macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) (09/13/88)
In a news release entitled "Prices Increased on Some Products," Apple announced
today (Sept. 12, 1988) that it will boost prices, _effective immediately_, on
most of its CPUs, monitors, external drives and printers.
Here we sit, many of us clamoring for a more reasonable pricing structure for
Macintosh products, and good old greedy Apple takes the opposite approach, and
_increases_ prices!
In the news release, Apple blames the price increases on increasing "component
costs and changing global market conditions."
Charles M. Boesenberg, who is the Apple USA senior vice president of sales and
marketing, is quoted in the news release. He states, "Industry developments
have prompted Apple to reprice some of our products so they are more in line
with today's market realities." Boesenberg goes on to claim, "To continue
fulfilling the increasingly high demand for our products, we are required to
pursue more costly channels for dynamic random access memory (DRAM)
acquisition, thereby increasing the component costs of our products.
Boesenberg continues, "While we resisted these moves as long as possible--
limiting previous price increases to memory expansion kits--current conditions
make it necessary for us to reprice selected other products as well."
Seems to me Apple is getting yet more greedy in its old age. Take a look at
the new prices listed below. Some increases are indeed in products that
contain DRAM. Other increases are in products _without any DRAM_. Boesenberg
attempts to lay the blame on the DRAM market, even though DRAM prices have
already peaked and have indeed fallen lately. Besides, how the heck can one
come up with the excuse of increasing DRAM prices when Apple raises the price
of the AppleColor RGB Monitor by $100, or the Apple 3.5 Drive by $30? Neither
product contains significant DRAM (if any at all)!
Give us a break, Charles, and admit that Apple wants to fatten its profits
even further.
Another blow against "the computer for the rest of us."
----------
APPLE PRODUCTS, SUGGESTED RETAIL PRICES
THE PRICE CHANGES SHOWN BELOW ARE IN EFFECT SEPTEMBER 12,1988
September 12,1988
Previous New
Suggested Suggested
Retail Retail
Product Description Price Price
M5900 Macintosh SE CPU 2769.00 3169.00
M5084/C Macintosh SE CPU w/Apple Keyboard 2898.00 3298.00
M5085/C Macintosh SE CPU w/Ext. Keyboard 2998.00 3398.00
M5910 Macintosh SE HD 20 CPU 3569.00 3769.00
M5083/C Macintosh SE HD 20 CPU w/Apple Keyboard 3698.00 3898.00
M5086/C Macintosh SE HD 20 CPU w/Ext. Keyboard 3798.00 3998.00
M5333 Macintosh II CPU 3769.00 4869.00
M7002/C Macintosh II CPU w/Apple Keyboard 3898.00 4998.00
M7000/C Macintosh II CPU w/Apple Ext. Keyboard 3998.00 5098.00
M5430 Macintosh II Hard Disk 40 CPU 5369.00 6169.00
M7003/C Macintosh II HD 40 CPU w/Apple Keyboard 5498.00 6298.00
M7001/C Macintosh II HD 40 CPU w/Ext. Keyboard 5598.00 6398.00
M5410 Macintosh II HD 40/4 CPU 7269.00 8069.00
M5328 Macintosh II HD 40/4 CPU w/Apple Keyboard 7398.00 8198.00
M5338 Macintosh II HD 40/4 CPU w/Ext. Keyboard 7498.00 8298.00
A2P6024 Apple IIGS 512K CPU 999.00 1149.00
A2M6021 AppleColor Composite Monitor IIe 379.00 399.00
A2M6017 Apple Monochrome Monitor IIe 129.00 159.00
A2M6016 Apple Monochrome Monitor 129.00 159.00
A2M6020 AppleColor Composite Monitor 379.00 399.00
A2M6014 AppleColor RGB Monitor 499.00 599.00
A9M0106 Apple 3.5 Drive 399.00 429.00
A9M0107 Apple 5.25 Drive 299.00 329.00
A2M2058 Apple II 256K Memory Expansion Kit 69.00 159.00
A2B6002 Apple IIGS Memory Expansion Card 129.00 229.00
M6005 LaserWriter IINTX 1MB Memory Exp. Kit 349.00 499.00
M6006 LaserWriter IINTX 4MB Memory Exp. Kit 1699.00 2399.00
M6210 LaserWriter IINT w/Toner & Letter Cassette 4599.00 4999.00
M6215 LaserWriter IINTX w/Toner & Letter Cassette 6599.00 6999.00
M6009 LaserWriter IINT Controller Card 2099.00 2699.00
M6004 LaserWriter IINTX Controller Card 4299.00 4699.00
----------
As you can see, the Mac Plus CPU, the Apple //e CPU, and the LaserWriter IISC
are not listed. The prices for these products remain the same. Gee, thanks a
whole lot for your consideration, Apple.
Jim
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Jim --> macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) {Standard disclaimer, nothin' fancy!}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<blenko-tom@CS.YALE.EDU (tom blenko) (09/13/88)
In article <1018@lakesys.UUCP> macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) writes: |In a news release entitled "Prices Increased on Some Products," Apple announced |today (Sept. 12, 1988) that it will boost prices, _effective immediately_, on |most of its CPUs, monitors, external drives and printers. | |Here we sit, many of us clamoring for a more reasonable pricing structure for |Macintosh products, and good old greedy Apple takes the opposite approach, and |_increases_ prices! | No reason to get irate. Apple is in business to maximize their profits -- if you don't realize this, you're missing a lot about what makes the world go around. I share your instinct about pricing. My impression is that lower prices would increase both sales and market share. But I don't know much about corporate marketing and sales, which is an increasing share of the Mac market, so perhaps there is a reason why this is a Good Thing for Apple. In the way of a testimonial, I am in the market for a computer system in the next couple of months. I thought the Macs were a bit expensive until I saw PC knock-offs with 20MB hard disks selling for under $1K. And then I decided Macs were VERY expensive. I find it difficult to believe that even corporate buyers are going to buy 1 Mac instead of 3 PC's. But who cares? Either this will work or it won't. If they aren't worth the price, don't buy them. Tom
swilson%thetone@Sun.COM (Scott Wilson) (09/14/88)
In article <1018@lakesys.UUCP> macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) writes: >Here we sit, many of us clamoring for a more reasonable pricing structure for >Macintosh products, and good old greedy Apple takes the opposite approach, and >_increases_ prices! Oh please, I'm surprised you didn't suggest legislation to prevent this sort of atrocity. This is America, remember, free enterprise and all that. Apple can do what ever they like with their prices just as you can do whatever you like with regards to what you buy. If you don't like the price don't buy it. If enough people feel the same way it will hurt Apple and they will reconsider their pricing strategy. Apple (like most companies) is in business to make money, not to be your buddy. Now I don't like to see prices go up either, but hey that's life. Nobody's twisting my arm to buy any of this stuff. Apple is within its rights to up the price and I am within mine not to buy. It all comes down to is it worth it to pay the price. It makes no difference how much it costs to build something, only whether the satisfaction you gain from it is worth the price you pay. Looking at it any other way only annoys me so I don't. -- Scott Wilson arpa: swilson@sun.com Sun Microsystems uucp: ...!sun!swilson Mt. View, CA "It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine." -R.E.M.
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/14/88)
>>Here we sit, many of us clamoring for a more reasonable pricing structure for >>Macintosh products, and good old greedy Apple takes the opposite approach, and >>_increases_ prices! I was wondering how long it would take before people started screaming... Did you read why? 1) Apple's been on long-term contracts for SIMMs. These contracts are starting to run out, so they're having to buy on the spot market, which makes their memory prices that much more. 2) Despite the claimed unreasonable pricing structure, Apple is selling every Macintosh they can make, and there's a very strong pent-up demand for even more machines that they can't make. They literally can't make them fast enough. The first means their manufacturing costs are going up. It should be obvious that a machine that costs more to make should cost more to buy. The second implies that YOU might think the pricing is unreasonable, but the people who are buying Macintoshes don't. If anything, they consider them good buys -- if they didn't, you wouldn't see people snatching the things up as soon as they hit the stores. The demand for the machines implies, instead, that they're underpriced -- it's a sellers market. Apple could do three things. They could increase production. Unfortunately, last I looked their plants were at capacity. Even if they weren't, the SIMM problems preclude increases in production -- you can't build machines if you can't get parts. The second thing is to increase prices -- this will increase the profit on the machine. It will also reduce demand for the machines, since marginal buyers will fall out of the market. The optimal price for a product in the free-market, last I looked was the price where demand equals production. You may not like it, but don't yell at Apple. Yell at those hundreds of thousands of people who ARE buying Macintoshes at the current price each year and happy to have it -- if they weren't buying them, Apple would be forced to lower prices. As long as the market considers the Macintosh a good price, Apple would not only be stupid to lower prices, but it would be a good way to get into a shareholder lawsuit -- and Apple is in business for its shareholders, not for its customers. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/14/88)
>I share your instinct about pricing. My impression is that lower prices >would increase both sales and market share. But I don't know much about >corporate marketing and sales, which is an increasing share of the Mac >market, so perhaps there is a reason why this is a Good Thing for >Apple. Increasing sales only works if you can increase production to match the demand. If your manufacturing is at capacity and you can't get the parts from your suppliers you need to build widgets, lowering the price to make more people want the widgets you can't build doesn't do you any good. Until the SIMM crisis works itself out, it will be hard (to impossible) to ramp up production and build more widgets. This is one reason why the rumored laptop (code name Laguna) is still unannounced. Apple's having enough trouble finding parts for their current machines. Announce a new machine, create a new demand, and you have even more of a need for SIMMs you can't buy. So even though the rumored machine is rumored to be finished and sitting in a corner, until you can find a supply of memory to feed the rumored machine, you don't announce it because it'll create all sorts of havoc in the market. >And then I decided Macs were VERY expensive. I find it difficult to >believe that even corporate buyers are going to buy 1 Mac instead of 3 >PC's. Take a look at secondary costs of the PC class machines. When you factor in the amount of training a person requires on a PC, and the differences in productivity, the speed a person becomes proficient and useful and all the other ancillary issues, the Mac becomes quite cheap. You're looking at only one part of the total cost of a system. When you start factoring in the cost of the software, the training, the maintenance, all the accessories, it's a different ballgame. You're $1K PC clone is cheap, but once you put the mouse, the extra memory, Windows, the software and all the other toys on it, the total system cost isn't as different as you might think. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms
ngg@bridge2.3Com.Com (Norman Goodger) (09/14/88)
In article <1018@lakesys.UUCP>, macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) writes: >In a news release entitled "Prices Increased on Some Products," Apple announced > today (Sept. 12, 1988) that it will boost prices, _effective immediately_, on > most of its CPUs, monitors, external drives and printers. > Here we sit, many of us clamoring for a more reasonable pricing structure for > Macintosh products, and good old greedy Apple takes the opposite approach, and > _increases_ prices! > In the news release, Apple blames the price increases on increasing "component > costs and changing global market conditions." > Seems to me Apple is getting yet more greedy in its old age. Take a look at > the new prices listed below. Some increases are indeed in products that > contain DRAM. Other increases are in products _without any DRAM_. Boesenberg > attempts to lay the blame on the DRAM market, even though DRAM prices have > already peaked and have indeed fallen lately. Besides, how the heck can one > come up with the excuse of increasing DRAM prices when Apple raises the price > of the AppleColor RGB Monitor by $100, or the Apple 3.5 Drive by $30? Neither > product contains significant DRAM (if any at all)! > Jim --> macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) {Standard disclaimer, nothin' fancy!} While a lot of people like Jim here are going cry foul and Boo-hiss Apple, And perhaps to some degree, rightly so, there has to be some reason for Apple do so this and the very factor that Apple sites are very true,, being in the electronics industry, and in the Valley here, and knowing what our own company is doing to combat the exact same problems that Apple is dealing with, we too had to increase prices, and reduce discounts on products. And I know that other companies are doing exactly the same thing, many of them are. Sun MicroSystems also recently increased prices significantly on many of their products, since this does not really affect the Mac user, why do we care? Its just another indicator that Apple has some justification for what they did. And they were, per say "nice enough" to leave the price of the mac Plus alone, despite it being a more expensive system to produce. No one cares about this. The Boo-hiss should perhaps come on the products that seem to have no real reason to be increased. But on CPU's Apple is justified, did they go to high? Perhaps on some systems, like the Mac II, but also from what I hear and read Apple cannot meet the demand of the Mac II sales, so does this justify raising prices? Perhaps it does, it will allow a cooling off period so that supply can meet demand until new CPU's are released probably sometime next year hopefully after dram prices have normalized. So that they will be priced competatively. And then price reductions on the Mac II will be pretty good one might hope. Is Apple gouging? taking advantage? To some degree, yes, but I don't think that all the flak that is bound to arise from this is justified. Those reported "Industry Analyst's" are saying that this is something that Apple has to do, and they think that the impact will be minimal. We'll see. But Angry flames are not going to change anything, what is happening is a fact of life. And in time the prices will fall again...one just has to be patient.... Norm Goodger 3Com Sysop - MacInfo BBS - @415-795-8862
roy@bonnie.ics.uci.edu ( John Roy) (09/14/88)
So, ok the Mac prices are going up. This is even more reason for *someone* to develop a Mac "clone" :-). Yes, I know they will probably be sued. But I bet they could make a good case on alot of fronts [if they did the "clone" properly]. Free trade, the look and feel suit, the Phoinex BIOS, and the current HP/Microsoft suit would all be critical to the outcome. The "clone" would not be a real copy. All that would be needed would be to affect a *functional* Mac OS and interface. This could be done with a lot of windowing environments and a new OS [yes, this is not a venture for the light hearted nor the light pocketed]. Or how about a object code translator which takes Mac applications and translates them to "Clone" applications. Yes, this would not be easy and may not be economically feasible; but Apple has just made the economic case a easier to make. And the rewards would be extensive. How about a 88000 based, X-windows, monochrome system, with two 800K floppies and 2 Mbytes RAM for $1500, or less? I have always wondered what is stopping people from doing this? Look at Compaq! -- John M.A. Roy. UC Irvine/Fail-Safe Technology ICS Dept., Univ. Calif., Irvine CA 92714 Internet: roy@ics.uci.edu CompuServe: 76167,2527
macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) (09/14/88)
In response to my article complaining about Apple's price increases, others have written: "No reason to get irate. Apple is in business to maximize their profits -- if you don't realize this, you're missing a lot about what makes the world go around." "Oh please, I'm surprised you didn't suggest legislation to prevent this sort of atrocity. This is America, remember, free enterprise and all that. Apple can do what ever they like with their prices..." "I was wondering how long it would take before people started screaming..." OK, I admit that more than a little idealism crept into my comments. And I guess I was taking the view of the computer hobbiest as opposed to the Wall Street businessman. Certainly, if Apple can now sell all the Macs it can spit out from Fremont, why not raise prices? Charging what the market will bear generally is good business practice.... at least in the short run.... But look at it this way for a moment: IBM is currently faltering badly wrt its line of PS/2 computers. No matter what IBM claims, the PS/2 line is not selling as well as IBM had expected. The "new standard" of PS/2 and OS-2 has thus far been largely rejected by corporate America. This would seem to be a golden opportunity for Apple: IBM loosing market share with its graphic interface looking dead in the water. What if Apple pulled out all the stops, hurredly brought new manufacturing facilities on line, and started flooding the market with reasonably-priced Macintosh CPUs? OK, maybe the Mac still wouldn't become the dominant business computer. But I bet the Mac's share of the business market would increase _dramitically_ under this scenario. Instead, we see Apple, pulling in record profits already, increasing prices because that is what the market will bear. Short-sighted? Perhaps. More likely my thoughts are way off base... certainly I'm not qualified to run a computer company. But this _is_ some food for thought, no? Jim -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Jim --> macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) {Standard disclaimer, nothin' fancy!} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
marc@rna.UUCP (Marc Johnson) (09/14/88)
In article <68072@sun.uucp> swilson@sun.UUCP (Scott Wilson) writes:
]... This is America, remember, free enterprise and all
]that. Apple can do what ever they like with their prices just as you
]can do whatever you like with regards to what you buy. If you don't like
]the price don't buy it. If enough people feel the same way it will hurt
]Apple and they will reconsider their pricing strategy. Apple (like most
]companies) is in business to make money, not to be your buddy.
]
]Now I don't like to see prices go up either, but hey that's life. Nobody's
]twisting my arm to buy any of this stuff. Apple is within its rights to
]up the price and I am within mine not to buy. It all comes down to is it
]worth it to pay the price.
It's this kind of thinking that must have allowed Apple to justify the price
increases. The issue is far more complicated than Scott paints it. Why does
he think people are so upset about this? Because we can't just "jump ship!"
The problem is that, especially in the computer world, when you
buy a particular technology, you are making a committment ($, time, learning,
etc.) to that particular avenue. Sure, if you think a Toyota is too expensive,
you can buy a Subaru next time. That's easy. Not so in the computer world.
Why all this massive emphasis on "compatibility" and "portability" and
"connectivity"? This is THE vital area of development now. A Sun person should
know this all too well!
Apple has been playing both sides of the
fence for a long time now - "the computer for the rest of us" - with an
(at least) implied promise that the Apple way of doing things would continue
to be made available to a body of folks who saw the limitations of the IBM
way of doing things. This includes a lot of "low end" buyers who don't have
to answer to a boss who wants Big Blue on the desks in the office. Apple
directly and indirectly courted the educational and "high tech" market, as well
as the graphic-intensive market, with a new approach. Their success in this,
coupled with the IBM-cloners, helped keep IBM from running away with the PC
market (and running in the wrong direction). It was kind of, "buy Apple and
we'll take care of you" (to some extent). The comment about Apple not being
in business to be your buddy is certainly true, but they surely professed a
far more, shall we say, cooperative attitude.
Clearly, this has gone by the wayside. Just to take one blatant example,
how is it that 4 or 5 other floppy drive makers can sell top-quality 3.5"
drives at 60-70% of Apple's price, just to take one blatant example?
Other posters have noted the strangely non-parallelism of the price increases,
as well as the increases in non-DRAM items. This is no simple "pass-along."
As Scott noted, there is a big demand now for Apple products.
This is due in no small measure to the committment that many have made
to the Apple way of doing things. We can't rush out and buy
a MacPlus clone to expand our Mac needs -- we have to buy Apple.
And Apple rewards our committment by sticking it to us to fill the coffers.
It's looking a lot like the old IBM closed-market thing. Sure, we could
scrap Apple altogether and switch to IBM and MS Windows etc etc, but
our investment in and committment to the Apple "fork" makes that prohibitive
if not impossible.
All of the hand-waving mumbo-jumbo of another article in this group is total
bull. Raise prices to cut the demand? Baloney! Raise prices to RIDE the
demand! It's a game of chicken - how high can we raise the prices before
folks abandon ship? I felt that even buying a MacPlus 2 years ago was
really stretching, and hard to justify, but I felt that the investment in
the Apple approach was worth it. I know others had the same feeling.
Now we have lots of software demanding greater capacity and the SE suddenly
becomes the low-end machine you "have to have." And waddyaknow, the SE
goes way up in price!! This only enhances the (mis-)perception that the SE is
somehow significantly superior to the Plus.
Apple has had a loyal and largely supported user base,
but price increases like this reflect a growing disregard for that base, and
risks alienating them. Hell, why not just shell out for a Sun workstation?
And, I heard you can buy a MicroVax real cheap.
This all leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth...
Marc Johnson
Rockefeller Univ.
marc%rna@rockefeller.edu (129.85.2.1)
rna!marc@rockvax.bitnet
...cmcl2!rna!marc
~vpostmaster@mailcom.UUCP (Bernard Aboba) (09/14/88)
I would like to point something out that hasn't been mentioned yet, which is the fall of the U.S. dollar. Apple's long term contracts have begun to expire, NOT JUST on SIMMS, but on many other items as well. Since they buy Japanese made items in large quantities (the large majority of parts for all Macs are made in Japan), they are having to pay the exchange rate difference on just about all of it. Since two years ago, the dollar has sunk 50% versus the Yen. Japanese firms are no longer absorbing the exchange rate differences out of their own pockets -- it's gotten to be too much. So my guess is that Apple's costs are now increased on just about every product by 25% (50% times 50%, say). The SIMM increases alone do not explain the price rises; in a Mac II, that would only account for roughly $100-150 of the increase, at most. . One last comment -- the computer industry as we know it is not what economists would regard as a free market, because there is strong product differentiation. Only the PC clone market is a true free market. The Macintosh has no serious competitors at the moment, and so Apple has more or less a monopoly on graphical interface machines at the moment, and is able to raise prices knowing that it will increase revenues. --- * Origin: sun!sunncal!mailcom Palo Alto (415) 855-9548 (Opus 1:204/444) SEEN-BY: 161/444 203/34 204/444 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FidoNet: 1:204/444 UUCP: ...!sun!sunncal!mailcom!bernard INTERNET: sunncal!mailcom!bernard@Sun.COM US MAIL: Bernard Aboba, 101 First St. #224, Los Altos, CA 94022
bob@eecs.nwu.edu (Bob Hablutzel) (09/14/88)
> What if Apple pulled out all the stops, hurredly brought new manufacturing > facilities on line, and started flooding the market with reasonably-priced > Macintosh CPUs? Uh, Uh. Not for this puppy. I'd much rather wait, and pay more, for a machine made with the current high standards than risk smaller bucks with a "hurredly" made machine. My guess is that corporate America will agree. Bob Hablutzel BOB@NUACC.ACNS.NWU.EDU Disclaimer: I work for a university. What do I know about the real world?
merchant@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) (09/14/88)
In article <1018@lakesys.UUCP> macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) writes: >Seems to me Apple is getting yet more greedy in its old age. >[...] Some increases are indeed in products that >contain DRAM. Other increases are in products _without any DRAM_. Boesenberg >attempts to lay the blame on the DRAM market, even though DRAM prices have >already peaked and have indeed fallen lately. Well, first, in Apple's side, they are a company that's out for profit. I don't think there's anything specifically wrong with that. I'll admit, though, that it'll be a bit harder to justify $8000 for a Macintosh 4/40 around here. As for the increases in prices on products that do not contain DRAM chips, possibly Apple figures that it is wiser to increase prices on all their products by 20%, rather than increase prices on half of their products by 40%. (The numbers I used I just pulled out of my head. They are not intended to be the real percentage increases.) I will agree, though, that DRAM prices have been falling. We'll see if the prices return to "normal" within the next few months or not. Intriguingly enough, IBM, in a very quiet moved, increased prices on most of their hardware by an average of 17%. Maybe Apple is trying to become more like IBM. :^) --- "It's gonna be over Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP) Before you know it's begun." (Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.edu)
merchant@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) (09/14/88)
In article <1025@lakesys.UUCP> macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) writes: >But look at it this way for a moment: IBM is currently faltering badly wrt >its line of PS/2 computers. No matter what IBM claims, the PS/2 line is not >selling as well as IBM had expected. The "new standard" of PS/2 and OS-2 has >thus far been largely rejected by corporate America. > >This would seem to be a golden opportunity for Apple: IBM loosing market share >with its graphic interface looking dead in the water. > >What if Apple pulled out all the stops, hurredly brought new manufacturing >facilities on line, and started flooding the market with reasonably-priced >Macintosh CPUs? > >OK, maybe the Mac still wouldn't become the dominant business computer. But I >bet the Mac's share of the business market would increase _dramitically_ under >this scenario. If Apple could suddenly flood the market with low-priced CPUs, they'd be all set! Of course, what are they going to use for memory in these machines flooding the market? Yes, chip prices have gone down. But it's still not down to the point where they are available cheaply and in large quantities. And, don't forget, there are a number of clone makers out there who would love to get these chips, and will fight Apple tooth-and-nail to get them. Now, if Apple could suddenly produce it's own memory chips, or the good witch of the east would drop billions of 1Mbit DRAMs on Apple's doorstep, they'd rule the world. Here's an intriguing concept. Picture this: Apple increases it's prices. Demand for Apple machines drop. Not precipitously, no, but they do drop. This allows Apple to clear out some of it's backlog of orders. The "extra" profit from those who do order now goes into new manufacturing facilities. New Apple manufacturing facilities gear up to produce all sorts of things... As soon as the DRAM shortage eases to the point where it is felt that a profit can be made, WHAM! Apple comes out with it's laptops, it's 68030 Macs, and lowers prices again. It now has the manufacturing clout to produce all these products in amazing quantities. With the demand for the existing CPUs and the new products spurred by the lower prices and figuring in IBM's problems with their PS/2s and OS/2s, Apple steps forward, takes over corporate America :^), buys out IBM stock :^), puts a Macintosh on Mars (a smiling Mac with little antennae) :^), rules the world :^), and utopia reigns :^). Wouldn't you like to assist Apple in that? Buy now. Pay the higher price. Think of it as an investment in a better world... :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) --- "Everybody's going nowhere slowly. Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP) They're only fighting for the chance (Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.edu) to be last."
jonathan@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Jonathan Altman) (09/14/88)
Well, it seems I only post during these "Apple is following a stupid policy again" wars, so here I go: In article <247@rna.UUCP> marc@rna.UUCP (Marc Johnson) writes: >Clearly, this has gone by the wayside. Just to take one blatant example, >how is it that 4 or 5 other floppy drive makers can sell top-quality 3.5" >drives at 60-70% of Apple's price, just to take one blatant example? >Other posters have noted the strangely non-parallelism of the price increases, >as well as the increases in non-DRAM items. This is no simple "pass-along." This is a supposition I'll throw out: POINT #1: MAYBE, just MAYBE, Apple is attempting to distribute the higher costs of DRAM chips among ALL its products, rather than JUST DRAM-intensive ones, by NOT just increasing prices on those things with DRAM, hoping as a result to not make the prices of some things prohibitively high. Maybe if they didn't do this, the beloved SE would jump much more than it already is in price. Is Apple being nice in doing this? No. By holding the price (and therefore the margin) down on CPU models such as the Plus (no price change), Apple will get the larger installed base they want. But, this also benefits those who buy Laserwriters. Now, non-parallelism also has other effects which maybe Apple wants. Maybe Apple wants 3.5" drives to be expensive because they don't want people to use them. Changing the relative costs of products affects purchasers' mix of products. So, look at the price list and check where price increases are non-parallel. Maybe Apple is attempting to persuade or dissuade you from certain bundles of equipment. Now, the one thing I notice in this is that the Plus didn't go up in price. Maybe Apple does want to allow more entry-level and home purchases of the Plus. Why? Again, maybe to increase their installed base. Marc also noted in his article, which section I unfortunately deleted, that Apple price increases screw those organizations which have committed to Apple machines. (Hope I'm not out of context, here). Let me point out that as far as hardware commitments go, that's true. It would be more expensive to add to the hardware base, like a company adding another employee or department to the group with Macintosh's. BUT this is only one part of the installed base. My office Macintosh is sitting here right now making a lovely paperweight, because my terminal works just as well for unix mail. It's software such as Word, Excel, or Pagemaker, or MPW which make my Macintosh useful. The price of that is out of Apple's control. Chuq's point about training time, etc. IS also valid here. POINT #2: >As Scott noted, there is a big demand now for Apple products. AND >All of the hand-waving mumbo-jumbo of another article in this group is total >bull. Raise prices to cut the demand? Baloney! Raise prices to RIDE the >demand! It's a game of chicken - how high can we raise the prices before >folks abandon ship?... YES, YES, YES, Raise prices to cut demand AND get the nifty side effect that the full profits can be extracted on a machine. Why? Very simple. Let's say I'm Apple's Sales department, taking orders. Apple's getting orders each day for 1.5 days' worth of Apple production. Now, Sales is only equipped to get 1 day's worth of orders each day. So, Sales is overworked because each day I get an extra half day's work processing the extra .5 day's worth of production orders. This has two effects: Apple as a company gets overworked and needs some relief, because increasing the number of employees dealing with taking orders you already can't fill is ridiculous. Consider the backorder of SIMMS already for Mac-II's. I'd be very happy to know that Apple sales has put two more staff members on to more promptly process my SIMM order into an already year long wait list, wouldn't you? Second point: Apple may have people working overtime to meet their current demand for machines, at a rate of pay 1.5 times normal. Now, these people's time can't be separated into the time they spend dealing with DRAM shortages, so the additional labor cost incurred by Apple must by necessity be passed along to ALL products, going back to point #1. Now, are Apple's profits going to soar from this price increase? I'd say yes. Because Apple will gain more money from each machine they'd sell, given that they raised prices enough to lower demand only to the point where (demand >= current output of products). Did Apple do this solely to increase their profit margin? No. There are other side benefits, such as skewing demands around between various products, and straight cost passing. How much is cost passing? I don't know. But, here's a possibility to conclude with: Apple has made a reputation as an innovator in the computer industry with new, novel, and sometimes cheaper products and ways of doing things. Maybe Apple will devote some of these (as many people on the net seem to find) grossly excessive profits and plow some part of that into R&D for newer, more novel and better products, maybe even for the rest of us. DISCLAIMER: I have no connection with Apple other than as an owner and user of Macintoshes, and certainly have no knowledge of the internal financial or operational structure and workings of Apple Computer, Inc. Also, this article should in no way be construed as a flame of marc$rna.UUCP (Marc Johnson). His article was merely the platform for my message. Jonathan Altman jonathan@eleazar.Dartmouth.edu Database Administrator (ihnp4,decvax)!dartvax!eleazar!jonathan Dartmouth Dante Project jonathan@eleazar.UUCP (I think) HB 6087 voice: 603-646-2633 Hanover, NH 03755
peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) (09/15/88)
> Take a look at secondary costs of the PC class machines. When you factor in > the amount of training a person requires on a PC, and the differences in > productivity, the speed a person becomes proficient and useful and all the > other ancillary issues, the Mac becomes quite cheap. You're looking at only > one part of the total cost of a system. When you start factoring in the cost > of the software, the training, the maintenance, all the accessories, it's a > different ballgame. You're $1K PC clone is cheap, but once you put the > mouse, the extra memory, Windows, the software and all the other toys on it, > the total system cost isn't as different as you might think. Most departments here buy micros for wordprocessing, spreadsheets, and data bases. On a Mac this is Word, Excel, and Reflex; on a PC, this is WordPerfect, 1-2-3, and dBase III+ (not always of course, but these are the usual purchases). Part of my job is to train faculty and staff to use their machines, and although the Mac is generally easier to use, from my experience it takes just about as long to train a computer-illiterate user how to use a Mac as it does a PC. There are things that a basic Mac can do a lot easier and cleaner than a PC (fonts and graphics), but 95% of our users don't usually need those features (or at least can get along without them). So, guess what is usually purchased on campus? Ultimately the Mac does a far better job for these basic applications (in my opinion). But where it was difficult to convince people to buy Macs before, it will be darned near impossible now. I'll end this by saying that there's not a single PC on campus that has Windows or Gem running. That would make the PC too expensive... -- Peter Steele, Microcomputer Applications Analyst Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada B0P1X0 (902)542-2201x121 UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Peter BITNET: Peter@Acadia Internet: Peter%Acadia.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
swilson%thetone@Sun.COM (Scott Wilson) (09/15/88)
In article <247@rna.UUCP> marc@rna.UUCP (Marc Johnson) writes: >It's this kind of thinking that must have allowed Apple to justify the price >increases. The issue is far more complicated than Scott paints it. Why does >he think people are so upset about this? Because we can't just "jump ship!" All I was trying to say is that in our economic system Apple can choose to set its price and buyers can choose to buy or not. There is nothing illegal or immoral about what Apple did. Now, whether it is smart, polite, alienating to customers, etc., is another matter entirely. Of course people are upset, I would be too if I thought the prices were unjustified and had a continuing need to buy from Apple. Regardless of how complicated the decision is, it all comes down to the only choice the consumer has: to buy or not to buy. As I said this decision is just a matter of what you gain in return for what you pay. If what you gain is avoiding the enormous cost of replacing all your Macs or switching development platforms then it is worth it to pay the price. As for all the things I should know as a Sun person, I am aware of those issues. And for that reason I support Sun's philosophy regarding open systems and standards. In the future when many different vendors (hopefully) have standard interfaces for graphics, etc., "jumping ship" will be much, much, easier. You will no longer be at the mercy of a single vendor which is what seems to really make people mad. -- Scott Wilson arpa: swilson@sun.com Sun Microsystems uucp: ...!sun!swilson Mt. View, CA "It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine." -R.E.M.
