Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!noao!stsci!schiffer
From: schiffer@stsci.EDU (Skip Schiffer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Mac Lc vs IIgs A+
Summary: How much for a II GS
Message-ID: <2270@stsci.EDU>
Date: 31 Jan 91 12:54:08 GMT
References: <0XRkw1w162w@ruth.UUCP>
Reply-To: schiffer@stsci.EDU (Skip Schiffer)
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218
Lines: 26

I find that the fact that a II GS costs as much or more than a Mac Classic
is the primary reason that there is no market for the II GS.  I believe that
the machine can be useful and has a market, but only if the pricing could
be made such that the entire usable machine (CPU, 3.5" disk and color
monitor) was below the cost of a Mac Classic.  Then people who were more
cost sensitive rather than performance sensitive could concider an Apple
product rather than an IBM clone.  As it is the basic machine is not cost
effective (ie, those who would settle for the performance want a cheaper
price and those that can tolerate the price want more performance or
upward compatibility).  

I find that this situation is very unfortunate, because I think that a
II GS priced so a usable system was $500-700 would be an effective machine
which could be used to attract a wide audience of users to the desktop
metaphor and "solution computing" which has been the strength of the
Macs since day one.  I can only assume that Apple cannot find a way to
produce the machine so that it could be sold in this price range and still
have a reasonable margin.  Very unfortunate, because it means that the
art of computing will continue to move forward a a glacial pace.

These opinions are mine alone and the result of more than 15 years of 
watching personal computing grow.		Skip
-- 
| F. H. Schiffer 3rd              |                            |
| schiffer@stsci.edu              | I speak for myself alone.  |
| scivax::schiffer                |                            |