't be sure if it's a good strategy for Apple, in the long run. Can't have an Apple Store everywhere, can we?

I'm curious to see how this pans out. I think Apple should be wooing resellers galor, the more people selling Macs (in a knowledgable, fair way), the better. Many who are "sold" on Macs already are the bread and butter of Apple stores. (something like 50% of Apple Store purchasers already own Apple products). So more people buying Apple products -- anywhere -- is a good thing, right? Right???

Service Service Service

[zscgeek]

I personally will not miss them. The original ComputerWare chain was great and would always go out of my way to buy from them instead of others even if I had to pay more for it because the service was worth it and I liked supporting a local store.

Sadly when Elite took over the service went downhill fast. I was never able to get help. If I needed to return something it was a giant hassle and the amount of stuff they stocked sucked. That and on several occasions I was outright lied to about things such as compatibility with anything that they did not happen to have in stock at the moment.

Because of this I started making the extra hour drive to the Apple store for my purchases.

Re:Service Service Service

[mikeloader]

I was in SF once on business and my iBook died. It was within warranty. I called this store and asked for help. They said no. I was very polite, asking for help. They refused. Either because I was not a customer or because they were busy. I went to Palo Alto to the Apple Store. They fixed it immediately. I spent a ton of money in the store while they fixed my iBook free. This is the way to get a customer. You tell the customer "bring it in and we'll look at it", and while you fix it, the potential customer becomes a real customer.

Re:Service Service Service

[mactov]

Nor will I miss ComputerWare, the old one or its more recent incarnation.

I was delighted when I found a store with abundant Apple products in the late 80's. The problem was that it was impossible for a woman to get waited on in the place, something that only seemed to get worse over the years. (I kept trying.) I admit, the only ComputerWares I've been in were the Palo Alto and Berkeley stores, but their behavior in this respect was 100% consistent. It's very annoying to be in a store, ready to buy, when you can't get the attention of salespeople who are too busy schmoozing male looky-loos.

I was recently in the Soho Apple store in NYC and it was a whole different story: great service, no annoyances. I'm glad someone has finally figured out that the stuff in purses is green, too. Good for Apple.

This is sad

[ablair]

While I recognize the right of Apple to dictate conditions & practices to their resellers, I think Apple is being short-sighted by scaring off resellers like this. Agreements not allowing recompense for damages, and preferentially releasing product earlier to their own stores is clearly creating an unfair competitive situation favourable to Apple Retail, something which Apple said they would not do when they announced their retail store strategy 2 years ago. Sure, it means more business will go to Apple Stores and Apple online, but there is also a cost invloved: fewer people in the market to promote Macintosh products. One example is that Elite and other resellers are/were able to get into vertical markets in a way Apple would never have the resources to pay attention to.

While deprecating resellers for company-branded stores may result in a short-term finacial gain, I think it's poor long-term strategy for the overall health of the platform. Note to all you people out there saying "Slashdot has double standards with MS!" it's not the same, since

Re:This is sad

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a double standard. If Microsoft set up "Microsoft Stores" and started selling their software, xboxes, accessories through them, then released product to these stores early and gave incentives to shop there, there would be a huge uproar on Slashdot.

But if it was found out that Apple employees were torturing kittens at the company picnic, the faithful would defend them,"Those kittens were evil, they deserved what they got!".It's pathetic, really.

Re:This is sad

[Anonymous Coward]

As a neutral on the subject of Apple, I *would* support them at their picnic. Cats are the devil.

To your point though: of course there is what you call a "double standard." If Microsoft Stores made an uproar on Slashdot, it's Microsoft's fault for having bad business practices, not the spectators for having those views of the company.

Remember: Microsoft actually *could* have business practices that didn't force everyone and their dog out of business (theoretically). But they don't and the view people have on the company is the result.

What's truly "pathetic" is what the government lets Microsoft get away with. I wish I had a desktop monopoly I could use to provide compensation for selling other, seemingly unrelated products at low prices and thus expand my monopoly. And the government slaps them on the wrist, "Now, now. Play nice with the other companies Microsoft."

If you have a massive amount of people buying a product that is more expensive than other products and doesn't work as well, I personally would say that's a bad thing.

Re:This is sad

[DAQ42]

Um, no. I have to disagree on this one point. The early release crud. Guess what? It's not Apple that is causing the issues. It's the distibution channels that the independants are going through. You see, most resellers have had years of dealing with places like Ingram Micro and TechData for thier Apple product. They have credit accounts and what not with these distribution channels. Apple Stores do not. They get thier product directly from the warehouse. So if you think about this logically, when a reseller orders a product for stocking, they most likely order it from the distribution channel, not directly from Apple, since having a credit account with both Apple and Ingram/TechData is an added expense on thier books. So when Apple releases a product, the main reason the Apple Stores get thiers first is because the boxes don't have to be routed to the distribution houses, checked, inventoried, and processed to be shipped to the end destination. This can add up to almost a week to a month depending on the volume of orders and how well the account manager for the distribution house handles the work load. This is the "unfair" advantage that the Apple Stores get in distribution. Not some kind of freakin conspiracy.
Oh, and I know this because I worked for a reseller that decided to continue using Ingram Micro instead of getting a credit account with Apple directly and getting the product from the source. And that all I have to say about that subject.

remembering computerware

[ivgm]

Beyond the economics or other consideratons of the validity of CW , I remember fondly working at the old California store when, -on the weekends, bus loads of japanese tourists would unload and shop there (at the time we only sold software and peripherals) -folks like gase, hertzfield, smith, levitus, bushnell would frequent and shop -we had guys (and some gals) who really new the SW and could match the needs of the user with the best product. (tim, yugi, steffan, etc) -Saturdays would be an absolute zoo because of how many people were packed into the tiny store. economies shift, business decisions are made, life goes on. Working there, early in my carrer, was really fun. RIP

Apple and ComputerWare...

[SvnLyrBrto]

Obviously, I don't know what was going on behind the scenes. But in my own experience, Apple's focus is on CUSTOMER satisfaction, even at the expense of a sale of their own.

Back when "Master of Orion III" had JUST been released for the Macintosh, I was REALLY desperate to get it. After being disappointed in CompUSA for not having it in stock, I resorted to calling ahead before trekking to other stores. My first call was to The Apple Store in Emeryville. They were more concerned that I, the customer, would be satisfied than they were on getting that sale. Though they didn't have it in stock, they actually referred me to three other stores that carry Macintosh software; one of which was the ComputerWare in Berkeley.

Unfortunately, none of them had MOO3 in stock yet either. A week later, I found myself in Emeryville for other reasons, and decided to stop in at the Apple Store to see if it was in yet. They didn't have it, but the store manager actually CALLED those same resellers (including again, Berkeley's ComputerWare) for me, while I was in The Apple Store, trying to get me what I wanted, EVEN IF IT WOULD COST THEM A SALE!!!

Shades of "Miriacle on 34th Street"; and certianly NOT the actions of a company that's hostile to its 3rd party resellers. More like one that places the satisfaction of the CUSTOMER at the highest priority. And that's but one more reason *I* will be staying with Apple.

Plus, as another poster noted, ComputerWare was NEVER very competitive in the first place. Basiclly, they were where you would go as a last resort if you couldn't find something locally, and you didn't want to wait for mail-order. Sure, they were exclusively Macintosh; so their staff was more clued in; but that was only ever relevant to the non-tech-savvy anyway. They also carried random Apple trinkets like T-shirts, pens, stickers, and the like. If you wanted crap like that, ComputerWare was the first place to go.

But if you wanted hardware or software? No way. ComputerWare, so far as I could ever tell, sold EVERYTHING at the full MSRP. Except for the Macs themselves, most of the hardware they sold could be had at Frys or even CompUSA at 1/3-2/3 the price. And they sold three and even FIVE YEAR OLD games at full MSRP price from when they first came out. This, when the same games could be had in the bargain bin elsewhere in town for $15; or you could wait for MacWorld to roll into the Moscone Center and get them for $5. (Hell, even The Apple Store marks down the low-end games!!!)

Like I said, I don't know what happened behind the scenes. But from where I sit, The Apple Store was pretty supportive of ComputerWare, even at the possibility of their own expense. And ComputerWare was never, IMO, the perferred store to shop in the first place. My bet is that they only lasted as long as they did because of some of the more zealous Mac users who perferred to shop at a Mac-only store, even if it cost them more money than schlepping down to Frys or CompUSA.

cya,
john

Re:Apple and ComputerWare...

[SuperBanana]

But in my own experience, Apple's focus is on CUSTOMER satisfaction, even at the expense of a sale of their own.

Bullshit. When my Powerbook 1400 came back a second or third time(I forget which) from Apple's repair center, still broken, I called Apple Client relations(instead of customer service.)

The woman actually yelled at me, and did absolutely nothing to resolve my problem.

Nothing changes- a friend bought an iBook, it took several days to get to her due to a weekend and ground shipping. Day she got it, Apple released the new iBook models. She called up to return the iBook, and they refused- why? It was over ten days...SINCE THEY SHIPPED IT, not since she recieved it...despite the Apples online store policy clearly stating it was based on date of RECIEPT BY CUSTOMER.

Apple has the sleaziest sales/return/refund policies. Apple has the worst tech support period- 90 days...and the warranty is pretty piss-poor too, at only one year. AppleCare is also FAR more expensive than most other extended warranties, and still doesn't include on-site service.

Re:Apple and ComputerWare...

[APierce]

Seems to be a big case of YMMV.

I had the tilde key break on my PowerBook laptop, called into Apple's helpdesk, and had a brand new keyboard shipped out to me (no need to return the old keyboard), which arrived the *next* day.

The chick on the phone even joked with me about what I could do with the old keyboard once I got the new one.

Unfortunately, any big company is going to have good people and bad people--I've heard a lot of bad about Apple's tech support, particularly with fixes and turnaround times--but overall I've been impressed by the service that I personally have received.

Re:Apple and ComputerWare...

[angle_slam]

Back when "Master of Orion III" had JUST been released for the Macintosh, I was REALLY desperate to get it. After being disappointed in CompUSA for not having it in stock, I resorted to calling ahead before trekking to other stores. My first call was to The Apple Store in Emeryville. They were more concerned that I, the customer, would be satisfied than they were on getting that sale. Though they didn't have it in stock, they actually referred me to three other stores that carry Macintosh software; one of which was the ComputerWare in Berkeley.

I can't tell you how many times I've gone to one store in a mall and been told to go to another store to find something. The last time I was at the mall, I was in a Game Stop and witnessed the salesperson tell a customer to go to Electronics Boutique and give them directions to get there. When I needed a clip to my cell phone, I went to three different cell phone stores. Each one said I should go to Radio Shack on the other end of the mall. They could order it themselves, but they refered me somewhere else. I remember once, when a store was out of stock of something, the salesperson called other stores in the same mall to see if they had it. It happens all the time. It's just people being nice.

Even CompUSA has told me to go to Best Buy to find something they didn't have in stock.

...since...

[ablair]

...Apple does not have a monopoly in the computer market. MS does. (For those pedantically saying they have a monopoly in the "Macintosh Market", this is the equivalent of a monopoly by Porsche in the Porsche car parts market. Yes, they have one, but it's meaningless since under this definition every company is a monopolist)

[Apologies for the split post]

MOD UP

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD UP

Bwahahaha

[The Bungi]

I loved reading the responses to this story. It doesn't get any more apologetic than this. Yet if this was Microsoft strong arming someone - or even the mere impression of them doing so - this would have been plastered all over the front page (instead of conveniently hiding in this section) and would have thousands of "insightful" posts explaining -yet again- why "M$" sucks and why Bill Gates is the Great Satan. We'd get the usual treatises on monopoly law, quotes by open source developers who've had to resort to eating garbage to survive due to Microsoft's unfair business practices, "All Hail Linux" posts, etc, etc, and ad nauseam.

This Slashdot double standard towards Apple is just mind boggling.

Re:Bwahahaha

[TheRaven64]

The comparison is not quite justified. Sure, Apple and Microsoft both have near-monopolies, but while Microsoft has a horizontal monopoly, Apple has a vertical monopoly. The main difference is that a vertical monopoly usually benefits the consumer, while a horizontal monopoly does not. If Apple applies pressure to a retailer, then they could just dump their Apple stock and start selling generic Windows PCs (and find out what competition really means). If MS tried the same thing, then that company would go out of buisness and have no valid survival strategy.

Microsoft sucks!
Bill Gates is Satan!
Heil Linus!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:Bwahahaha

[The Bungi]

a vertical monopoly usually benefits the consumer, while a horizontal monopoly does not

I disagree. There are no good monopolies, period.

If Apple applies pressure to a retailer, then they could just dump their Apple stock and start selling generic Windows PCs (and find out what competition really means). If MS tried the same thing, then that company would go out of buisness and have no valid survival strategy.

C'mon, you're making this too easy. Your analogy does not work for the simple reason that the Apple vendor is into selling Apple computers, not PCs. Much as I can't claim that the company pressured by Microsoft can just go to Unix and survive there. Neither of them have an easy choice.

Now, I don't particularly care that Microsoft has a monopoly because I buy, use and enjoy their products (and I profit from them!). You may be in the same boat because you're a Mac user that buys and loves Apple products. And that's fine. But for the little guy with the company being bullied out of business, this is not fair - at all.

Microsoft sucks!

Well now you just had to go and do that, didn't you? =)

Re:Bwahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

And why the double standard confuses you is anyone's best guess.

This "double standard" you speak of directly relates a company's reputation. Microsoft has a reputation of being a monopoly while Apple does not. It's really not any harder than that. It's because of this that this post seems more like news than another post on Microsoft's latest to crush competition, but it also justifies why people are more rash toward Microsoft in that respect.

When a massive amount of people buy a product that is more expensive and has more problems than the alternatives, the single company benefits and everybody else loses, including the consumer. It isn't surprising that you have the views you do, though, considering you somehow "benefit" from Microsoft's monopoly, but as a consumer, it pisses me off.

Re:Bwahahaha

[Aliencow]

Troll ? What do you expect, they are apologetic...and don't wanna know the truth... So I guess not being biased is a crime on slashdot nowadays.

Re:Bwahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderation is out of control. The original post raised a lot of interesting points. The truth be known, Slashdot editors handle Apple news with velvet gloves, even to the point of becoming apologists for certain questionable practices on Apple's part. When you give Apple the old "walks like a duck, talks like a duck" test, a resasonable unbiased person would conclude that Apple engages in non-competitive monopolistic practices. That would be a fact based on the definitions of the terms "competition" and "monopoly".

Re:Apple clone makers were thieves?

[Alan Partridge]

I didn't mean to imply that the clone makers really "stole" Apple's sales - but, towards the end some of them were supplying machines with fucking Windows keyboards. OTOH, other cloners offered excellent price/performance and pushed to introduce faster chips before Apple was ready.

I've seen both sides of this..

[kageryu255]

And frankly, it's not Apple's fault that Elite sucked. The number of complaints from their (ex)customers I've heard about them is astounding. Their management decisions, sales tactics, and repair records are all the explanation I need for their failure.

I've worked at an Apple Specialist before, who realized that the Apple Stores interact with a completely different market, and that there are entire market segments almost exclusively available to Specialists. They've continuously grown and become the largest and best Reseller / Specialist / Service Provider within a good 100 mile radius. Yes, there was a supply shortage when the new iMacs rolled out.. yes, MacWhorehouse and a couple of the newly opened Apple Stores got a handful of units before we did... but we still got the first stock in the county.

Every Apple Specialist and Reseller has a rep who covers a certain territory and takes care of "his stores", the shops in his area. Ours ROCKED. Totally on top of things, took care of ordering issues, advised about ways to improve store operations, suggested places to get additional income (it's all about the service department, baby!), helped the store plan out long-term strategy, and always was checking in on how the store was doing.

If Elite hadn't been a shady operation and had run themselves well (As ComputerWare and a number of other successful Apple Specialists have), worked cooperatively with their Apple liaisons, maintained a better-trained staff base (rather than paying them a crappy wage + dinky comission.. I interviewed @ one of their stores once and took another job), paid attention to the market and where Apple was opening stores, and only re-opened Computerware stores in GOOD locations, things might have turned out differently.

Almost forgot..

[kageryu255]

Oh yeah.. and it probably would have helped them stay in business if whatshisface (Elite's owner/president) had decided to resign his reseller's agreement.

comparison

[YllabianBitPipe]

I remember shopping at the SF ComputerWare store (before it went out of business) for an iBook and it was a totally pleasant experience ... helpful people, no strings attached, all my questions answered and no hard sell. I liked shopping there. Was sad to hear that store was closed. I have no experience with the Elite Computers version.

Compare this with my recent trip to the Palo Alto store to buy a new iMac. Great store, great look, great browsing experience, but watch out if you actually want to buy a computer. The sales guy pulled out every add-on in the book, MS Office, AppleCare, an iSub, a printer, .Mac, sheez. I must have said "no, I just want the comptuer" five or six times.

I know times are hard in retail but that sure left a bad taste in my mouth. I still go to the Apple Store to browse but from now on, I'm buying my hardware online. No more pesky retail clerks to deal with.

Re:comparison

[harveyswik]

As someone who works as a sales clerk in the bay area I have to say it's unfortunate that the hard sell works. I hate doing it, but it works. It's bad on all sides. I look like and feel like a creep. That perception is going to keep customers away, exactly what a business doesn't need.

In part, some blame falls on management. Some businesses (like the one I'm currently employed by) make sure their sales people sell hard through "shoppers", meetings (AKA group brainwashing sessions). and requiring these add-ons.

I'm not saying that it's not entirely possible to sell decently without doing the hard sell, it's just more efficient in the short-term.

Re:Apple shoots itself in foot with marketing

[TheRaven64]

Apple's marketing strategy seems to be designed to sell as new Macintosh computers as possible. Why aren't they available at Staples, Office Max, etc?

Last time I was in PCWorld they sold Macs, and all of the PCs near them looked really ugly by comparison. Last time I checked, it was up to the retailer to decide what stock they carried.

Apple is focussed on service to end users. If they feel that end users will get a better service from an Apple Store than a generic computer shop staffed by trained monkeys then they will 'encourage' people to shop at their own stores. Apple is not in a dominant possition in the market and only survives because Mac users tell their friends how great their Mac is. When was the last time someone told you how great Windows was? And when was the last time MS needed someone to do that to get a sale?

Apple: Microsoft's Mini-Me?

[Cheesewhiz]

Apple's engaging in 'unfair competition'...

As much as I regret saying this, I suspect that may be correct.

Apple has always been known for being friendly to the little fish, mom-and-pop Apple stores around the country, and individual users alike. Lately, however, they've gone a bit kamikazee on their closest allies when it comes to store fronts.

Granted, many Apple resellers out there are sub-par in presentation and product knowledge -- this is why Apple's own stores are doing so well. Apple Store reps can tell you anything about anything (or find out), and their store design and placement are the best in the industry.

Unfortunately, this means the little guys can't compete. I love the Apple Stores, but it means the end of independent, store-front resellers very quickly, and that is detrimental to the entire platform.

Within about 3-5 years (assuming that much "beleaugered" Apple doesn't bite the big one first), I expect that Apple will only have independent resellers in education and online.

Is Apple becoming another incarnation of Microsoft that just happens to give the users what they want, but will wind up holding all the keys?

Here's hoping not... (Roll the empirial march...)

Computerware's problem wasn't Apple

[faust2097]

I don't know how many of you had ever been in a pre-Elite Computerware store but it was an exercise in frustration. It frequently took 5-10 minutes for a person to speak to you, their prices were terrible [frequently higher than MSRP] and their overall service was awful. I walked out in the middle of buying a $3000 computer there once because the clerk was being very rude to me. ECS should have dropped the Computerware brand, it was more of a liability than an asset.

They basically got squeezed from both sides by full service Apple VARs who dealt with businesses and cheaper mail order.

Re:Computerware's problem wasn't Apple

[halsted]

I have visited the ComputerWare store in San Rafael, both pre-Elite and right before it closed. Each time, I had to walk right up to a salesperson and start talking in order to be even noticed. I've asked for assistance in choosing between two brands only to be told, "These are the two we have, so just pick one." Once I requested an item (nothing fancy, just a keyboard) that they did not have, so they put one "on order" for me ... and it never arrived. In retrospect, I'm glad it didn't; ComputerWare's prices were exorbitant, and to complete my purchase I would have had to deal with the salespeople, one of whom was downright belligerent.