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (09/15/88)
In article <1025@lakesys.UUCP> macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) writes: >But look at it this way for a moment: IBM is currently faltering badly wrt >its line of PS/2 computers. No matter what IBM claims, the PS/2 line is not >selling as well as IBM had expected. The "new standard" of PS/2 and OS-2 has >thus far been largely rejected by corporate America. > >This would seem to be a golden opportunity for Apple: IBM loosing market share >with its graphic interface looking dead in the water. > >What if Apple pulled out all the stops, hurredly brought new manufacturing >facilities on line, and started flooding the market with reasonably-priced >Macintosh CPUs? > >OK, maybe the Mac still wouldn't become the dominant business computer. But I >bet the Mac's share of the business market would increase _dramitically_ under >this scenario. But price is not what's keeping Macs out of corporations (although it is keeping them out of homes/schools/dorm rooms/etc.). Since Apple has obviously decided that for now the corporate market is more important than any other, it makes sense for them to raise prices. In fact, most market analysts praised Apple's move, suggesting that it showed good business sense and would undoubtedly help Apple's bottom line. I regret the increase too. But my company, which has been vacillating for weeks about getting a Mac II for our typesetting group, has finally decided to get one next week. The fact that prices went up 20% really makes no difference at all, since for what we're buying a Macintosh for, there are no real alternatives (and that's why we love it so, right?). Besides, the increase, when taken in context of the Full Page Display, scanner, tape backup unit, software, etc., really adds very little to our total system cost. Apple is slowly realizing that businesses that paid top dollar for "true-blue" IBM equipment years ago (even though clones were cheaper, more reliable and better performers) are perfectly willing to pay top dollar for Apple equipment now. Maybe the prices will drop when the new Macs come out next year... -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." {uunet,cmcl2}!esquire!sbb | sbb%esquire@cmcl2.nyu.edu | - David Letterman
kmw@ardent.UUCP (Ken Wallich) (09/15/88)
In article <247@rna.UUCP> marc@rna.UUCP (Marc Johnson) writes: [...] >Apple has been playing both sides of the >fence for a long time now - "the computer for the rest of us" - with an >(at least) implied promise that the Apple way of doing things would continue >to be made available to a body of folks who saw the limitations of the IBM >way of doing things. This includes a lot of "low end" buyers who don't have >to answer to a boss who wants Big Blue on the desks in the office. [...] How long have you been buying Apple products? Was the Apple II a significant technical advance over the Atari 800? Nope, the Atari had faster graphics, was *capable* of doing everything that the Apple was, people chose to buy the Apple, at THREE TIMES the price. Was apple your buddy then? Nope, they were maximizing profit. Then there was the $10,000 Lisa. People figured that was just too much to spend, even if the technology was neat, and it failed. Then there was the 128k Mac. Remember that? No software, just a cute little box with a cute little paint program and a silly memo-writer, and in *only* cost $2000. Gee, Apple was really looking for friends then, huh? They were selling something that no one else had, and people who thought it was a good idea plunked down their cash. If you bought one because you felt that Apple was going to feel you were a member of some elite community, you were hallucinating. Oh, then there was the *upgrade* to the "fat mac", at only $1000. Many people went and got 3rd party upgrades (like me), because Apple wasn't being our friend, they were selling the upgrade for what they could get for it. Oh, then we got the Mac+. I could upgrade what is now a 512KE (I spent 2k for it, $400 on a memory upgrade, and another $300 on the rom/disc upgrade) for around $800 to be a MacPlus. Or I could go buy a used one for $1200, or a new one for $1500 ($1799 RETAIL). Is Apple being my pal? Nope, they are getting what they feel the market will pay, just like they have always done. It seems to have worked well for them. When did Apple ever say the "rest of us" meant people who can only afford an inexpensive computer? Apple has never made an inexpensive computer (although I think the current pricing for the MacPlus is reasonable), it has never said it would, and probably never will. It makes what it considers to be good computers (and a lot of folks agree), and sells them for the maximum dollar amount that people will buy them at. The "Apple way of doing things"??? I think they have kept their promise. Welcome to capitalism. [...] >It was kind of, "buy Apple and >we'll take care of you" (to some extent). The comment about Apple not being >in business to be your buddy is certainly true, but they surely professed a >far more, shall we say, cooperative attitude. When? When did apple ever tell you that they would "take care of you"? You are assuming from their corporate image that making a profit is not their number one concern. What drivel! When was the last time you saw a large corporation gear its entire buisness strategy to being a nice guy? Apple is still providing the MacPlus at an inexpensive price. Their other machines are higher performance, and they are attempting to capture the buisness and technical marketplace, where people can afford to pay the prices they are asking. Why should they provide an entire product line at a price below what the market they are targeting can afford to pay? >Just to take one blatant example, >how is it that 4 or 5 other floppy drive makers can sell top-quality 3.5" >drives at 60-70% of Apple's price, just to take one blatant example? Gosh, have you looked at the accessory price for other large companies' peripherals? Sun, HP, IBM, DEC all sell hard discs, tape drives and other peripherals for far more than you can buy third party units. Why do people buy them? Because they are *supported* by a trusted manufacturer to work well with the machine. You can also have *one company* do *all* the repair work on your machine. That is worth a lot to companies who would invest more money in breaking machines down into their components to get them serviced. If you feel you can get a peripheral that is as good or better (or simply cheaper) by other means, Apple doesn't tell you not to. If you want the Apple name on all your peripherals, you have to pay extra. Look at Apples 13" monitor. They bumped the price on it too. Why would anyone have paid $999 for the monitor when you could go buy a 'regular' Sony Multiscan (like I did)? Because it had Apples logo, you knew it would work, and you knew where to bring it if it didn't. What about their hard discs. They have always been overpriced. You can buy virtually the same drive for half the price, but it won't have the Apple logo. It is important to some people, and companies provide peripherals for those people. >All of the hand-waving mumbo-jumbo of another article in this group is total >bull. Raise prices to cut the demand? Baloney! Raise prices to RIDE the >demand! It's a game of chicken - how high can we raise the prices before >folks abandon ship? Yup, that is exactly what it is. It is a sellers market, and Apple is taking advantage of it. To do otherwise would be a foolish buisness decision. You try to make it sound bad, but that's the way it works. It doesn't have to, and I don't necessarily agree that it should be that way, but... >I felt that even buying a MacPlus 2 years ago was >really stretching, and hard to justify, but I felt that the investment in >the Apple approach was worth it. I know others had the same feeling. >Now we have lots of software demanding greater capacity and the SE suddenly >becomes the low-end machine you "have to have." And waddyaknow, the SE >goes way up in price!! This only enhances the (mis-)perception that the SE is >somehow significantly superior to the Plus. Ohhh, I see. An SE is NOT "significantly superior to the Plus", but you *need* to use the "greater capacity" of the SE for these new software packages. What do they require that the Plus cannot obtain? More memory? You can put at least 2 meg into the Plus, you can even get an excelerator card from a third party if you think you "need" it. The high end packages that use a lot of memory, cost a lot of money too (save Hypercard). The only thing you cannot do in one meg with "ordinary" software is run MultiFinder, if you don't have the memory, the old Finder is ready to help you out. The Mac has become popular. Some of us had hoped it would be someday, and are now seeing the results of popularity. Mediocre software products, overpriced software products, expensive peripherals, expensive computers. It is not just a group of "Apple followers" who are now willing to plunk down their cash for a nifty Apple box, it is not just "Mac fanatics" who are building software for it. It has become a real computer, with all the pitfalls that come with it. It is occasionally the curse of visionaries to see their visions fulfulled. Of course, I could be wrong :-O. -- Ken Wallich Ardent Computer Corp uunet!ardent!kmw Sunnyvale, California, USA "Slimey? Mud hole? My HOME this is!"
