Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu From: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware Subject: Re: A Classic Dead End? Keywords: Classic,System 7.0 Message-ID: <49309@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 21 May 91 17:43:15 GMT References: <53050@apple.Apple.COM> <1991May20.154508.4325@midway.uchicago.edu> <1991May20.164257.1959@milton.u.washington.edu> <24576@oolong.la.locus.com> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Reply-To: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) Distribution: usa Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 112 In article <24576@oolong.la.locus.com> jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) writes: >Actually that statement is not entirely provable by the evidence. First >of all, the Classic is, at street prices, still about $1100 less than >an LC. That means the Classic is about half the price... What is not >available for comparison is if the LC, priced closer to its "real" >value compared to a Classic which, based on the IBM market cost for >color and a faster processor, would be about $1500 instead of $2100, >would still sell less than the Classic. I bet not. If the LC were >in the $1500 price range (which would still allow for reasonable margins >to Apple) LCs would sell better than Classics. However, for the average >person at home, the Classic makes economic sense. This does NOT mean >that the market doesn't agree with the original poster. Rather it means >that the market has, once again, been coerced by Apple into buying a >lesser product in order to protect Apple's margins. What is amazsing In my opinion, the LC is worth twice what the Classic is worth. I think you should make it clear that you aren't comparing the _IBM_ market but the CLONE market. Their is a tremendous difference. >is that Apple, despite the hype, continues to ignore the obvious. They >could, on the basis of a superior product, OWN the personal computer >marketplace at a price that would probably improve their profits by >a factor of 2 or 3, if they were willing to sacrifice their margins >in order to gain marketshare. The Classic proves that this is the case. Apple is selling as many Classics as they can make, but their profits have fallen. Assuming you'd cut the price of the LC to make the same margin as on the Classic, I don't think you'd do much better, especially considering that many people are not going to buy the more expensive machine even if the price/performance buy is better. >Unfortunately, where the Classic would have been remarkable three years >ago, it is merely hohum today (I am talking strictly about hardware The Mac isn't a hardware value. Ignoring the software is ignoring the value of the Mac. The Amiga 500 is a far better value than the Classic if you judge strictly by hardware. >value, not the intrinsic value of the Macintosh and its philosophy, >which, I agree, is uncontravertable). Today, the LC is closer to being >a mainstream computer. Last weekend, I went to a local computer show >where mostly IBM clones were being sold and the prices were astounding. >A 386SX (which by most ratings is about the same speed as a 68020) is >selling for about $1100 WITH 2Meg, a 40Meg hard disk and VGA 256-color >monitors at 1024x768. This machine will run Win(less)3.0 at reasonable Have you run Windows 3.0 in 1024x768 mode? Did the clone come bundled with Windows? With a HyperCard workalike? How about a mouse? A SoundBlaster or Adlib card? How many hard drives will the controller support? Can you even reformat the drive (in the case of an IDE drive?) >speeds as long as you don't try to multitask more than printing in the >background. This is half of the street price of an LC similarly (or >actually not quite similarly equipped - the LC has lower color resolution >at that price). I know, I know, everyone should be willing to spend the >extra bucks because Apple is the GREATEST (and I agree) but most people >don't buy that argument. It just hurts too much in the pocketbook. >What people say, when comparing a Classic to a 386SX clone, is "Why >should I give up color, and some speed, and some expandability, in order >to just have a Macintosh?" Apple will NEVER compete with the clone makers. Apple's strength is not in distribution. Components for clones cost less in general. Economy of scale. If Apple really had a problem with low demand, it could easily flash a bunch of ads comparing the LC and a 386SX/VGA clone setup head to head. At this point, Apple is having a hard time meeting market demand, and that isn't the time to drop your prices. It isn't clear that you give up any of those things when you choose the LC. You can add another monitor seamlessly, several more hard drives, memory to at least 10 meg, and I'm guessing there will be an expansion chassis out soon enough to ad NuBus if you need more slots. If you don't need the extra monitor, you can plop in an '040 board. What else do you need in a home machine? >We are the choir. We know why the Mac is better. Unfortunately, most >other people will never try it as long as the price of entry is either >too high in dollars or in sacrificed capability (at least perceived >capability). Apple made a brave attempt with the Classic, but, again, The Mac has always been the premium buy. If you want bang/buck or are technically savvy enough not to need the interface, you can always find a better hardware buy. It's the nature of the game. >it is probably too little too late. Sure, they are selling all they >can make, but only because they have kept their production lines low >in the past to stay in line with what they were selling. Do not attempt The Singapore plant was running 3 8 hour shifts 5 days a week, and I think switched to 12 hour shifts to increase production even more. Buying more manufacturing capacity (or renting and tooling up) costs and that gets passed on. >to tell anyone that Apple, with a little lead time, could not TRIPLE >their production volume if they so desired, and if the market warranted >it. All of this woulld happen, if the LC (or Si, or any other machine >that Apple sells) were within the price point of the average computer >purchaser. As long as their price point stays in the double range >of other machines, and as long as the capability of their low price >machines is less than other machines, people will continue to buy >non-Apple by at least 3-1. Well, somehow I don't think Apple is going to risk overproduction on your projection of sales. If you compare boxes, MAYBE Mac prices are double clone prices (as if that were any kind of comparison.) The clone makers you are comparing don't have R&D budgets to speak of. If all you pay attention to is the cheapest box you can hang a keyboard on and not in what you'll actually be doing on the machine, the clone market is where it's at. I think even a knowledgeable DOS/Windows user would have an interesting time gearing up a clone to run as well as a Mac.