🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5303@fluke.COM> mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney) writes:
>Where?  Well, Apple could price the SE to be competitive with PC/AT-clones,
>and by *investing* in the needed production lines, could *grow* a much larger
>market share, and, in the long term, much larger profits.
>

Look, folks, whatever the advantages and desirable characteristics of the
Macintosh, the problem with buying an Apple product is that they are a
sole source manufacturer.  The people who run the company are doing just
fine running the company.  Apple is making money hand over fist and that
is all the bean counters want or need.  Anything else you believe Apple
"stands" for today, is the result of very successful marketing.  (Or
any other day, remember Jobs ran the company, not Wozniak.)

As distasteful as it may be, price/performance is best in the IBM/Clone PC
market on the low-end and Unix workstations on the high-end precisely
because competition is alive and reasonably well in these multiple
manufacturer markets.  Frankly, consumers are better served by targeting
their dollars on the best available products in competitive markets rather
than on the products available in a sole source market.  In the long term,
the offerings will excell and consumers may even be able to afford to
upgrade from their earlier purchases.

Disclaimer:  I am definitely NOT a fan of IBM or MS-DOS.  And while I LIKE
	     Unix-based systems, I program for a living.  I am certainly
	     aware that a Macintosh-like system may well be more appropriate
	     for most computer users.  But PLEASE take off the rose-colored
	     glasses.  There is no such thing as a free lunch, the Easter
	     Bunny, or an altruistic computer manufacturer dedicated to
	     bringing low-cost computer solutions to "the rest of us."

-- 

Ned Nowotny (ned@mcc.com or {ihnp4,seismo,ucb-vax,gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!pp!ned)