Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!soma!rice!titan!phil From: phil@titan.rice.edu@rice.EDU (William LeFebvre) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: A2000 price rise: A defense Message-ID: <456@dione.rice.EDU> Date: Fri, 12-Jun-87 16:26:04 EDT Article-I.D.: dione.456 Posted: Fri Jun 12 16:26:04 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jun-87 05:48:06 EDT References: <1310@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> Sender: root@rice.EDU Reply-To: phil@Rice.edu (William LeFebvre) Organization: Rice University, Houston Lines: 69 In article <1310@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> Steven Den Beste writes: > >The A2000's approx $1600 price was not, so far as I know, an official >announcement No, it was not officially announced. But you should go back and reread the original article about the 2000 published in the February issue of "Compute!". It quotes some Commodore official whose title sounded pretty important as saying that the price would be in the vicinity of $1500. I wish I had the article with me so I could quote it. I think what is upsetting everyone is the fact that clearly Commodore changed its mind. Everyone (including me) had their hearts and pocketbooks and budgets set on $1500+300 (or $1500+500) and now we find out it's going to be another $500. Frankly, I'm MORE upset that the delivery date was PUSHED BACK than I am that the price went up!!! I AM GETTING IMPATIENT!!!!! WHERE IS MY 2000??!?!?!!? >(nor, for that matter, have we seen an official announcement >of a $2000 price). My dealer sure says it's official. And I have no reason to not believe him. He says that he got a call from his distributor (who says he was informed by Commodore). >And since, by testimony of someone here, they aren't adding many >features, maybe any increases in the wholesale price are going to >a (whisper it) advertising budget. If that were indeed the case, I would welcome it with open arms! >Is $2000 really that outrageous for the A2000? From reading the specs and >the other things I have seen about it, it is nearly as good as the new >color Mac (better in some ways) which costs almost twice as much. Actually, I don't think $2000 is that outrageous. But they shouldn't go any higher. The Mac II is looming over their collective heads like a big, ugly vulture. And any student who attends a university that is a member of the Apple consortium (such as yours truly) will be able to get the Mac II for about *HALF* the retail price! Think about that one for a minute. It still ends up being about $1000 more than the 2000, but the processor is a 68020 and it includes a 68881. On the other hand, it doesn't include a multi-tasking operating system or the hardware (i.e.: the MMU) to make the only multi-tasking operating system they are considering (Unix) runnable. And many people will see the Mac II as a more usable machine because of the large software base they get with Unix. (Of course, that large software base doesn't include very many programs that take advantage of the capabilities of the machine---but those will be coming along before too long). >If by raising the retail price by $400 Commodore can increase... Try $495. >Remember that the $1600 price wasn't formally announced in the first place, $1500....and, like I said, read the article in "Compute!". >and that in any case the retailer isn't bound by the suggested retail price This may be the only thing that saves us! We may still be able to get it at semi-reasonable prices from (forgive me) mail-order houses or (in my case) preferred-customer arrangements with local dealers. <-> Don't trust the "From:" line -- use the "Reply-to:" line instead! William LeFebvre Department of Computer Science Rice University