Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!ernie.berkeley.edu!mazlack
From: mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu (Lawrence J. Mazlack)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Survey on Future Macintosh Architec
Message-ID: <12850@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 1-Apr-86 15:54:19 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12850
Posted: Tue Apr  1 15:54:19 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Apr-86 08:41:00 EST
References: <245@ccnysci.UUCP> <300003@kran>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Lawrence J. Mazlack)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 18

>
>A better way to phrase the above would be:
>
>If the business market has been lost to IBM, it is entirely due to their
>own (the business market's) stupidity.  An IBM PC can do everything a Mac
>can if you're willing to pay the bucks for the add ons and put up with the
>inconsistancies between software packages.  But a smart businessman will
>say, "Look, for the price of this AT, I can buy two Mac Pluses and achieve
>the same functionality but double the productivity."  But we know there
>is a lot more conservative businessmen than smart innovative businessmen

Ah yes, but price per function is not the dominating factor in business
choices.  It is service from vendor followed by stability of developed
applications (i.e., if I buy a system and develop an application on it,
will the equipment be supported three months or three years from now???
<the answer in Apple's case is: no> ). The reason why IBM is dominant is
not their obsolete, expensive technology, it is that (a) you can get
help from IBM and (b) they make every effort to provide upward compatibility.