Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL
From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Apple's pricing strategy
Message-ID: <8904131729.aa14133@SMOKE.BRL.MIL>
Date: 13 Apr 89 19:32:13 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 28

>GS pricing compared with what I can get a complete Mac for, mostly.
>I don't bemoan the lack of a consortium price, because even if there
>was one, it's still seems to expensive.
>
>Sounds like they don't want the machine to succeed, but I was wondering
>if there was some subtle marketing reason for what they're doing.

I quoted the Business Week article a month or two ago (January?) that said
Apple had adopted a strategy of trying to increase margins rather than
market share.  The IIgs continues to sell briskly at present prices (so
they must not be too high for everyone).  I think Apple makes an even
larger margin on the Mac SE-030; what they don't want to do is tie up
production capacity making computers that return a lower profit contribution
than another computer that could be made with the same resources.

There is PLENTY of business logic that argues Apple ** MIGHT ** make more
money lowering the IIgs price and sustaining a (profitable) market share
over a longer period.  However, there isn't any compelling way of *proving*
which strategy really is the better one.

Murph Sewall                       Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90]
Prof. of Marketing     Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET
Business School        sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu          [INTERNET]
U of Connecticut       {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL     [UUCP]
           (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM]

-+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could
            (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)