doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) (07/10/90)
In article <4aa_3IO00WB8EBerB9@andrew.cmu.edu> jk3t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan King) writes: >I'm sorry, but I believe that the initial premise of this thread (that >the development cost of Hypercard is making Macs unaffordable) is >pretty far off. This whole thing is getting out of hand. In my original posting, I maintained that Apple could not sell computers at PC-clone prices and also have their rather elaborate R & D program. I mentioned Hypercard only in one phrase, not even a whole line, as an example of innovative software. Incidentally, it's important to realize that companies engaged in real innovation on a wide scale are almost certain to incur much higher costs per successful product. They must chase down all the blind alleys. Probably only one idea in 10 turns out to be a good one, and only a minor percentage of good ideas actually lead to successful products. That's just the way research is, and pretty much the same holds for creative development work. Contrast that with the task of a firm simply trying to follow the lead of another, even if they aren't just copying. Someone else has already found what works and what doesn't. They can focus on implementing the good ideas, and don't have to pay people for working on projects that don't pan out. Apple's chosen place is the forefront. Their prices will reflect the costs of staying in that place. John E. Doner | "The beginner...should not be discouraged if...he Mathematics, UCSB | finds that he does not have the prerequisites for Santa Barbara, CA 93106| reading the prerequisites." doner@henri.ucsb.edu | --Paul Halmos, Measure Theory
eb1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edward Joseph Bennett) (07/14/90)
>This whole thing is getting out of hand. In my original posting, I >maintained that Apple could not sell computers at PC-clone prices and >also have their rather elaborate R & D program. I mentioned Hypercard >only in one phrase, not even a whole line, as an example of innovative >software. >Incidentally, it's important to realize that companies engaged in real >innovation on a wide scale are almost certain to incur much higher >costs per successful product. They must chase down all the blind >alleys. Probably only one idea in 10 turns out to be a good one, and >only a minor percentage of good ideas actually lead to successful >products. That's just the way research is, and pretty much the same >holds for creative development work. >Contrast that with the task of a firm simply trying to follow the lead >of another, even if they aren't just copying. Someone else has >already found what works and what doesn't. They can focus on >implementing the good ideas, and don't have to pay people for working >on projects that don't pan out. >Apple's chosen place is the forefront. Their prices will reflect the >costs of staying in that place. I agree fully with your idea that it cost much more to come up original innovative products than to copy or clone. Even Windows 3.0; They had the basic idea and only had find the best way to implement it, much faster and cheaper than starting from scratch. They also had the benefit of knowing all the complaints about the Mac too. Anyway back to the point. I agree with your idea but I don't think that it means apple can't come out with a cheap machine. Take the plus for instances. They sold it for several years and have gotten paid back for their R&D. It seems almost certain it will be dead buy the end of the year. They therefore are not going to see any more return on R&D anyhow. They are are selling it for $679 educational here at CMU. That means they can make a profit at those prices. So why not keep it and retail it for that price or less through SEARS or something. Mac Market share would skyrocket and people would be hooked on Macs and willing to pay for more expensive higher end machines when the Plus would no longer fill their needs. Apple could even licence the machines out to some other company to manufacture so they don't have to waste their production on a low profit machine. I really feel such a move would increase demand for more expensive machines also. Point is that they will not get any more return on the plus if they scrap it so why not say we got a nice return on R&D from this machine, now lets sell it as cheap as possible to gain market share. Ed