Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ark1!nems!mimsy!mojo!SYSMGR@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Yet Another Upgrade Anecdote
Message-ID: <0093650D.EC790200@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>
Date: 7 May 90 14:33:25 GMT
References: <43777@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <1161.263f4987@gp.govt.nz> <23254.26434102@ccavax.camb.com> <1990May6.133250.18193@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,<36057@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (The News System)
Reply-To: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 18

>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).  

Lower manufacturing costs through volume? Bunkie, plant and equipment are
fixed for quantity 1 or quantity 10,000. They may produce more units, and
lower their variable costs, but if you think they pass on the savings to
consumers, I've got this bridge to sell you.

>.  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...

Stupid? Ethically proper? NO. The name of the game is to maximize profits.
The Ethical thing to do would be to drop prices and product more units...
but if you have a limited market....you get into gouging people.