joels@tekred.TEK.COM (Joel Swank) (02/10/88)
In article <1029@edge.UUCP>, doug@edge.UUCP (Doug Pardee) writes: [speaking of Motorola policy in 1980] > > Motorola makes the 68000, but by company policy they won't sell them for > use in home computers. > This is hard to believe! Not to mention STUPID policy, dictating the possible end use of a product. It's like GM having a policy that says they won't sell a truck to anyone who wants to haul rocks. How would they enforce it anyway? I'd think that anyone but the most arrogant would be eager to sell their product to IBM. Joel Swank Tektronix, Redmond, Oregon joels@tekred.TEK.COM
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (02/10/88)
In article <1029@edge.UUCP>, doug@edge.UUCP (Doug Pardee) writes: > [speaking of Motorola policy in 1980] > Motorola makes the 68000, but by company policy they won't sell them for > use in home computers. Isn't that restraint of trade, and thus illegal? Aren't you required by (US) law to give the same deal to all your customers, i.e. if you will sell 68000's to XYZ Computer Company for $N each, in 1000 piece lots, you must also sell them to anybody else with the same conditions, regardless of what they plan on doing with them? -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
friedman@porthos.rutgers.edu (Gadi ) (02/11/88)
In article <3138@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > Isn't that restraint of trade, and thus illegal? Aren't you > required by (US) law to give the same deal to all your customers, i.e. if > you will sell 68000's to XYZ Computer Company for $N each, in 1000 piece > lots, you must also sell them to anybody else with the same conditions, > regardless of what they plan on doing with them? > -- > Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy I remember a case where K-Mart sued Izod because Izod would not sell to discount stores. If I remember correctly, K-Mart lost. Gadi -- uucp: {ames, cbosgd, harvard, moss}!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!friedman arpa: FRIEDMAN@ARAMIS.RUTGERS.EDU
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (02/12/88)
> Keywords: Intel IBM > Xref: cbmvax comp.misc:2113 comp.sys.m68k:799 comp.sys.mac:13756 comp.sys.ibm.pc:13524 >> [speaking of Motorola policy in 1980] >> Motorola makes the 68000, but by company policy they won't sell them for >> use in home computers. > Isn't that restraint of trade, and thus illegal? I think it's more targeting. You have to sell them pretty much the same to all customers, varying the price by volumes more than anything. But you get to set the price, if you're Motorola. So you offer 68000s at $100 each, and they won't end up in many $500 home computers, but $20,000 workstations won't mind, if there's nothing better in the same range. Offer them for $5 each and they'll very likely wind up in $500 home computers. Since they ARE in fact winding up in $500 home computers, I guess you can draw your conclusions about what Motorola is selling them for. Of course, the competition with others (dunno what Intel sells 8086s or 80286s for these days) is another factor; they may not necessarily WANT to sell them for $5 each, but they do want to sell them, and I don't think anyone would pay $100 for a 68000 these days; that's 68020 terratory. > Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy > System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute > 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 -- Dave Haynie "The B2000 Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales) (02/15/88)
In article <3138@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: >In article <1029@edge.UUCP>, doug@edge.UUCP (Doug Pardee) writes: >> [speaking of Motorola policy in 1980] >> Motorola makes the 68000, but by company policy they won't sell them for >> use in home computers. > > Isn't that restraint of trade, and thus illegal? Aren't you >required by (US) law to give the same deal to all your customers, i.e. if >you will sell 68000's to XYZ Computer Company for $N each, in 1000 piece >lots, you must also sell them to anybody else with the same conditions, >regardless of what they plan on doing with them? >-- >Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy >System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute >455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Yes, that would be restraint of trade of trade *if Motorla had such a policy*. As far as I know Motorola has never had a policy even remotely like that suggested. In fact, since the beginning of the 68000 program, Mot has courted any and *all* customers. How do you thing the 68000 got into the Amiga, the Atari, and the Macintosh? The 68000 didn't end up in the IBM pc, much as we would have liked to have had it, because, as someone correctly pointed out: it wasnt available in the time frame that IBM needed and they thought that the 6809 didnt have enough performance. -- Motorola Semiconductor Inc. Hunter Scales Austin, Texas {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!hunter (I am responsible for myself and my dog and no-one else)
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (02/18/88)
In article <1094@oakhill.UUCP>, hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales) writes: > > The 68000 didn't end up in the IBM pc, much as we would have liked > to have had it, because, as someone correctly pointed out: it wasnt > available in the time frame that IBM needed and they thought that the > 6809 didnt have enough performance. That would be particularly amusing, if it weren't sad, in view of the performance of the 6809 relative to the 8088 they did use. Arf. [I speak only for myself, and several butchers' aprons.] James Jones