I would much rather patronize a "mom and pop" over a chain, even if the selection and price suffer a bit, but I will always prefer good customer service over bad.

A salesperson is not a store

[NaugaHunter]

I'm going to be devil's advocate, and say that maybe the sales person was the problem. Used to work at CompUSA or something. From previous comments, it seems that this isn't necessarily the way they worked. Who knows; maybe he had a review that morning and got 'you haven't had an add-on sale all month' or something.

As long as you have one nearby, I'd say just give it another try. It's a couple of bucks in gas vs. shipping and whatever else comes with online orders. Yes, sometimes there is free shipping/add-ons/whatever. My point isn't simply the money, it's to not judge a store by one employee. "One data point does not a line make."

Good Riddance

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to one of their stores once. Their software and other equipment was way overpriced. Their sales people were no where to be found. On the other hand apple's store's are very well staffed by helpful people.

*cry*

[General Sherman]

I'm kind of saddened to hear that this company is going out of buisness. It's where I got this iBook from, and it still works great. It's kind of annoying that Apple does things like this even though they don't gain that much out of it.

Good riddence

[Anonymous Coward]

Elite Computer was my store-of-last-resort. If I couldn't wait for an Internet sale, and Fry's didn't have whatever Apple-specific widget I needed, and the Apple Store (at Apple HQ) was closed, and I REALLY needed the widget now... I'd go to Elite and begrudginly pay 50% more than anywhere else. Then I would go next door to the steak house and drown my sorrow at the bar. Later I would go home and find out specific widget didn't work with Mac 0S X.

I think apple should pull macs out

[Anonymous Coward]

of all non-apple stores and let them go under.

Re:Apple clone makers were thieves?

[Dr Reducto]

The problem was that the clone makers made really powerful machines that catered more to Apple's main buyers than Apples machines did. Therefore, Apple lost out on a lot of hardware profit margins and was spending lots and lots of money trying to build OS's that cloners did not help pay for. It nearly destroyed Apple.

The truth about Elite--and why they suck!

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad bought an Elite-branded Wintel in the mid 90s, and it was biggest turd of a computer I've ever had the privilege to wrestle with. Yes, from day one I fought that computer, trying to get it to properly recognize and operate it's chintzy assortment of video cards, sound cards, magnetic drives, and optical drive. My dad is computer illiterate so it was up to me to get that steaming vat 'O crap working, and although it ran it never did so as promised. I still remember that it had 16 MB RAM, but Doom would only recognize and use 8 MB RAM, no matter what. Elite's "tech support" actually told me that Doom couldn't use more RAM than 8 MB. Ridiculous.

This computer came with an Elite-branded CRT that was even worse than the computer. EVERY SINGLE TIME it's power was cycled off and on, all of the screen geometry had to be reset. That's right, everytime the display was turned on, the image was off center, cropped on the edges, distorted, everything. If all CRTs were like this one, LCDs would have been commonplace by the 80s.

I've never dealt with with Elite since,but if they run their retail business anything like the built this wintel, then good for them that they went out of business. I hope Apple gave them a little kick in the pants on the way downhill.

Now I've talked my parents into buying a G4 iMac, and it rocks. Whenever I visit, I update it's software and OS X, but it never has any trouble otherwise. Everything on it just works, except for the Microsoft Office crapware, but that's a whole other story.

Dear Randy "Pudge" O'Day

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Father O'Day:

Thanks for your letter. Being Catholic myself, I know exactly what you're talking about! It has always been our plan here at Apple Computer Inc to revolutionize personal computing with our high-quality and highly gay products.

I'm happy to answer your letter by letting you know that YES we will be releasing an entire hLife ("homo-life") software line. You'll be able to recognize it in stores by the small stylized logo depicting a large cock entering a tight anus with an Apple logo on it. ("Suddenly it all comes together" indeed!).

Anyway, I hope you and other members of our community will join us on our mission, and purchase the exciting new hLife boxed set. Only the boxed set comes with translucent cock rings!

Sincerely,

Harry Rodman
Vice-president
Homosexual Liaison Services
Apple Computer, Inc.

I couldn't care less

[gsfprez]

Roadtools coolpad at Apple Company store across street from Elite... $25
Roadtools coolpad at Elite.... $39.99

Sony Firewire-Analog bridge at Apple Company Store - $299
Sony Firewire-Analog bridge at Elite - $599

I recall these numbers almost verbatim because I was in the market for them at one time or another, and when looking at my choices while visiting the Bay Area, i was just totally floored at how insanely overpriced they were. I never once saw anything at Elite that was even competative in price to anywhere else.

while it was a fun place to look at junk - i can't fathom actually buying anything there.. i'm sorry its gone - just because it was a cool place to look around, but honestly, they did it to themselves. There was just no justification for their prices.

Its one thing to not get good deals on Macs... fine. They could have easily simply not sold Macs. They could have simply sold accessories and service and 3rd party support...

But when everything they sold was at least 50% markup from what you could get at Fry's - in this day and age, there just isn't the market for it, no matter their level of customer service.

ComputerWare vs Elite.

[caleugene]

ComputerWare/MacSource was a great chain here in Northern California, and I was sad to see the owners quit while they were ahead 2 years ago...quite understandable though.

The funniest thing is how they hated Elite and considered it a sleazy operation. I've never purchased anything at Elite...you could just feel the bad karma in the place when you stepped through the doors.

And like all other sleazeballs, in the end the Elite owners know how to do is sue sue sue.

OS X release party at Elite

[macmurph]

What's ironic is that the MacOS X release party was at the Elite computer store across from Apple in Cupertino (and the imac release party, I think). Woz was there, captain crunch was there, a few other homebrew members. It was a pretty cool place to be that night.

Re:OS X release party at Elite

[macmurph]

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2001/03/20.7.sh tml

The Cupertino based Elite Computers & Software is planning an OS X Launch Party for this Friday at Midnight. Apple representatives will be there, and not only will people be able to purchase OS X at Midnight, Elite will be giving away OS X shirts to the first 100 people there. According to Elite Computers & Software:

Elite Computers & Software, an Apple Specialist located directly across the street from AppleHeadquarters in Cupertino, announces California's Largest Mac OS X Launch Party this Friday evening March 23 at Midnight! ... A must attend event!

"Ten 26 inch Skytracker searchlights will light up the sky over Elite Computers & Software and Apple Headquarters in Cupertino, Friday evening March 23," said Thomas Armes, President & CEO of Elite Computers & Software. "At the stroke of midnight Mac OS X goes on sale as Elite Computers & Software gives away FREE commemorative Mac OS X T-shirts to the first 10 times 10 Mac OS X customers! Apple representatives will also be in attendance for questions and demonstrations of Apple's hot new Mac OS X!"

You can find more information about the big bash at the Elite Computers & Software Web site.

There is more to the story to come.

[bgspence]

I do know first hand from an Elite employee that there is more to this story than is revealed in the article. Apple's changed terms for a continued relationship were brutal. Apple's strong arm tactics made it apparent that it would be more profitable to win a lawsuit against them than compete with them in the marketplace.

I'm a long term Apple fan, but the monoculture of Apple stores is not healthy for the Macintosh community in the long run.

Re:Oh sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

now you correct your spelling you donut hole puncher!

Define it!

[nycroft]

Before you all start throwing words like monopoly and antitrust around, use this handy definition from Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th ed., which the AP uses for copy definitions:

monopoly 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a given market, or control that makes possible the fixing of prices and the virtual elimination of free competition. 2. an exclusive priviledge of engaging in a particular business or providing a service, granted by a ruler or by the state. 3. exclusive possession or control of something. 4. something that is held or controlled as a monopoly. 5. a company or combination that has a monopoly. 6. [M-] a game played on a special board by two or more players: they move according to the throw of dice, engaging in mock real estate transactions with play money (who doesn't?).

SYN.- trust a combination of corporations organized for the purpose of gaining a monopoly in which stock is turned over to the trustees who issue stock certificates to the stockholders: trusts are now illegal in the US.

Just so ya know, I'm here to teach.

Exactly!

[wirelessbuzzers]

...and if Microsoft doesn't want to give their new API's out to Netscape, so be it...