🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <nevin-1701961824100001@150.135.1.79>, nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU
(Nevin ":-]" Liber) wrote:

>In article <4dk2vq$irc@steel.interlog.com>, daveacg@interlog.com (Dave
>Glue) wrote:
>
>> Two distinct product
>> lines, two markets to draw upon, more revenue.
>
>They are in the same market, in much the same way that Burger King and
>Arby's are in the same market even though they make two entirely different
>products.  For the most part, money spent on a Mac is money that is not
>spent on a PC, and vice versa.  The decision to buy a Mac would be
>independent of the decision to buy a PC (other than total household or
>company budgetary concerns, such as when you decide to buy a computer
>instead of a VCR because you can only afford 1 of them at the time), and
>that is very rarely the case.

While addressing the fungibility (interchangeability) of the products,
you failed to consider the fungeability of the consumers.  Your analysis
assumes that if I want a Macintosh, I'll buy a PC from Gateway if they 
don't carry Macs rather than go to some other store.

As far as the overall computer market is concerned (including retail
and mailorder), yes, your analysis is correct (this is the concept of
opportunity costs).  But it is not true for an individual retailer.
If Gateway were to sell Mac clones, there would be some shift away
from their PC market.  However, the increased total sales (especially
into a fairly uncrowded Mac clone market) would more than make up
for the difference.

-- 
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law  | Power Mac! | Net since '90 | Net.cop
kjfair@midway.uchicago.edu | CABAL(tm) Member | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
 The Constitution is more than simply the words.  It includes
 all of the legal, political, and social history of America.