jbass@polyslo.UUCP (John L Bass) (02/11/88)
> From: fiatlux@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (David Vangerov) > > I see the computer industry as being somewhat analogous to the > the automobile industry. A low end-car goes for about as much as > a high-end PC (like the Mac II or IBM PS/2 Model 80). Here is a > market whose products are much more expensive than what a PC goes > for, yet continues to sell very well. Why? Well one reason seems > to be that our lives and lifestyles depend heavily on the use of > a car. How many cars/trucks/busses are out there in the US? 200 > million? 300? More? And what's the typical lifespan of a car? > 5 years? 6 years? More? > > The computer industry is starting to become like the auto > industry. Our lives are becoming more and more dependant upon > those little slabs of silicon. We use them to get money out of a > machine, make flight reservations, generate payroll, control your > car's ignition/fuel-injection/etc, keep your house warm/cold, write > a paper for a class, do your calculus homework and so and so on. For some folks this may be true ... it certainly is for me... but looking around me I KNOW I am an exception in 1988/89. There is no compelling reason for very many people to have a home computer system today or in the near future .... that is the basic period of interest in my postings. What happens in 1990 and beyond will not affect the 1988 market much. Since it takes 3 to 5 years for a mass market to develop, and there is no existing need or product today that would compell the market place, it is clear that this senerio will have little effect on the 1988/89 market place. > I don't buy the line that the useful market for PC's is only 20 > or so million. Which market? Bussiness? Technical? Home? > Educational? Which one? I find it quite hard to believe that the > total market for PC's is only 20 million units. There is more > than just the bussiness market out there. PC's are inching their > way into some very interesting areas, like the television > industry. There are some products out for the Mac II that allow > you to do some very intersting stuff. A technical product doesn't create it's own market need. People need a use for the product. Consider that VCR's saturated this fall at 37% of households (about 30 million homes). Sure they will continue to sell ... just much more slowly. Maybe the total market size in 10 years will grow to 60% or more .... maybe VCR's will become obsolete like reel-to-reel tapes before then? What is so compelling about a PC at $1,000 that would make it more attractive to most US households than a VCR at $225. Have Fun, John Bass DMS Design
jjboritz@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim Boritz) (02/22/88)
In article <1224@polyslo.UUCP> jbass@polyslo.UUCP (John L Bass) writes: > > A technical product doesn't create it's own market need. >People need a use for the product. Consider that VCR's saturated >this fall at 37% of households (about 30 million homes). Sure they >will continue to sell ... just much more slowly. Maybe the total >market size in 10 years will grow to 60% or more .... maybe VCR's >will become obsolete like reel-to-reel tapes before then? > > What is so compelling about a PC at $1,000 that would make it more >attractive to most US households than a VCR at $225. > >Have Fun, >John Bass >DMS Design I have read most of the postings on this topic although I have missed a couple. Most of the questions I have seen have been a result of not reading past the line you disagree with. I hope my questions are new. There is a great deal of talk about the estimated market size. Especially in comparisson to VCR's. Unfortunately most companies do not provide each of their employees with a VCR. In addition, I am not likely to see someone with a VCR at home, being given one at work (i.e. A bad way of saying that a person may have a machine at work and at home as well). I have the impression that the number of companies that provide one computer for 50 employees is about the same as the number that provide a one to one ratio. How about comparing the computer to the telephone? In some ways it is similar to the computer market. Yes it is also different, but so is the VCR. I may have a telephone at work and a telephone at home, and a phone for the kids. It is highly unlikely that they will each be of the same capability or expense. Another issue is the number of small market segments. On its own, a small market segment can be discounted, because its size is unimportant in relation to other larger values. However, the existence of many small markets adds up. Would these not make up a big enough population segment to alter your figures? I am of the belief that that the market has to slow down somewhere, it is not infinite, and I hope most people agree with this. However, your predictions of possilble 50-60 percent decreases seem much to severe. They paint the picture in black and white. There seems to be an assumption that after 20 million PC's get sold (or any other figure you may choose) the market is going to stop dead in its tracks and switch over from a first time market to a replacement market overnight. I doubt that this is the case. Is there any way to account for the transition period? Just curious. -- Jim Boritz jjboritz@watcgl.waterloo.edu Computer Graphics Lab University of Waterloo {allegra,utai,clyde}!watmath!watcgl!jjboritz
career@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Gideon B. Sheps) (02/26/88)
In article <3320@watcgl.waterloo.edu> jjboritz@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim Boritz) writes: >Another issue is the number of small market segments. On its own, a >small market segment can be discounted, because its size is unimportant >in relation to other larger values. However, the existence of many >small markets adds up. Would these not make up a big enough population >segment to alter your figures? > On the topic of small market segments adding up... An economist I heard speak recently (I saw a few, so I don't recall exactly who held which opinion - suffice it to say they were all different :-) was of the opinion that the market for manufactured products (everthing from toasters to PCs) is going to change from its current "mass market" approach to a catering to all these special interest segments approach in the near (10-20 years) future. Those companies that can't, will of course die out. His reasoning (simplified) is that there are so many of these special needs, they are sufficiantly different, and people are more and more begining to expect (or are willing to pay for) the adaptations for their need; that the lowest common denominator approach simply won't sell by the next century. Actually - the argument was more in terms of North American vs Offshore production.. the mass market LCD approach will still sell the most units, but North America will never be able to produce them as cheaply as the "emerging nations" (who ever happens to be emerging at the time), North American companies, in order to survive will have to move towards servicing the special needs groups. Was that relevant ? I hope so... -- University of Toronto Career Centre Research Office Koffler Student Services Centre Gideon Sheps 214 College st. W. 416/ 978-2081 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 2Z9 career@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu career@utorgpu.bitnet The University has a stake in any opinions I develop while using their resources should they prove to be commercially viable.