Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!tank!ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
From: ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Jonathan (Macintosh Clone for somewhat more than $1000!)
Message-ID: <2918@tank.uchicago.edu>
Date: 26 Apr 89 14:43:41 GMT
Sender: news@tank.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Graduate School of Business
Lines: 32

In article <143@dg.dg.com>, krein@dg.dg.com (Todd Krein) writes...
      
>I was just reading that IBM is no longer considered the market leader in the
>PC area. Compaq, and to a lesser degree Zenith, have taken the market from
>them. Sure, I'd love a $1k SE/30, but Apple does have the obligation to its
>stokeholders, and its personel, to keep its market share. 
> 
>	With out their present income, how could Apple hope to continue
>financing its R&D?
> 
>	I guess all I'm trying to say is that clones aren't always good
>for the original company as they are for the consumer...
>     


And by the same logic, while clones might be good for the consumer in the short
run, when the same company which makes the "original" is the company
responsible for the R&D of the platform, clones can actually be bad for the
consumer in the long run.  That is, while I think Mac's are somewhat
overpriced, I'd rather pay an extra 20% and see some nice VM, multi-tasking,
IPC, DSP and stuff coming out in (near) future systems/machines, than get a
cheap clone and slow down system/machine development.  Of course the dichotomy
is not so absolute, and it would be nice (and I believe reasonable) to see
somewhat cheaper Macs, but Apple's having a monopoly on the Mac market does
benefit the consumer in some ways too.


Robert
------
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
------
generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine