Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!boris From: boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: The New Macs: Greedy Compromises? Message-ID: <1990Dec2.081412.25053@world.std.com> Date: 2 Dec 90 08:14:12 GMT References: <90{^6B_@rpi.edu> Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 41 Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) writes: >In article <1990Nov29.185737.17454@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> > treeves@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Terry N Reeves) writes: >> We cannot say "x million people bought the classic, therefore apple was >> right not to use a 16mz 68000" We have to ask "would x+y million have >> bought it if they had gone 16mz?" You can bet apple asked. They need >> to hear from those "y" people if they were wrong about how big "y" is. >My point is not that they sold machines, my point is that they can not >keep up with the demand for the machines they have released. + >machines would *not* be sold, because Apple can't even build the >number. Once the demand falls below their capacity, then they'll >(presumably) trot out a better machine to entice more of those people in >the camp. >Even if they could mean the demand of + people, your comments >overlook another point. It's not how many people own Macs, it's how much >profit they (Apple as a company, in business to make money) get out of it, >long term. This is not some weird aberration of Apple, Inc. This is >capitalism in action. For some reason, all the "Apple is in business to make money" defenders of capitalism show an incomplete understanding of its realities. Apple's margin on the new machines is adequate. The machines can easily be assembled at automated plants (the IIsi in Fremont, the Classic and LC in Singapore). All that is required to meet higher demand is to rent a factory, rent robots, connect them to computers running the same program as the existing plants, and start churning out more low-cost Macs, all of which will also bear an adequate profit margin. If the Classic were to be brought out as a faster machine, it would still have a pretty high profit margin and Apple could have opened another plant (possibly with leased equipment to minimize risk) and make many more Macs, much more money, and really threaten DOS. The market is not static. Manufacturing capacity is not static. For an example of how markets can be expanded, look at the NeXT machine. Did you see all this I'm-defecting-to-NeXT material on the comp.sys.mac groups when NeXT first came out with its way-overpriced, way-underpowered cube? Its new line, by being cheaper and faster, means that the company will survive. Now THIS is capitalism at work.