From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: NeXT edu prices go UP!  AGAIN!
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 08:38:34 GMT

Paul Burchard writes
>>> After weeks of discussion of the need for cheaper machines, guess  
>>> what?  The price here at Stanford for the cheapest available NeXT  
>>> just went UP!
>> 
>> Well guess what?  I just got the latest price list and price have  
>> increased AGAIN!
> 
> In this context you may be interested to note the following 
> job annoucement from misc.jobs.offered.  Note the specific, 
> repeated use of the word "low cost workstations" (as opposed 
> to "high-performance workstations").  I will leave it to the 
> c.s.n.a crowd to debate the implications....
> 
> + From: Dan_Smith@NeXT.COM (Dan Smith)
> + Subject: Hardware Design Engineer - NeXT Computer - Redwood City
> + 
> + Participate in the design of low-cost workstation products
                                 *****************************

The implication is indeed obvious, and most welcome.  But will  
anything happen in time?  NeXT does not have a huge window of  
opportunity before NT, Pink, Taligent, etc come on line.

The problem for NeXT is not simple, incidentally.  On the one hand  
they have a whole bunch of users whining about how slow 3.0 is, on  
the other hand they have another group clamoring for low-cost  
workstations.  Hard to satisfy both groups at once, especially for a  
company of NeXT's resources.

But while some of the constraint are clearly engineering constraints,  
others are more easily addressed since they derive more from  
marketing policy.

Consider the removal of all systems less powerful than the Turbo Slab  
16/250 from the edu price list (at least here at Stanford; has this  
occurred anywhere else?).  This is clearly a marketing decision.  A  
NeXT employee demoing the NSC on campus early in the quarter had  
hinted that NeXT would start selling only loaded machines to avoid  
people being turned off by sluggish machines.  Fair enough, but do  
they think people are not put off by high prices?  Besides, buying  
RAM and HD space from a manufacturer is always a bad deal; NeXT  
forcing its buyers to do that (by not offering anything else) is one  
of the worse ideas they've come up with in a long time.

Now consider two options.  Both are marketing choices, note, and do  
not require any additional development.
1. Continue selling something like the 8/105 25MHz slab, at a price  
somewhat lower than its price 2 years ago of $3150.  But do this only  
on campuses, for starving students.  Sure it'll have to be upgraded,  
but that can happen gradually, as budgets allow.  Look at it from the  
starving student's viewpoint: they'll get a somewhat sluggish but  
nonetheless highly effective machine (I know, I'm sitting at one);  
compared to the option of laboring under DOS (slightly more powerful  
hardware perhaps, but awful to use), this will probably be attractive  
to many students.
1. (slight variant) As above, but provide a slightly better  
configured machine; perhaps by increasing the HD to 200MB.  HD space,  
IMHO, is a bit more constraining at the low end than RAM, because  
adding RAM is cheap and can be done incrementally, while adding HD  
space requires more of a one-time outlay.  Moreover, with less RAM  
performance can still be adequate if you don't try to run too much at  
once and if you run out you can quit an app; if you run out of disk  
space, that's harder to remedy.  Again, the point here is that this  
would be sold explicitly as a low-end system, to people whose budget  
constraints make them used to making such compromises.
2. Sell completely diskless and RAMless machines.  Since it seems  
that manufacturers are incapable of selling RAM and HDs cheap, don't  
even put them in.  Let people get their own.  Most people who are in  
the market for a NeXT-class machine know enough to do it or find  
someone who will.  Some NeXT user groups might even get into the  
business of configuring these boxes (including installing NS) for  
buyers, for a fee.

Both these approaches require compromises; as such, they would  
probably not be appropriate for a commercial market.  But the NeXT  
edu market could easily deal with them.  Keep in mind that almost all  
the students who are likely to buy a NeXT are likely to be  
knowledgeable, computer-literate people, who know what a NeXT is and  
are capable of weighing the tradeoffs implicit in this kind of  
strategy.

Comments?

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy