🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4dj7od$f9lq@navajo.gate.net>  writes:
> Mike McCammant (mikemc@macshack.com) wrote:
> : 
> : Assuming that the poster meant $68M/Q, I wonder how many quarters it would
> : take until the stockholders jumped ship? Not many.  Then all the that  $$$
> : that is spoken of goes bye-bye. Make no bones about it, Apple is in deep
> : do-do.
> 
> Let's see... Apple lost about $70 million in a quarter in which it sold 3 
> million computers.  About $23 per computer.
> 
> So if Apple wants to get back into profitability, all they have to do is 
> raise prices by $25/computer.  If they raised prices by $100/CPU, they'd 
> lose a little bit of the bottom end, but they'd be making profits again.
> 
> The simplest strategy for Apple is to stop trying to meet Packard-Bell's 
> price point, and start competing with *real* companies.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Chad Irby           /    My greatest fear: that future generations will,
> cirby@gate.net     /      for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."

If Apple raised their price by $25  I think that the street price would go up  
by a considerably greater amount. There is a simple problem that Apple cannot  
solve. The buying public is not sensitive to some differences in quality that  
Apple thinks are important. Dropping the bottom end of their line is probably  
smart because those machines only had a chance of appealing to people who are  
looking at gross prices versus gross advertised features. When it comes to  
dealing with things that are gross the Wintel fraudsortium has it over  
everyone.