Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!mephisto!ncsuvx!mcnc!decvax.dec.com!zinn!ubbs-nh!siia!drd
From: drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Loss of Mac's 20% over Windows 3.0 : The TRUTH
Message-ID: <1990Jul12.164748.18413@siia.mv.com>
Date: 12 Jul 90 16:47:48 GMT
References: <1990Jul3.113921.1299@d.cs.okstate.edu> <77516@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <1990Jul10.184527.4259@siia.mv.com> <1990Jul11.133528.18467@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: Software Innovations, Inc.
Lines: 27

In <1990Jul11.133528.18467@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:

>In article <1990Jul10.184527.4259@siia.mv.com> drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) writes:

>>Japanese companies seem to have been doing just fine concentrating on 
>>market share instead of taking the immediate profits.  Do they
>>"give up [their] future" when they do this?  I don't think so.
>>
>How many Japanese microcomputer companies (besides clone-makers, which are
>a different animal) are there?  What is their market share, relative to
>Apple, IBM, and Compaq.

Japanese companies are not dominant in the computer (personal or otherwise)
market here, but I bet you can think of some other markets they're in.

How about the car market?  And if you think they're just "clone-makers"
how about the consumer electronics market?   The point is that it is
perfectly possible to trade off current profits for market share
and still be innovative and maintain a long-term presence in a market.

It may be a valid business decision for Apple to forego market share
in exchange for current profits, but saying that it is mandatory
in order to stay in the market for the long term doesn't wash with me.
There are just too many counter-examples.

David Dick
Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company (sm)]