mha@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Mark H. Anbinder) (09/15/88)
Looks to me like Apple is doing its best to limit the effects of their price increases. Lots of people have commented that they're raising prices on products that don't depend on the memory that's so short on supply. My guess is they're doing an accross-the-board raise so the effects on any one product or group of products aren't too severe. Sure, monitors aren't costing Apple as much more to produce as the increase in list price, but it's probably better to up the monitor prices a little than to put the whole cost increase on one product area. Also, the fact that they raised the price on the Mac II so much and left the price of the Plus alone MAY indicate that Apple really does care about the personal user. Face it, most purchasers of Mac II systems are corporate users at this point. Most purchasers of Mac Plus systems are personal users. Apple may be risking a lot of business by raising the price of their high-end machine so much, but it seems like they're doing it with the users' interests in mind. And if not, at least we can accept the fact that it won't be any more expensive to buy a Plus now than it was before, and just be happy with that. Besides, I've already got my Mac II :-) -- Mark H. Anbinder ** MHA@TCGould.tn.cornell.edu NG33 MVR Hall, Media Services Dept. ********************* *** * * Cornell University H: (607) 257-7587 ** THCY@CRNLVAX5 **** * * * Ithaca, NY 14853 W: (607) 255-1566 ********************* *** ***
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (09/15/88)
In article <702@paris.ICS.UCI.EDU> roy@bonnie.ics.uci.edu ( John Roy) writes: > >So, ok the Mac prices are going up. This is even more reason for >*someone* to develop a Mac "clone" :-). Yes, I know they will >probably be sued. But I bet they could make a good case on alot of Check out the latest MacUser. There's an article near the beginning about a company that is getting attention from their way to run C programs on a PC or clone. (Sorry for the vagueness - I just skimmed the magazine when it came last night.) The implication is that we should soon be able to run Mac programs on cheap PC clones. Maybe I'll keep my AT after all Shirley Kehr
merchant@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Peter Merchant) (09/16/88)
In article <1253@aucs.UUCP> peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) writes: >Part of my job is to train faculty and staff to use their >machines, and although the Mac is generally easier to use, from my >experience it takes just about as long to train a computer-illiterate >user how to use a Mac as it does a PC. There are things that a basic >Mac can do a lot easier and cleaner than a PC (fonts and graphics), but >95% of our users don't usually need those features (or at least can get >along without them). Hm. I find that the difference between our Macintosh and PC users is, primarily, how much support they need after the initial contact. On a PC, I am constantly getting questions that usually contain the phrase, "I did this once but I forgot how to do it and I don't want to look in the manual." I don't usually spend as much time dealing with the Macintosh users. Second, I find that, now that I have fonts and graphics, I can't live without them. This summer, I was working for IBM and needed to make a little write-up on how to work the IBM PS/2 Model 30. So I sat down and drew a Model 30 with MacDraw II and wrote the prose with Microsoft Word and pasted the pictures into Word and printed it on the LaserWriter and it looked great! Then, I figured out that I probably shouldn't make IBM promos on the Macintosh, so I sat down and wrote up my instructions on the PC. It seemed amazingly archaic to go back to writing with only one font and one size and not being to make any drawings to make things clearer. I've found that if you give people features and the features are easy to access, they'll use them. --- "Don't let me be alone..." Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP) (Peter.G.Merchant@dartmouth.edu)
peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) (09/19/88)
> Regardless of how complicated the decision is, it all comes down to the > only choice the consumer has: to buy or not to buy. As I said this > decision is just a matter of what you gain in return for what you pay. > If what you gain is avoiding the enormous cost of replacing all your Macs > or switching development platforms then it is worth it to pay the price. We have a steadily growing Mac Lab, presently equipped with Mac SE's only. That model has gone up substantially and we will now be forced to purchase what we consider obsolete technology--the Mac Plus. I'm not even convinced they'll stay around much longer and I for one do not want to buy a machine that doesn't fit into our present technology base. However, we could barely afford SE's before, now we seem to be out of luck. I agree what Apple did isn't illegal or immoral, but it is certainly extremely frustrating to those of us who are trying to convince people that Macs have a place on campus. What this decision will do is slow down our Mac growth, perhaps stop it completely for this year. Is that what Apple wants? -- Peter Steele, Microcomputer Applications Analyst Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada B0P1X0 (902)542-2201x121 UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Peter BITNET: Peter@Acadia Internet: Peter%Acadia.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) (09/19/88)
> Hm. I find that the difference between our Macintosh and PC users is, > primarily, how much support they need after the initial contact. On a PC, I > am constantly getting questions that usually contain the phrase, "I did this > once but I forgot how to do it and I don't want to look in the manual." I > don't usually spend as much time dealing with the Macintosh users. I find the number of questions I am asked generally has nothing to do with whether the machine is a Mac or a PC. It depends on the user. Some of my PC users seem to be very good and after my initial consulting rarely bother me. I seem to get just about as much consulting on Macs as I do on PCs, and we have a much larger PC base. I *do* think the Mac is easier to use overall, but when most of the users only need word processing, Microsoft Word on the Mac can generate just as many questions as WordPerfect on the PC. > Second, I find that, now that I have fonts and graphics, I can't live without > them. I agree with that, but when new users are shopping for a micro and their boss tells them they x dollars to spend, the Mac usually doesn't even enter the discussion. And again, the machine is practically always being used for wordprocessing, replacing their current typewriter. And even WordPerfect on a PC is a *whole* lot better than a typewriter. > I've found that if you give people features and the features are easy to > access, they'll use them. Again, I agree, but if the users are new to computers they don't really appreciate what one system will give you that another one won't. If they've never had a computer before, a PC will be like gold to them. Granted, if they got as Mac, they could certainly make use of all the nice graphics and fonts (and would never go back to a PC once they had a Mac), but when money decides what they will get, Macs usually do not get considered. Its even harder when their boss tells them "it's got to be IBM compatible" because all his friends, colleagues, neighbours, first cousins, etc. have IBM compatibles... -- Peter Steele, Microcomputer Applications Analyst Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada B0P1X0 (902)542-2201x121 UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Peter BITNET: Peter@Acadia Internet: Peter%Acadia.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) (09/19/88)
> We have a steadily growing Mac Lab, presently equipped with Mac SE's only.
I should have said that we have all dual floppy Mac SEs in a AppleTalk
network. The dual floppy SE is a perfect lab machine because it has
two built in drives. With Mac Pluses, you have to buy an external drive
and that's one more thing for students to swipe. Very few people buy the
SE HD20 because the hard disk is simply *way* overpriced. Besides, even
if you have a hard disk, two floppies can be very convenient...
--
Peter Steele, Microcomputer Applications Analyst
Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada B0P1X0 (902)542-2201x121
UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!Peter
BITNET: Peter@Acadia Internet: Peter%Acadia.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDUmbk@hpsemc.HP.COM (Miles Kehoe) (09/20/88)
Maybe instead of complaining at Apple and other US manufacturers who are now raising prices due to critical DRAm shortage.. maybe we should be asking our congressmen/women and senators why we have this artificial trade barrier with japan to 'protect' the US semiconductor industry which doesn't seem interested in making the chips we need. The Japanese might have been 'dumping' memory at $2 a chip 15 months ago.. but I can guarentee they're making profits now that the prices are above $12! So we put on this artificial trade barrier, the effect of which is to raise prices 6 fold for US consumers; to increase the profit margin for Japanese companies 6 fold; and provide not one bit of incentive for any US companies to make the parts. And, of course, the japanese can take their profits and invest them in US paper so we get to pay them interest (as taxpayers) on the profit they make. Somehow it seems the consumer is the one getting the bum deal. And you know that militarty projects, when threatened with DRAM shortage, will manage topay whatever it takes to get their needs met. Well..so much for the free trade theory of international relationships. $FLAME OFF Miles
twm@genrad.UUCP (Tim W. Mattox) (09/21/88)
In article <1258@aucs.UUCP> peter@aucs.UUCP (Peter Steele) writes: >> Hm. I find that the difference between our Macintosh and PC users is, >> primarily, how much support they need after the initial contact.... >I find the number of questions I am asked generally has nothing to do with >whether the machine is a Mac or a PC. It depends on the user. I agree. However, to imply that it is easier for a new user to learn a command-line driven environment opposed to an icon based environment seems a bit ridiculous. When I upgraded to an SE, I let my parents use my Mac Plus. With only minimal instruction, both were producing documents(MacWrite) and spreadsheets(Excel). We also have an old Apple II+. Neither parent got into it at all. Granted the software base is not as big for the II+ as for a PC but that was about the only difference and no the real problem. The command-line driven II+ made just getting started a fairly big effort. Additionally, my dad has some PC's at work which he was shown how to use. Needless to say, it took the Mac to really get a non-user into the computer world. >> Second, I find that, now that I have fonts and graphics, I can't >> live without them. >> I've found that if you give people features and the features are easy to >> access, they'll use them. >Again, I agree... I think about everyone would agree to this. > ...but if the users are new to computers they don't really >appreciate what one system will give you that another one won't. If they've >never had a computer before, a PC will be like gold to them. Granted, if >they got as Mac, they could certainly make use of all the nice graphics >and fonts (and would never go back to a PC once they had a Mac) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sure so get an IBM and then kick yourself a year or two later when you do get exposed to other systems. A person does not know sh*t so why not sell him sh*t. Sounds good to me. >Its even harder when their boss tells them "it's got to be IBM compatible" >because all his friends, colleagues, neighbours, first cousins, etc. have >IBM compatibles... Now that the Macs are becoming IBM compatible a lot of people are wondering what the compatibility is good for. Gee, I wish that I could run Lotus instead of Excel, it's soooooo powerful 8-). Seriously, if it just gets more people to try a Mac, then I think it is a positive move.
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (09/22/88)
I don't know the situation at Apple, but have you considered the
following problem?
* The production facilities are running at 100%, it will be a while
* before they can add more capacity, and Apple is having a hard time
* keeping the machines on dealer shelves (perhaps because of the DRAM
* shortage?) Businesses who will pay extra $$$ can't get the machines
* they need.
In this situation, the natural economic reaction is to raise prices.
It's simply supply & demand. Prices on PC-ATs have gone up in the
last year, also. So have employee salaries, and business expenses.
Apple is working to develop many new products, and could probably
finish the products sooner with more developers. If production is
truly at 100% capacity, then it takes a LOT of new capital to build
more production. All these things cost extra $$$.
Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,ihnp4,harvard}!uiucdcs!gilliestedj@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Ted Johnson) (09/22/88)
>I agree. However, to imply that it is easier for a new user to learn >a command-line driven environment opposed to an icon based environment >seems a bit ridiculous. I agree. Most (non-secretarial) people who don't deal with computers regularly aren't touch typists. So if they have to type a lot (like on an IBM PC) vs. using a mouse, they will probably not be very pleased. -Ted
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (09/24/88)
In article <870239@hpcilzb.HP.COM> tedj@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Ted Johnson) writes: >I agree. Most (non-secretarial) people who don't deal with computers >regularly aren't touch typists. So if they have to type a lot (like >on an IBM PC) vs. using a mouse, they will probably not be very pleased. I always find statements like this surprising. Didn't most people who have to use computers on a regular basis go to high school, and probably also college? Didn't they have to turn in term papers and reports? Am I the only one whose high school teachers required the papers to be typed? I would have been lost in high school with my jr.high typing class. I'm no speed demon (althought I've gotten much faster since I started using computer text editors, since I don't worry so much about accuracy), and I don't think I use all the right fingers for all the keys, but I know where home row is, and I can type with my eyes shut and feel whether I've made a mistake. And even if you use an icon-based interface, you still have to do quite a bit of typing, don't you? If you're filling in a spreadsheet or database you have to enter all the data. If you're using a word processor you have to type the words to be processed. I admit that there are plenty of non-textual applications (CAD/CAM, draw/paint, page layout), but it seems to me that most applications do require some typing. Of course, if you're an executive you might have a secretary or clerk do all the data entry, and you just do simple queries, which require a minimal amount of input. That all said, I do agree that mouse/icon/menu-based interfaces are easier to learn than keyboard-based interfaces. But once you become proficient with a system, I think keyboard interfaces are more efficient for anyone with at least minimal typing ability. I can type "rm foobar" much faster than I can reach for the mouse, find the icon, drag it to the trash, and then get my hand back to home row. Both have their place, and one of the things I like about the Symbolics system I use at work is that it provides both styles simultaneously. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/25/88)
>Didn't they have to turn in term papers and >reports? Am I the only one whose high school teachers required the >papers to be typed? I would have been lost in high school with my >jr.high typing class. If you took a poll, I think you would find that touch typists are a minority. I've been in the computer industry for almost 11 years now, and I have NEVER worked in a group where a majority of the programmers or computer types could type quickly. Personally, I type 60-75WPM, and I've been clocked at 120wpm twice (blew my typing teach away. I can only do it on a selectric keyboard, though, and NO computer manufacturer has ever come up with a keyboard even close...) and invariably people freak out when they first see me in action. You would think they would teach typing as part of a C.S. degree. But most of the people I run into are either self-taught or hunt-and-peck artists. (I know one person who can type 15-20WPM with two fingers and a thumb, so being a h&p isn't an insult). Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms