Re: Apple posted a $55 million Q2 profit

["Tom Zuchowski" <tzuchow@ibm.net>]

Why is it that "brand name" companies must necessarily cost more?

I don't see it that way. I can think of a half-dozen "brand name" companies
that beat IBM and Compaq prices big time, never mind Apple. And if they are
"Yugos" then I say, "Make mine Yugo!"

"Caillac vs. Yugo" is a rather extreme comparison. To make the analogy a
little differently, you can readily argue that a $50,000 Mercedes-Benz or
Beemer is worth every penny, yet most people still buy Hondas and Toyotas
in that size auto.

No, the way I see it is that Apple is still learning how to compete in a
free market. It is still fighting its 20 years of monopolistic thinking. On
top of that, it has to struggle with the costs of low volume production.

I don't agree that it was the Mac's price nor its closed architecture that
gave the market to IBM. Rather, it was Apple's insufferable arrogance
towards its dealers while IBM was bending over backwards to make dealers
happy. There was quite a persuasive article on this in Computer Shopper
some time back.

While I am not a fan of the Mac, I wish Apple well, if for no other reason
than to give Bill Gates something to shoot for in the GUI department. May
Apple forever keep moving the goalposts!!.

Greg J. Buchner <buchner@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote in article
<Pine.SGI.3.91r.980418105445.495A-100000@freenet>...
> Of course you have to compare Apple with IBM or Compaq...if you don't,
it's
> sort of like comparing a Cadillac to a Yugo.
> 
> I know lots of people who have been very happy with Apple's current
prices,
> especially considering the value you get for your money.
> 
> Apple is a brand name company--you have to compare it to other brand name
> companies or else you aren't doing a fair comparison.
> 
> Greg B.
> 
> +-------------------------------------------------+
> | buchner@freenet.msp.mn.us -or- gjb@wavetech.net |
> +-------------------------------------------------+
> 
>