jbass@polyslo.UUCP (John L Bass) (02/11/88)
>From: kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) > Since you did not hear the counterarguments, I shall repeat them, slowly... > > 1. Your argument rests on a number of unjustifiable assumptions. > > 1. The useful life of a PC is 4 years. > 2. The total number of PCs needed is 20 million. > 3. Each user needs at most 1 PC. > 4. The market is limited to domestic users. > 5. Demand for PCs is based totally on the existing uses of PCs. > 6. Domestic manufacturers are most vulnerable to a decline in the > market size. > 7. Computer makers only make IBM PC compatible computers for home and > office use. For the case I presented, sharp reduction in Jobs and Revenues for production and sales of PC's in the US market, ONLY 1 and 2 were necessary to arrive at the basic answer. I did not make a case for 3, but rather stated that many users need only shared access to a PC or NO ACCESS AT ALL. This is several times more significant than the number of users who have/need multiple PC's. I made no claims as to your items 4, 5, 6. and 7 ... go find your own soap box if you wish to make an issue of these points. > > I could write ten thousand words on each of these cases. I will restrain > myself. Nevertheless... > > In my experience, both at work and at home, the useful life of a > computer has been less than three years. Computers die of old age or use in > 5-10 years. They become obsolete much faster and replacing them is more > economical than expanding them. As the basic technology improves, the rate > of o0bsolescence will stretch out, but I don't think this issue is being > addressed. At face value I would have believed that too ... but I had to really look at what the current state of affairs and the future brings (atleast in the next few years). First, yes the Z80, 6502, and 6809 systems died a quick death. On the other hand IBM has brought it's normal long-lived product line strategy into the PC market place. IBM PC/XT systems and clones sold during 1981 to 1983 are largely still in use after minor upgrades for memory and disk space. I expect many of these system will still be running in another 4 years. I expect the rest of the PC/MS DOS systems built in the last 5 years will be running another 4 years too. From this It appears the useful life of a PC in this decade is between 5 and 10 years. Who knows what products will be like in 1995. The reason for this is largely simple ... most of the 8088 PC/MS DOS systems are simply low cost word processors .... typewriter replacements. Word Perfect runs as fast as the operator can type. Nearly all the functionality is in the software, little reason to upgrade the hardware ... it is plenty fast enough. Sure some users will upgrade to a faster/bigger system to do low end desk top publishing and graphics ... and some other happy user will take the old machine and keep on typing ... > As to total numbers, I have a PC at home, and one at work. At work, video > terminals are being replaced by workstations. At home, my wife and I > have begun to compete for computer time. I think demand has not levelled > off yet. This is just my opinion, but I am not making a public prediction of > gloom and doom. I think the claim that 20 million is the total size of the > market forever amen needs more than a back-of-the-napkin justification. See my reply to Andrew Burt .... but in a nut shell ... sure some of us have lots of computers .... BIG DEAL who are you tring to impress .... the average US household doesn't need one ... most people don't even use a typewriter .... much less need/use a computer as a typewriter. Nor did I say the market size of 20 million was forever ... just my best guess of the 1988 market size. I fully expect the market size to grow over the next 5 years to absorb the used machines from the next replacement wave in 1990 to 1994. > > I also think that measuring the market base based solely on today's uses of > computers is a serious mistake. If we'd done that five years ago, would we > have gotten a market size of 20 million units? Seems unlikely. New > technology enables new uses. We don't know the impact of such emerging >technologies as very high capacity disk storage, smart data cards, and parallel > processing on computer use. It certainly would be a mistake to measure today's market size based on 1995 possible uses. The fact of the matter is that 5 years ago when the market crashed ... the total market size was only a few million units .... that is why it crashed in the face of heavy production. Yes new technolgy enables new uses, but it takes 3 to 5 years to integrate that technology into society. If it isn't on the market today, it isn't going to greatly affect the industry economy in 1988/89. So ... in a nut shell .... yes things are going to move forward, just not as fast as the last 5 years. > > The analysis seems reasonable, but only if the assumptions are correct. I > think this is the point where you part company with everybody else. So far we have only heard from a few hot heads which were to quick to post a rebuttal -- they didn't even spend any time researching the problem ... just gave a seat of the pants reply... one hell of a way to make major decisions about peoples futures ... Have Fun, John Bass DMS Design
roger_warren_tang@cup.portal.com (02/15/88)
No flames, but where are you getting your figures? Specifically, the figur
of 60 million in the work force with access to computers? The civilian work
force is, I believe, well over 100 million and inching toward 110 million.
This does not include military or younger students; both of these groups
may relrfect substantial need for computers, both at home and at school/militat
With these figures in mind, I'm curious as to why you feel only 55% or so
of the work force would have access to a computer. Do you have any hard data
on what occupations definitely do not have access to computers of any type?
This is a separate issue from your assumed ratio of 1:3 to obtain 20 million
units. As best as I can figure, your ratio of NEEDED PCs is still guesswork.
The evidence you give seems more related to the ratio of computer contact.
Can you give a source?
All I can give you is anecdotal evidence for your ration of NEEDED PCs;
the rations I've come across are 1:3 at the worst (this was in a state
government office who was in the process of ordering more PCs); most other
offices I've been in, the ration was 1:2 or 1:1. This evidence doesn't mean a
whole lot, of course; anything here on the net is biased toward PC-using biz.
Still, there is a lot of slop in your figures that I reallwhere it's cominumgreg@xios.XIOS.UUCP (Greg Franks) (03/08/88)
In article <3244@cup.portal.com> roger_warren_tang@cup.portal.com writes: [and a host of others too...] > No flames, but where are you getting your figures? Specifically, the >figur of 60 million in the work force with access to computers? The >civilian work force is, I believe, well over 100 million and inching >toward 110 million. This does not include military or younger students; >both of these groups may relrfect substantial need for computers, both >at home and at school/militat [.....] We can all argue ad-nausium about the figure 20 million. Of the 110 million people, how many actually need or use computers. I dare say the guy/gal building automobiles, or pouring concrete or whatever isn't. And so what if the number 20 million is wrong. If the market saturates at 50 million, the crash comes later (and will likely be more spectacular because there will be more players to get hurt!). And perhaps the crash will turn out to be a bump. After all, who really knows what innovations will occur which will (again) change demand. Isn't market forecasting fun? -- Greg Franks XIOS Systems Corporation, 1600 Carling Avenue, utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!xios!greg Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Z 8R8. (613) 725-5411. "Those who stand in the middle of the road get hit by trucks coming from both directions." Evelyn C. Leeper.
ram@lscvax.UUCP (Ric Messier) (03/14/88)
You know, it's funny but I thought this topic was dead but wait a
minute, here we go again!! Strap yourselves in.
--
- Kilroy ram@lscvax.UUCP
'Just what cowpatch is Lyndonville, Vermont in anyway?'
*** Can't deal, &CRASH