Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!convex!swarren
From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Yet Another Upgrade Anecdote
Message-ID: <102114@convex.convex.com>
Date: 9 May 90 13:56:30 GMT
References: <43777@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <1161.263f4987@gp.govt.nz> <23254.26434102@ccavax.camb.com> <1990May6.133250.18193@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <385@newave.UUCP> <1215@mtxinu.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation; Richardson, TX
Lines: 25

In article <1215@mtxinu.UUCP> shore@mtxinu.com (Melinda Shore) writes:
>In article <385@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>>1. Shouldn't you be very happy that DEC offered a machine like the IIRC
>>that was actually designed to sell for much more that what you were
>>required to pay?
>
>I do believe that this is looking at the situation backward.  This
>practice makes it clear the extent to which DEC was overcharging for
>the uVax II.  The difference in cost between the II and the RC was

Well, you may be making an unwarranted assumption.

Perhaps they sold the system at "breakeven" in an attempt to get the
new account (because you couldn't buy it at full price), hoping to
make a profit later on the upgrade.

In other words, they deferred their profits in the interests of
gaining a new customer.  It sounds like it backfired on them.

(I don't know that this is true, just a guess)

--
--Steve      DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own (I don't speak for Convex)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
	  {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM