From: dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:22:21 GMT

In article <c0wHPB5w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>smoon@strfleet.gsfc.nasa.gov (Sang J. Moon) writes:
>> Mac users are also complaining.  Macweek has even taken the stand that
>> Macs cost too much:
>>    "What can Apple do to respond? For the long haul, the right answer
>>    is to stick to the strategy the company already is pursuing:
>>    developing innovative software that reinforces the Mac advantage,
>>    making it easier for Mac users to fit into enterprise networks, and
>>    accelerating development of the PowerPC Macs.
>>       But in the short run, significant price cuts are overdue, and
>>    this time they should start at the top of the line."
>
>Then again, making products obsolete within a year and halving the price in
>the first six months isn't the way to do it either.
>
>I know I moaned about this a week ago, but I'm not the only person fed up
>with being sold a brand new machine which is in the shops at half the price
>two months later, and discontinued shortly after that.

There will *ALWAYS* be *someone* who purchases something, only to
find out it's discontinued not too long after that purchase unless
a company puts a product line into production forever.

You buy a 1992 model car this year, maybe the 1993 model will be
completely different.  This has the effect (usually) of hurting 
the value of the '92 model your purchased as well as causing 
dealers to cut their prices on any '92 models still in stock because
people want the newer models instead.

Macintoshes are no different than any other product of any type in
this regard.  You always have to approach these purchasing decisions
with the following questions in mind: 1) how much power do I need
right now?  2) how much money do I have to spend right now
3) will something happen in <x> months that would make purchasing
right now a bad decision due to undue depreciation or whatever?

The nicest thing that I can see about the Mac is the fact that,
even if you're not running the latest, fastest, whizbangingest
machine, it still runs all the software that both the older *and*
newer ones do.

>MacUser magazine in the UK is specifically advising readers not to buy any
>Apple equipment, because of the crashing prices and high-speed obsolescence
>of the machines.  They say to wait for Apple to get its act together.

Well, everyone complained when Apple didn't keep up with the
plummeting price/performance ratios of the Intel-based clones.  Now
that Apple is more or less keeping up (albeit with slightly larger
margins than the clones), people complain because their machines become
obsolete so quickly.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Get used to it, people!  Computer technology is changing so rapidly
that either a company goes with the flow (which results in
fast obsolescence) or they don't (which results in the IIfx being
the most powerful Mac for 3 years while 486s become everyman's 
computer).

I figure Apple *does* have its act together, more or less.  They're
attempting to keep their machines in-line price-wise with the clones
running Windows while at the same time maintaining some kind
of profit margins (which means R&D spending to keep the products
innovative).

Many of the companies vending the dirt-cheap clones will not be around
at this time next year.  By the time Compaq, Dell, Gateway, IBM (yes!),
and the other 2nd tier companies get done fighting it out, the
third tier Joe Clone companies will be crushed under the weight.

Daryl
-- 
Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    dlb5404@rigel.tamu.edu  or  dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu
        "You're not messy.  You're organizationally impaired."
                _Real_Life_Adventures_, July 3, 1992 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc