Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!boris
From: boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions to APPLE
Message-ID: <1990Nov18.110128.8081@world.std.com>
Date: 18 Nov 90 11:01:28 GMT
References: <1990Nov15.044137.13223@cs.uoregon.edu> <1990Nov15.182253.5628@portia.Stanford.EDU> <1990Nov16.040108.9863@phri.nyu.edu>
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Lines: 49

roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes:

>mckenzie@elaine5.stanford.edu (David McKenzie) writes:
>> They (and NeXT) are in business to make as much money as possible

>	Folks, take that line from David's article I quoted above and print
>it out in big type and paste it on your office/terminal-room/whatever wall,
>right above where you read (and post) netnews.  The next time you are about
>to post a "why does X do Y!" rant, re-read it, and think about it.

I think few people would expect Apple to act like a charitable institution.
The issue was the upgradeability of various Mac models.  Rightly or wrongly,
Apple has been accused of arbitrarily limiting the expandability of some
of its products (i.e. not providing upgrades that would be relatively easy
to make available).  I submit that such behavior on the part of any for-
profit company would not be moral, would represent a lack of respect for
the customers thanks to whom the company enjoys such prosperity as it does,
and is in no way dictated by the capitalist system within which Apple operates.
The norms of vendor-client relationships in our Capitalist society are
whatever we make them; nothing dictates that the vendor's hands be permanently
clenched around the customer's neck.  In my opinion, the new product
introductions, items such as the II=>IIfx upgrade and 8*24GC card, and finally
(after six years) customer support, signify that in the instance of Apple
and Mac users, the vendor is at last beginning to live up to its billing.

As far as prices are concerned, again, few people would expect Apple to
cut its overall profits altruistically by slashing prices.  The idea is that
lower prices would more than make up for the resulting per-unit profit cuts
by wider sales, and, strategically, making the MacOS more of a competitor to
DOS in the worldwide installed base.  Apple's constant assertions that this
or that design decision in the new models was necessary to keep prices down
are semi-disingenuous: while optimized engineering and manufacturing
certainly have their place in making the new machines affordable, Apple's
margins in the last few years have been well above average for the industry,
according to the press reports I've seen.  The fact that price reductions
could have been made even without the reduction in manufacturing costs, and
that they were made in an effort to expand the market, is proven by statements
from Michael Spindler ("We'll have to eat margin," a few months ago, and less-
sharply-worded versions of this for the past few years from him) and John
Sculley.  "The Market" is not this static thing, David, and your management
is finally beginning to act on that assumption.

Boris Levitin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston                         boris@world.std.com
Audience & Marketing Research              wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide 
with those of my employer or anyone else.  The WGBH tag is for ID only.)