Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!gbrown
From: gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: An open letter to all Apple II lovers/Apple Bashers
Message-ID: <1990May2.211210.20615@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 2 May 90 21:12:10 GMT
References: <9005020758.AA27657@apple.com> <12768@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Sender: news@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 28

gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:

[Someone points out that Nintendos sell for $200 (I've seen 'em for <$120)
and that means that they'd have to sell 250 of these to make as much money as
selling  1 Mac fx. or something like that.]

>According to your logic, Nintendo should have sold Macs at 50% margins
>instead of their game systems.

I wouldn't be at all suprised if Nintendo made 0% profit on the CPU.
They have a proprietary encoding scheme for the game cartridges so noone
else can manufacture games for the machine.  Using this legal
monopoly, they make all of their money on the cartriges.

Not a bad Idea, for a game machine:  The low initial investment makes the
things sell, and once people have the CPU, they're going to buy
guys to justify their investment.

But it wouldn't work for computers:  Imagine if only Apple could write 
programs for the Mac.

An interesting aside:  An article in the LA Times claimed that the
as-yet unused expansion connector on the back of the Nintendo is to
be used to network Nintendos so you can compete in nation-wide
games competitions, etc.  What if they come up with their own on-line
services like prodigy?  Hmm.

--Glenn