denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.UUCP (05/25/87)
First off, let me say that I agree that in many regards Commodore has botched
up the marketing of the A1000. Now, leaving that aside, why all the
anger about the A2000 "price rise"?
In any product like this, there are really two prices: The "suggested
retail list price" and the "wholesale price". The former is the one which
you and I will supposedly pay. It is important to note that, though the
retailer can charge LESS than this, the retailer cannot charge MORE than
this. "Suggested Retail Prices" therefore, should be deliberately set
a little high.
The "wholesale price" is what Commodore charges the retailer. The difference
between these two is the retailer's gross profit (out of which comes his
overhead, sales commissions, local advertising, taxes, you know the list).
I have gotten the impression from reading here that the A1000's price
cut last year consisted of dropping the retail price, without dropping
the wholesale price as much, thus squeezing the retailers, many of whom
dropped the product - and USENET flamed at Commodore.
The A2000's approx $1600 price was not, so far as I know, an official
announcement (nor, for that matter, have we seen an official announcement
of a $2000 price). If, in fact, they are raising the retail price of the
A2000, maybe they are doing it to increase the retailer's profit margin,
thus re-enticing the retailers to carry the Amiga line. (And since, by
testimony of someone here, they aren't adding many features, maybe
any increases in the wholesale price are going to a (whisper it)
advertising budget.)
I think I hear someone saying: Why don't they increase the retailer's
profit margin by dropping the wholesale price? Easier said than done.
The volume of A2000's they will sell is already such that they would have
to quintuple their expected volume to get another price break on components.
(As a guess, I would expect that they are negotiating in 100,000's and taking
delivery in 10,000's - and there really aren't any price breaks above that
point to speak of - you are already getting about the best price the
semiconductor manufacturer's can offer.)
To get a drop in price from manufacturing would require building a
custom plant like Apple did for the Macintosh, and that takes a lot of
TIME and MONEY, neither of which are in great supply at Commodore right now.
They could cut their advertising budget - but USENET has already expressed
its opinion on THAT. They certainly cannot get the Teamster's union
to cut transportation costs, and they aren't likely to get Congress to cut
their tax burden.
There are other things they could do: They could cut Commodore's profit
margin - and the company would likely die. They can cut overhead by getting
rid of people (like out in CA - and USENET flamed again!). If they haven't
already done so, they could ship the manufacturing overseas to Thailand
or some such place. How does everyone feel about that? (Of course, we're
all part of the educated techno-aristocracy, so it wouldn't be OUR jobs that
are lost this way, so that makes it alright.)
Is $2000 really that outrageous for the A2000? From reading the specs and
the other things I have seen about it, it is nearly as good as the new
color Mac (better in some ways) which costs almost twice as much. I just
mentally compared it to other computers past and present, and it comes
out a bargain at $2000 against every one I compare it to (except the
1040ST, and there you are trading money for features: each has about the
same value per buck, but the A2000 has more value and costs more bucks).
If by raising the retail price by $400 Commodore can increase the retailer's
profit margin (and thus get more of them to carry it) and advertise the A2000
(hopefully increasing its sales) then I consider that a sufficient and
satisfactory reason for doing so - and I don't think Commodore has to add
features to the A2000 itself to justify the rise. (It also puts them in
the position of doing EXACTLY what USENET has been saying collectively
that they should do.)
Remember that the $1600 price wasn't formally announced in the first place,
and that in any case the retailer isn't bound by the suggested retail price
(now that the "Fair trade" laws are gone).
On the other hand, if Commodore is raising the price just to improve its
own profit margin without either helping the retailers or doing
advertising, then everything the four-letter-worders have said on this
subject is justified.
--
Steven Den Beste
Bolt Beranek & Newman, Cambridge MA
denbeste@bbn.com (ARPA or CSNET)
"The voice within the candle whispers of a timeless peace beyond." - Paul Winterlachac@topaz.rutgers.edu (Gerard Lachac) (05/29/87)
In article <1310@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) writes: >Remember that the $1600 price wasn't formally announced in the first place, >and that in any case the retailer isn't bound by the suggested retail price >(now that the "Fair trade" laws are gone). First, I would like to compliment you on a well thought out argument. It made a lot of sense, and I find myself in nearly 100% agreement with you. Except... I believe that the $1495 figure was "official". BYTE, AmigaWorld, etc. did not make this figure up. I don't think everyone would be so irate if CBM had said "The A2000 will retail somewhere less than $2000". As far as I know, the dealers I talked to had word that the A2000 was to be priced at $1495, then $1695, and now $1995. To me this connotes the same feelings that Turbo*Pascal does. "Let's get everyone excited and then pull the rug out from under them!" I am NOT saying this is what they did. Your argument was sound, I just wish they had not gotten our hopes up with the low price/trade-in policy/sidecar and long list of others. I'm a happy A1000 owner who will get an A2000. It just may take longer now. Side Note: Speaking of vapor hardware, does anyone remember the answering machine /modem/phone that was supposed to interface with the Amiga, and if you punched the right buttons, would turn on your coffee for you?? What happened to this? -- "Truth is false and logic lost..." - Neil Peart (who at the time didn't realize he was talking about RU) lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu <--------OR--------> {seismo|ames}!rutgers!topaz!lachac
hah@isum.intel.com (Hans Hansen) (06/01/87)
To all who are upset about the new pricing policy:
1) Remember that Commodore has just had its head lopped off.
2) The Amiga has been UNDER priced from the start!
3) The new Commodore management are finally pricing the Amiga where they
can aford to advertise it.
To the management of Commodore:
1) Please pay Lotus for 1-2-3.
2) Please pay Ashton-Tate for DBase and Symphony.
3) Please have a GOOD word processor developed.
The PR from just having these developed should be worth 2 to 10 times what
they would cost and it would allow you to compete in the REAL business
world where you should have targeted the Amiga in the first place. I feel
that you should use a percent of your advertising budget to secure the
development of items 1-3.
Hans (Trying to sell Amigas to Intel and getting shot down by Macs) Hansenkagle@batcomputer.UUCP (06/02/87)
In article <748@omepd> hah@isum.UUCP (Hans Hansen) writes: >To the management of Commodore: >... >1) Please pay Lotus for 1-2-3. This would make the writers of a well known 1-2-3 clone for the Amiga very unhappy. Seriously, Radio Shack reportedly paid Personal Software (later Visi- Corp which was bought by Lotus) well over $100,000 for a simple version of VisiCalc for the TRS-80. I would guess that Lotus would demand a much higher price for 1-2-3. >2) Please pay Ashton-Tate for DBase and Symphony. Commodore tried to get Enable, a fairly good integrated package, translated from the PC. Needless to say, it ranks with Turbo Pascal in the Amiga Vapor- ware Hall of fame. [BTW Symphony is by Lotus] >3) Please have a GOOD word processor developed. Atari paid Microsoft to develop an emasculated version of Microsoft Word called Microsoft Write. It was advertised in Time magazine, but it has yet to be released. Judging from the Beta copy that I saw, Atari wasted its money. The Amiga will soon have Amiga WordPerfect. Though it is still vaporware, expect it to condense in the next month or so. Trust me. >Hans (Trying to sell Amigas to Intel and getting shot down by Macs) Hansen Jonathan Kagle
phils@tekigm2.UUCP (06/02/87)
In article <748@omepd> hah@isum.UUCP (Hans Hansen) writes: [ miscellaneous stuff about PeeCee software ports to the Amiga ] >The PR from just having these developed should be worth 2 to 10 times what >they would cost and it would allow you to compete in the REAL business ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >world where you should have targeted the Amiga in the first place. I feel ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >that you should use a percent of your advertising budget to secure the >development of items 1-3. [enter righteous indignation mode] NO NO NO! I have been a computer hobbyist since the days before business applications were the only support you could get for a personal computer. (In those days, I referred to myself as a "hacker", though I hesitate to do so now, in light of the negative connotations involved. I have no interest in the types of activity usually associated with hacking: attempting to break copy protection schemes (though I do *hate* copy protected software), attempting to find security holes in operating systems, unauthorized access of password-protected computers, etc.) Since then, I have watched the nearly total stagnation of software and hardware targeted at people who know what they are doing. "Who wants a compiler when you can have a database manager?" "Who wants a text editor when you can have a word processor?" "Who wants a debugger?" "Who really cares what goes on inside the machine?" "Who cares how hopelessly ridiculous it is to try to program a machine in assembly language when you can program it in a high-level language instead?" In case you hadn't guessed, I answer all of those questions with "ME". The Amiga is the *only* machine available today which even comes close to interesting me (and that I can afford). Everything else is a PeeCee clone, a box that only a business man could love, or a game (only) box. I am grateful to have the opportunity to pursue my interests with the Amiga without having the "User Friendly" (oh, how I hate that term) interface get in my way and slow me down. The Amiga fills a niche. I'm glad it wasn't targeted at the business world. If it were, I could buy a PeeCee clone and be done with it. As it is, I can still enjoy a hobby which I had almost written off. [exit righteous indignation mode] -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil Staub tektronix!tekigm2!phils (206) 253-5634 Tektronix, Inc., ISI Engineering P.O.Box 3500, M/S C1-904, Vancouver, Washington 98668
tenny@z.dec.com.UUCP (06/04/87)
Hans Hansen writes: > 2) The Amiga has been UNDER priced from the start! You clearly didn't buy one of the early amigas. When cpu's were $1495 Monitors were $500, External drives were $300 and the 256K memory upgrade was $200 (+ ?) I knew what I was getting into, but knowing I could buy the same system for at least $700 less now still hurts. Dave Tenny
hah@omepd.UUCP (06/05/87)
In article <10192@decwrl.DEC.COM> tenny@z.dec.com writes: >Hans Hansen writes: > >> 2) The Amiga has been UNDER priced from the start! > >You clearly didn't buy one of the early amigas. > >Dave Tenny Your right, my Amiga is a preproduction unit! Hans (Ex Amiga ATE Test Engineer) Hansen
phil@titan.rice.edu@rice.EDU (William LeFebvre) (06/12/87)
In article <1310@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> Steven Den Beste writes: > >The A2000's approx $1600 price was not, so far as I know, an official >announcement No, it was not officially announced. But you should go back and reread the original article about the 2000 published in the February issue of "Compute!". It quotes some Commodore official whose title sounded pretty important as saying that the price would be in the vicinity of $1500. I wish I had the article with me so I could quote it. I think what is upsetting everyone is the fact that clearly Commodore changed its mind. Everyone (including me) had their hearts and pocketbooks and budgets set on $1500+300 (or $1500+500) and now we find out it's going to be another $500. Frankly, I'm MORE upset that the delivery date was PUSHED BACK than I am that the price went up!!! I AM GETTING IMPATIENT!!!!! WHERE IS MY 2000??!?!?!!? >(nor, for that matter, have we seen an official announcement >of a $2000 price). My dealer sure says it's official. And I have no reason to not believe him. He says that he got a call from his distributor (who says he was informed by Commodore). >And since, by testimony of someone here, they aren't adding many >features, maybe any increases in the wholesale price are going to >a (whisper it) advertising budget. If that were indeed the case, I would welcome it with open arms! >Is $2000 really that outrageous for the A2000? From reading the specs and >the other things I have seen about it, it is nearly as good as the new >color Mac (better in some ways) which costs almost twice as much. Actually, I don't think $2000 is that outrageous. But they shouldn't go any higher. The Mac II is looming over their collective heads like a big, ugly vulture. And any student who attends a university that is a member of the Apple consortium (such as yours truly) will be able to get the Mac II for about *HALF* the retail price! Think about that one for a minute. It still ends up being about $1000 more than the 2000, but the processor is a 68020 and it includes a 68881. On the other hand, it doesn't include a multi-tasking operating system or the hardware (i.e.: the MMU) to make the only multi-tasking operating system they are considering (Unix) runnable. And many people will see the Mac II as a more usable machine because of the large software base they get with Unix. (Of course, that large software base doesn't include very many programs that take advantage of the capabilities of the machine---but those will be coming along before too long). >If by raising the retail price by $400 Commodore can increase... Try $495. >Remember that the $1600 price wasn't formally announced in the first place, $1500....and, like I said, read the article in "Compute!". >and that in any case the retailer isn't bound by the suggested retail price This may be the only thing that saves us! We may still be able to get it at semi-reasonable prices from (forgive me) mail-order houses or (in my case) preferred-customer arrangements with local dealers. <-> Don't trust the "From:" line -- use the "Reply-to:" line instead! William LeFebvre Department of Computer Science Rice University <phil@Rice.edu>