Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!dkuug!freja.diku.dk!skinfaxe.diku.dk!bengaard
From: bengaard@skinfaxe.diku.dk (Jens Martin Bengaard)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: The New Macs: Greedy Compromises?
Message-ID: <1990Dec5.102211.16347@diku.dk>
Date: 5 Dec 90 10:22:11 GMT
References: <1990Nov30.205419.14100@grape.ecs.clarkson.edu> <109755@convex.convex.com>
Sender: news@diku.dk (The Netnews System)
Organization: Department Of Computer Science, University Of Copenhagen
Lines: 25

ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:


>>I'm sure too.  But now new users buying an LC have to deal with different
>>resolutions.  Why did Apple make the lower-resolution 12" monitor...? Why
>>didn't Apple lower the price of the 640x480 a little more, instead of
>>putting in time and resources (== $$) into making a new one?  

>No matter how you look at it, the higher-resolution monitor costs more
>to manufacture.  Sure you can say maybe Apple should reduce its profit
>margins on the 13" monitor, but you can also say Apple should reduce its
>profit margins on the 12" and make that cheaper as well.  If you give 
>both monitors equal markups, the 12" is always going to be cheaper.

There is a very good reason why Apple should have sold a cheap high-resolu-
tion monitor with the LC: When you type something in your word processor
which has to come out on an ordinary piece of paper, the word processor has
to scroll the image sideways because of the limited space on a 512-pixel
screen. This is extremely annoying! Since the quality of the display is a
much more vital part of a computer than e.g. the processor, it is a ridicu-
lous idea to save money on the display. So, cheap high resolution = more LC's
sold = higher profits for Apple.

Jens Bengaard
bengaard@diku.dk