Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu From: ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: APDA Technotes Message-ID: <3026@tank.uchicago.edu> Date: 2 May 89 01:19:38 GMT Sender: news@tank.uchicago.edu Distribution: na Organization: University of Chicago Graduate School of Business Lines: 50 In article <29938@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes... >>I think that "break-even" stuff sounds kinda dumb though. > >Let me ask a stupid question here -- if APDA doesn't break even, where will >the money come from? It has to come from somewhere.... > >The way I see it, you have two choices: the people who use the service >pay for it, or the people who don't use the service subsidize those who >do. Now, if you're using APDA, I can see where you'd like someone else >to pay for it -- but how do you think all those folks who aren't using >APDA would feel about it? Sure -- Apple *could* run APDA at a loss and fund >it by padding the price of a Mac or an Apple II to cover the difference. But >is that really fair to all those machine buyers that aren't using APDA and >don't care (or know) about it? In one way I did misstate what I meant. I didn't mean to say that operating APDA as a self-funding unit it _necessarily_ a bad idea, but that the "profit center" scheme _might_ be misapplied here. I'm not interested in Apple funding APDA from other revenue sources so that _my_ costs as a user of APDA are lower (though lower costs would indeed be appealing). Rather, I think it's in _Apple's_ best interest to encourage development on the Mac, and making APDA materials more accessible might be one way to do that. All purchasers of Macs and Apple II's fund all of Apple's activities. If funding APDA with funds from other sources (such as sales profits) were _in the long run_ to encourage more and better Apple development and thus increase Mac sales, then it would be in Apple's interest to do so. (Would that be the case? I dunno, but it should be considered). Hey, I know that Apple has DONATED mucho equipment to the GSB here, and somebody else who bought Apple equipment payed for that in the long run. Why did Apple give away free stuff (and I mean _a lot_ of free stuff)? I reckon they looked on it as an investment. I doubt that R&D is a break-even operation. All I'm saying is that APDA might be looked on in the same way: as an investment. I'm not saying that this must be the case, but I know that the notion of "profit centers" is really hot in business schools these days, and in some cases it can be misapplied. I don't think APDA's prices make _that_ much of a difference, but on the margin, they might. Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine