128a-3aj@e260-3b.berkeley.edu (Jonathan Dubman) (10/02/88)
>>Do you long for the days when a 128K machine cost $2000 - 2500? This is not >>to disparage the efforts of those people, but simply to point out thet all >>was not perfect back in 1984. >Larry, No I long for the days when a state of the art Macintosh can be had >for under $3000. > TeriAnn So do I. Opponents of price increases often point to the momumental decreases in the price/performance ratio that we are still seeing in the adolescence of the computer industry. Yes, the machines now are more for the money. Yes, the Fat Mac you bought three years ago does everything it did when you bought it, and is in some sense a *better* machine because of all the software and expansion products that have come out since. But there is a sense, at a deeper level, in which that Macintosh 512 is now obsolete, even if it does do everything it used to do. IT IS NO LONGER STATE OF THE ART. It can no longer run state of the art software. If you are in the computer industry ITSELF, as many of us are, which includes stackware authors and the immense support indsutry on the periphery, the Mac 512 will not do. Now it used to be, as TeriAnn notes, that you could get a state of the art system for $3000 in 1984. Back in 1980, I got a state of the art Apple II for $1500 and developed software for it. By 1984, to participate in cutting the proverbial edge, you needed $3000 for a Macintosh. Now, I need $7000 or $10,000 for a Mac II to develop under A/UX or to use the latest development tools or play with the latest software. The cutting edge is cutting a hole in our wallets. Some would say, "Poor fool. The Apple II was state of the art in 1980? There were mainframes and dedicated graphics machines that even today would put the Mac II to shame, for a price. You want state of the art? You never could afford it and you never will." To which I respond, the personal computer industry IS the cutting edge. Someday processing power and megahertz will be moot issues. The developers and users in the personal computer market today are the true fathers of the field, not Seymour Cray or whoever it was that designed the IBM 3090 mainframe that calculates the Mac II into the dust. Many of us want a state of the art machine not just to develop software, but to keep up with advances in the computer industry. It is an intellectual industry, unlike manufacturing. To be a part of pushing the frontier, that is what we want. Yes, computers are perhaps most importantly a tool, but participating in the cutting edge, even as a user of the latest products, and to talk about these things, like we do here, is a great exercise of the mind. I want to be a part of it; I want a Mac II! Alas, I cannot yet afford one. The industry is becoming more elitist, contrary to the hopes of those who started it around 1975, even before there were products. You know how all the history books have chapters for every era? I see in my grandchildren's history books, "The Reagan Era" with a section called "The Economic Gap Widens". How many children of blue-collar workers and ghetto residents work in Silicon Valley polishing Apple's software instead of their floors? How many become professionals? This gap is so ingrained in our culture that the question seems ridiculous. Computers and the kind of thinking that even using them promotes train the minds of children that so often go to waste. All this is not Apple's fault. Apple has only been a very positive force. But the potential is there to be more positive. And even to make more money, which is the irony of their decision to increase prices. However, to limit our scope now to the computer market, Apple is doing little to assist, in fact, much to discourage, especially after the price increases, the many of us who cannot afford a Mac or Mac II but can afford computers in general. Why doesn't Apple adopt a multi-tier pricing scheme like the airline industry has? Short-term reservations, most commonly made by businesses, are hefty in price. To a certain extent they subsidize the cheaper fares for the rest of us. Business class tickets can cost four times as much, even for the same seats, even without first class. We benefit. The airlines benefit. The businesses can afford the higher fares and will pay anyway, and many people fly who otherwise would not. (The deregulation of the airline industry would correspond to an infusion of Mac clones, but that would debatably not be in Apple's best interest whereas the multi-tier pricing scheme is indeed in their best interest.) Instead, what we have with Apple is a rather backwards system: Business get a quantity discount, whereas end users pay a premium price! And now that price increases, for whatever reason. Before, the question was whether to buy a computer right away or wait until the price comes down. Now, the question is, when will I be able to afford it? It seems like we are subsidizing Apple's tough entry into the business market. Apple has had, since 1984, the University Consortium, but that does little to alleviate the elitism. If you are at one of the twelve or so universities that participate, chances are you will have a well-paying job upon graduation. Like Bush on abortion, I "haven't yet worked out the details" of this pricing scheme. But I think it should be less expensive than it is for end users (schools already receive a 40% discount), and for students- not just students of a dozen prestigious universities. Of course, one must prevent abuse of this program for profit. Perhaps just the price for end users and certain students should be lowered. Perhaps not, for business reasons. But- raised? I think Apple should adopt whatever pricing scheme they want with businesses, because it seems to be working much to their benefit. But increasing the price for the average user is certainly a step in the wrong direction. Loss of sales hurts everyone (except the competition). No company, not even IBM, is immune to erosion of market share. Yes, they were selling all they could make, and many of their products were back-ordered, and they do have supply problems, particularly with memory, but didn't the optimist faction forsee the demand with the release of these fantastic machines? Maybe secret agents from IBM are working within Apple to set their pricing scheme and prevent them from building more factories. Maybe when RAM prices plummet in 1990 we will wake up as from a bad dream. Maybe I will eat my many words at the turn of the century when Apple's long-term research pays off and we see the fantastic products some of their employees allude to. But, up close, their pricing scheme seems strange and skewed. Apple is made up of people, and we have heard that many of them are not happy with the rather formidable price increase. A few in the top marketing spots may have made a mistake, all things considered. Cynics can perhaps fairly label this discussion as naive. But I am not completely naive. Of course Apple, the corporation, is in business to make money and stay in business, but clearly they are losing sales to Tandy and other companies that produce machines that perform the standard tasks like word processing for half the price. Despite record profits, Apple still has a relatively small market share compared to IBM and the other Goliaths. And they are losing sales to the 60% of America that can afford a television but not a computer. In an interview, Jean-Louis Gassee, of all people, said, "We are not going to play that low-end game." Perhaps Apple can afford to lose those sales. Many cannot. -Jonathan Dubman
kelvin@cs.utexas.edu (Kelvin Thompson) (10/03/88)
In article <14922@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, 128a-3aj@e260-3b.berkeley.edu (Jonathan Dubman) writes: > > >Larry, No I long for the days when a state of the art Macintosh can be had > >for under $3000. > > TeriAnn > > So do I. > [...] > The industry is becoming more elitist, contrary to the hopes of those who > started it around 1975, even before there were products. > [...] > Why doesn't Apple adopt a multi-tier pricing scheme like the airline industry > has? Short-term reservations, most commonly made by businesses, are hefty in > price. To a certain extent they subsidize the cheaper fares for the rest of > us. Business class tickets can cost four times as much, even for the same > seats, even without first class. We benefit. The airlines benefit. > The businesses can afford the higher fares and will pay anyway, and many > people fly who otherwise would not. [...] > > Instead, what we have with Apple is a rather backwards system: Business get > a quantity discount, whereas end users pay a premium price! [...] Actually, I think your example is an medium-good analogy of what Apple is doing with their current pricing scheme. You see, you can look at the airline pricing structure another way and say that the cheap-fare tourist passengers are subsidizing the business flyers. The tourist fares go to people that buy tickets several weeks ahead of time and and then can't back out of their reservations. The business fares go to people who make reservations with short lead times or who may want to cancel their reservations. The tourists give the airlines guaranteed seats weeks ahead of time, so the airlines can afford to gamble on business flyers making and keeping reservations. The tourists' inconvenience subsidizes the fat cats' convenience. With Apple's recent price hikes you get a similar situation: Business-folk who want to fly a Mac today -- or to fly first class -- pay extra. The Rest Of Us can make a (mental) reservation to fly at a later date, when prices drop....or we can buy a tourist-class Plus now. How would you feel about a time-dependent Mac pricing policy: You get a 10% discount if you wait six weeks for delivery (and Apple keeps your money in the meantime and you can't cancel your reservation). Howsabout a 40% discount and 6 months? > [...] But increasing the price for the average user is certainly a step > in the wrong direction. Loss of sales hurts everyone (except the > competition). No company, not even IBM, is immune to erosion of market > share. Well, like you said: > Yes, they were selling all they could make, > and many of their products were back-ordered, > and they do have supply problems, particularly > with memory[...] I'm willing to give Apple the benefit of a doubt and assume their recent move won't cost them market share. I'm assuming their quantity of sales would be identical with or without the price hikes. (Admittedly, the *kind* of customers will be slightly different.) Also, I'm willing to give Apple points for keeping Plus prices stable. I agree with most of your points about providing information-power to the masses, but I'm willing to withhold judment on Apple for a few months. What will decide me is: (1) How fast and how far they drop prices when memory becomes cheaper and more plentiful; (2) How long they keep producing Plusses. > Keywords: Capitalism with a human face Amen. -- -- Kelvin Thompson, Lone Rider of the Apocalypse kelvin@cs.utexas.edu {...,uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!kelvin
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (10/12/88)
In article <3443@cs.utexas.edu> kelvin@cs.utexas.edu (Kelvin Thompson) writes: >> >> Instead, what we have with Apple is a rather backwards system: Business get >> a quantity discount, whereas end users pay a premium price! [...] (sorry, I deleted the real author - got carried away with dd) This is not limited to Apple. Check out MacWorld's subscription prices. I recently returned a renewal offer saying I'd wait for a better offer and I complained about getting better offers at work than at home (that was based upon $18 per year for the corporate subscription vs $21.95 as the best offer for my personal subscription). At a new corporation I got an offer of $30 for two years. I cut the mailing label from my personal $21.95 offer (which was GUARANTEED to be the lowest offer I would ever get) and pasted it on the $30 offer, and sent it with a check. I included the guarantee along with a note complaining about their better prices if your address included a company name. Even funnier - last night I got a "Thanks for the renewal" letter along with my bill for $18. (This is in response to my first "I'll wait" complaint.) Since I already sent a check for the other offer, I just threw this bill away. So, if you want to subscribe to MacWorld, try bargaining. Shirley Kehr
rwi@naucse.UUCP (Robert Wier) (10/14/88)
If you are looking for really cheap magazine subscriptions, nip on over to the local college and inspect the bulletin boards in the classrooms. Every school I've seen invariably has posters stuck up by roving reps on things such as trips to europe, american express, and magazine subscriptions. The current ones we have here have the following prices: Byte: 1 yr/$18.95; Mac World: 1 yr/$15.00; Mac User: 1/yr $14.97. The outfit whose card I'm reading is American educational services out of Langing, Mich. They guarantee their rates, and if you can find, so they say, a lower one, they will refund your entire subscription price so that your subscription with them is free. Don't know if they will really do this or not, though. Interestingly enough, I also have the renewal on my MacUser sub on my desk at the same time, and it is 1yr/$24.97. I would say that a 40% discount ($14.97 vs. $24.97) might make it worthwhile to take a look. Presumably these rates are for students and educators only, but as they are using state property (ie, buildings and bulletin boards) for private gain, it would seem that the point would be moot... I'm not associated with this company...usual disclaimers. --- Bob Wier in Flagstaff, Arizona Northern Arizona University ...arizona!naucse!rwi