Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!dorner
From: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ?
Message-ID: <1990Aug20.204840.10895@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 20 Aug 90 20:48:40 GMT
References: <3965@crash.cts.com> <1990Aug17.135606.7668@eng.umd.edu> <1990Aug17.163840.3414@portia.Stanford.EDU> <3874@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Reply-To: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Lines: 24

In article <3874@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes:
>	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.

I dunno.  Would IBM have sold more or fewer machines if there was no
clone market?  Lest you think that a ridiculous question:

1. If there were NO clone market, some clone-buyers would buy IBM.
2. If there were NO clone market, some clone-buyers would buy nothing,
or an entirely different architecture.  This would reduce the "IBM-compat"
market, providing less incentive for software developers, which would
in turn reduce sales.  Further, the "friends" of these non-IBM-buyers
would not be as likely to consider IBM, as they would not have to share
their data with an IBM owner.

Now, as there IS no Mac clone market (yet), it seems to me that you
must compare Apple to IBM if you think clones have hurt IBM, but if
you think clones have helped IBM, then you must compare Apple to the clones.

Have I completely lost everybody yet?
--
Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office
Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu  UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner