Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu!gaynor
From: gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ?
Message-ID: <3874@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 17 Aug 90 19:05:53 GMT
References: <3965@crash.cts.com> <1990Aug17.135606.7668@eng.umd.edu> <1990Aug17.163840.3414@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu
Organization: Ohio State Univ IRCC
Lines: 54

In article <1990Aug17.163840.3414@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes:
>In article <1990Aug17.135606.7668@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>
>>You are comparing Apples to clones here, and I think it has been made clear
>>that that is not a valid comparison.  If you want to compare, you have to do
>>Apple to IBM.
>
>It's not clear to me why IBM has to be singled out.  Apple completely controls
>the hardware and OS of the Mac; IBM does neither.  As for support, etc., many
>2nd tier clone makers (ALR, Everex, AST, Dell, not to mention Compaq) offer
>similar if not better service and support than IBM.  As for Apple and IBM,
>they both charge a lot of $$$ for the machines; I'd say the similarities end
>somewhere around there...

	Ok, then, let's try this:

	Apple designs their own machine.  An original machine, not
based on the hardware or ROMs of another company.  The clone makers
started with existing technology that had been made "free game" for
companys to work with, namely the Phoenix BIOS.  Said clone makers
thus lack the R&D costs of Apple, having come in much further along
the design trail.  Thus IBM is the closest analogue to Apple in R&D
costs, having designed their PC architecture from the same ground
level as Apple.

	Apple designs the OS for their machines.  Microsoft does this
for the DOS machines (although, arguably, you can buy another OS).
Microsoft and IBM are more closely aligned than Microsoft and any
other clone maker, thus IBM is the closest analogue to Apple in OS
development and packaging.

	IBM has a larger voice than any clone maker when it comes to
determining the future of PC hardware.  Thus, IBM is the closest
analogue to Apple in "control of hardware."

	Unlike most of the other clone makers, IBM sells it's
computers agressively through all channels: magazine, TV, newspaper,
educational outlets, retail outlets, volume business sales, and mail
order.  Apple pursues similar sales strategy.  Most of the clone
makers have limited advertising, and rely -heaviliy- on mail order,
choosing not to have the overhead of sales agents.  Thus, IBM is
closest to Apple in sales and marketing.

	I think these reasons are sufficient to show why, when
comparing pricing between PCs and Macs, one must use IBM's own
machines for the fairest comparison.

	Shall we take it to alt.religion.computers?  

-=-
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jim Gaynor - The Ohio State Univ. - IRCC - Facilities Mgmt. - OCES  <whew!> |
| Email [gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu], [gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu] |
|_  "Jim Gaynor explores The Land of VAXen!  Will IRCC survive?  Nahhh...."  _|