Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU!melvin
From: melvin@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Steve Melvin)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Yet Another Upgrade Anecdote
Summary: Not stupid, smart!
Message-ID: <36057@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 6 May 90 20:15:08 GMT
References: <43777@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <1161.263f4987@gp.govt.nz> <23254.26434102@ccavax.camb.com> <1990May6.133250.18193@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: melvin@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Steve Melvin)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 17

In article <1990May6.133250.18193@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
>What do companies do stupid things like this for? All it can do is generate
>ill will. I look at a crippled product and say "what the hell are they trying
>to pull? I sure don't like the idea of doing business with a company
>that does things like that." Are there actually people who fall for
>this kind of stuff?

I think you're missing the point.  A company doing this can end up providing
a more competitive product to *both* the low and the high ends by: 1. using
the increased volume of the low end to lower manufacturing costs, and 2. using
the additional profit of the high end to pay for the cost of operations (not
to mention R&D).  Sure, some people will buy the low end, see a "crippled"
product and think they didn't get their money's worth; others will buy the
high end and think they paid too much because the lower cost unit is
essentially the same.  However, if you look at the whole picture you'll see
that there is nothing stupid or deceitful about this, it just makes good
business sense, and that means the consumer wins too.