Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!okstate.UUCP!uokvax.UUCP!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari
Subject: Re: facts about marketing
Message-ID: <38700007@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Jan-86 14:42:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uokvax.38700007
Posted: Mon Jan 20 14:42:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 20:17:34 EST
References: <8@<12174475176>
Lines: 27
Nf-ID: #R:<12174475176:8:uokvax.UUCP:38700007:000:1193
Nf-From: uokvax.UUCP!emjej    Jan 20 13:42:00 1986


/* Written 4:29 pm Jan 11, 1986 by MRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA in net.micro.atari */
>     There are several ways you can build and market a computer
>to replace (or compete with) some other computer:
>(1) build a better machine and charge more
>(2) build a better machine and charge the same
>(3) build a better machine and charge less
>(4) build an equivalent machine and charge less
>(5) build an inferior machine and charge less

Then how did IBM manage with the PC?

>     Atari's marketing strategy leaves them with no way to
>maintain the curve they have set.  The value is almost guaranteed
>to go down with little or no significant equipment enhancements.
>This is fine for throwaway computers (a.k.a. toy computers), but
>not for serious computers.  A software developer writing a
>serious application is going to want the machine to be on the
>market for some time so his software product would be saleable.

So what should they have done?  Intentionally charged too much for it
so they could appear to give us a good deal later on?  (Sounds like
the Amiga--it may be better, but is it $1K worth of better?  I don't
think so.) 

					James Jones
/* End of text from net.micro.atari */