🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12101@reed.UUCP> wab@reed.UUCP (Bill Baker) writes:
>

[A whole bunch of angry stuff about Apple's prices.  His conclusion is
that they are too high.  He is right about that.]

>upgrades or junking our Macs (the value of which decrease
>precipitously with every upgrade) and buying into another

What does he mean `decrease precipitously'?  The Macintosh Plus is
quite old by computer standards, yet the used price is so high that
there is little reason not to buy new--if slicing open the box and
having a little bit of a warrantee is worth anything to you.  The
biggest erosion in the value of a used Plus is Apple lowering the
retail price on new Pluses.

>that the wholesale price of parts accounted for 1/4 of the list price
>of an SE.  The ratio for the Plus must be even lower.  Can you say

Right, but he has the Plus backwards.  A lot of people have estimated
that the SE costs *less* to build than a Plus.  The higher retail
price is for the Slightly Enhanced perception.

>cover the costs of developing new machines.  Admit it: the closed box
>Macs are cash cows you are milking for all the market will bear, both

Here he is right the cash-cow in general, but why concentrate on the
closed boxes?  The open boxes probably have even higher margins.

>The most disturbing trend I've seen in the Mac line is planned
>obselesence.  Why no PMMU in the MacII?  Why code a 4meg memory
>limitation in the SE ROM's?  Apple must have been working on the IIx
>at the same time as the II and seen the value of virtual memory.  For
>that matter, why limit the II to 8 meg?  The memory fiasco with the

Motorola hadn't started selling the MMU when the II came out, the
68030 was also not yet available.  The 4 meg limit in the SE and Plus
is a consession to compatibility with the first Macintoshes.  The
result is that the SE was *very* compatible, but the II had more
problems.  Also, they only have a 16-meg memory map, the 68000 has
only 24 address lines.  The 8 meg limit in the II is also there for
compatibility reasons (with QuickDraw), and it might go away in a few
months, but then Bill will gripe about some favorite piece of
(probably Microsoft) software breaking.  There is no utopia, Bill's
gripes are all real, but they are not all self-consistent.

>What about the warranty?  Apple, a 90 day warranty on a machine that
>costs more than a new car?  Chrysler offers a seven year warranty and

He's right on this one.

>the golden eggs.  The bloom is hardly off the II and it is going to
>cost 2 grand to upgrade it.  I think some major buyers are going to

I forgot, how does Chrysler handle upgrades?  Last I heard if I wanted
the newest, fanciest car, I had to *pay* for it, full price even.
Sure, I can sell my old car, but at a terrible loss, much worse than
the depreciation for Macs.

Last year everybody was complaining that the II was so old and
obsolete, this year the gripe will be over *too many* new machines.

>more.  Look at Bill Gates and DOS.  Put a Plus with a SuperDrive on
>the market for under $500 and they'll sell like Hula Hoops.  Charge a

OK, I'll look at Bill Gates and DOS.  Which is the bigger company
Apple or Microsoft?

Certainly, Macs have large profit margins, but remember how people
laughed at Apple for betting on mice, and windows, and bunches of
other things that `real' computers don't need.  Apple stuck its neck
out, and now it has the BMW.  

It might not be a fast as some Porshes, nor as cheap as a Beetle, but
they own it.  Certainly, they might be able to make more money by
selling more units at lower prices, but *they* don't think so, and its
their call..  (I do think they are wrong.)

If Bill is really completely bent-out-of-shape over their obsolete
line of over-priced computers, he should buy an IBM.  They cost even
more.

Kent Borg
kent@lloyd.uucp
or
...!hscfvax!lloyd!kent