Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!uunet!indetech!fiver!palowoda
From: palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: IBM vs. Mac - Long (was Re: Xerox s
Message-ID: <959@fiver.UUCP>
Date: 23 Dec 89 23:28:02 GMT
References: <7075@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Organization: Fiver Communications  Fremont, Ca
Lines: 30

From article <7075@shlump.nac.dec.com>, by goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein):

 [some junk deleted]

> BoCoEx prices aren't based on the manufacturers, but upon users 
> willingness to pay.  It's a "free market" in secondhand gear.  The Mac II
> commands a higher price because people are willing to pay more.  Had IBM
> set the list price of the AT339 at $30,000, it would still sell at $1825
> today, because that's what people are willing to pay.
> 
> That Apple's "new" prices are rather high goes without saying.  This 
> posting is simply to point out that "used" prices are based on something else.
> (Proof:  Look at the used market price of an "orphan" machine like a DEC
> Rainbow, Wangpro, etc.)

  Give me a break. Apple's and DEC's prices are so high because they
have a captured market. The only reason why IBM would sell at a lower
price is because they have direct competition. And where do you get 
this stupied idea that customers are willing to pay more. Deep down
inside they wish they didn't have to pay more. But in when shopping
for APPLES and DEC's they just don't have too many options do they.

---Bob

 
-- 
Bob Palowoda  pacbell!indetech!palowoda    *Home of Fiver BBS*  login: bbs
Home {sun|daisy}!ys2!fiver!palowoda         (415)-623-8809 1200/2400
Work {sun|pyramid|decwrl}!megatest!palowoda (415)-623-8806 2400/9600/19200 TB
Voice: (415)-623-7495                        Public access UNIX XBBS