Bell & Howell Apple II update

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Fri Jan 25 14:21:29 2002

You've lost me here, Ben.

see below, plz.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Franchuk" <bfranchuk_at_jetnet.ab.ca>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update


> Richard Erlacher wrote:
> >
> > That's how the MAC came to be a competitor of the PC instead of the
> > Commodores. You pick your market with your pricetag. There were
published
> > rumors of the original proposed cost of the MAC, in 1985, suggesting it
would
> > be <$1000. However, Apple decided that, though they would have made
typical
> > profits on the sub-$1K price by going after the big-blue market, they not
only
> > added a clear $3k to their profits, but were playing in the major league.
> >
> > The Amiga didn't need to be gold-plated, it just needed a price
appropriate
> > for its intended market.
>
> No it needed to develop user APPS not just games. 640x200 dots are the
> low
> end of computers and the high end of TV. Even the latest new game box
> is that res - TV output. Real users don't use a TV for output - they
> what a real computer screen and that is what killed it.
>
What do you mean here, Ben? The PC didn't use a TV for output, and the MAC
didn't use TV for output. The Amiga could, I suppose, use TV output, but it
could do it at resolution much better than 640x200, and had a full range of
colors at a time when the MAC and PC didn't.
>
> I don't buy, "you pick your market with your price tag." I say too [much]
cost
> cutting corners hurts your product. If that were the case, all computers
> would still be multi-million dollar time shared computers with 110 baud
> dial up.
>
First of all, within any market segment, investment in improved technology
increases market share. That doesn't apply over different market segments,
however. DEC, for example, stayed with "old" technology, charging WAY more
than "new" technology prices for it for years. They typically lagged two
generations behind in technology, yet exceeded costs of "leading edge" systems
by a couple of orders of magnitude. Just compare the cost and features of the
PC/AT clones sold in, say, '87-88 with a similarly equipped microVAX-II. The
PC/AT would typically cost about $800 bucks, while a similarly equipped uVaxII
cost nearly $100K, partly for the stuff the PC/AT had, and partly for what you
had to add in order to have the stuff the PC/AT had. Inside a year, the power
cost alone exceeded the PC/AT, yet folks LOVED the microVax and hated the
PC/AT clone, that ran half-again as fast. If that DEC gear hadn't been so
expensive, nobody would have bought it for sale to their government clients,
since there would have been more profit in the PC/AT route.
>
> --
> Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
>
>
Received on Fri Jan 25 2002 - 14:21:29 GMT