Article-I.D.: PANDA.12174475176.8.MRC
Posted: Sat Jan 11 17:29:31 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jan-86 13:03:31 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 26


     There are several ways you can build and market a computer
to replace (or compete with) some other computer:
(1) build a better machine and charge more
(2) build a better machine and charge the same
(3) build a better machine and charge less
(4) build an equivalent machine and charge less
(5) build an inferior machine and charge less

     Many people are confusing Atari's actions with strategy (3).
The problem is that you fail to consider medium-to-long term
market forces.  In general, the industry has provided a 30%
price/performance increase every 2 years.  In the micro industry,
it's closer to 30% every year.  Another way of looking at it is
either an order of magnitude price decrease in 5 years, or an
order of magnitude performance increase in the same period of
time, or a combination of both.

     Atari's marketing strategy leaves them with no way to
maintain the curve they have set.  The value is almost guaranteed
to go down with little or no significant equipment enhancements.
This is fine for throwaway computers (a.k.a. toy computers), but
not for serious computers.  A software developer writing a
serious application is going to want the machine to be on the
market for some time so his software product would be saleable.
-------

Article-I.D.: yetti.303
Posted: Tue Jan 14 13:01:50 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Jan-86 16:15:08 EST
References: <12174475176.8.MRC@PANDA>
Reply-To: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Organization: York University Computer Science
Lines: 41
Summary: 

In article <12174475176.8.MRC@PANDA> MRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA (Mark Crispin) writes:
[color=blue]> [/color]
[color=blue]>      There are several ways you can build and market a computer[/color]
[color=blue]> to replace (or compete with) some other computer:[/color]
[color=blue]> (1) build a better machine and charge more[/color]
[color=blue]> (2) build a better machine and charge the same[/color]
[color=blue]> (3) build a better machine and charge less[/color]
[color=blue]> (4) build an equivalent machine and charge less[/color]
[color=blue]> (5) build an inferior machine and charge less[/color]
[color=blue]> [/color]
	So, what do you think is the classification of ST ???
	If #5, in comparison to what ??? There is something
	called price/performance ratio, and ST is well placed
	with that respect.
[color=blue]> [/color]
[color=blue]> This is fine for throwaway computers (a.k.a. toy computers), but[/color]
[color=blue]> not for serious computers.  A software developer writing a[/color]
[color=blue]> serious application is going to want the machine to be on the[/color]
[color=blue]> market for some time so his software product would be saleable.[/color]

	Are you saying that if there is 5,000,000 ST's out there,
	than a developer will ignore it simply because it somehow
	appears to be a throwaway computer because of its cost ??
	How about the market forces exerted by a product like ST ??
	Or did atari make a mistake by not pricing their hardware
	in some inflated fashion ?? And just what is a throwaway
	computer ?? C64 ?? Apple ][ ?? Perhaps our stance from
	VAXinated ivory towers does not quite mesh with what
	that 13-year-old thinks of "throwaway" computers. I have
	a feeling that how the ordinary folk think about a computer
	is much more important than how this entire net thinks about
	a computer.
Oz
	


-- 
Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz
Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti]
		In the beginning, there was Word all right, except
		it wasn't fixed number of bits.

Article-I.D.: rocheste.14625
Posted: Fri Jan 17 11:16:22 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Jan-86 04:50:03 EST
References: <12174475176.8.MRC@PANDA> <303@yetti.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 36

[color=teal]>> This is fine for throwaway computers (a.k.a. toy computers), but[/color]
[color=teal]>> not for serious computers.  A software developer writing a[/color]
[color=teal]>> serious application is going to want the machine to be on the[/color]
[color=teal]>> market for some time so his software product would be saleable.[/color]
[color=blue]>  [/color]
[color=blue]>  	Are you saying that if there is 5,000,000 ST's out there,[/color]
[color=blue]>  	than a developer will ignore it simply because it somehow[/color]
[color=blue]>  	appears to be a throwaway computer because of its cost ??[/color]
[color=blue]>  	How about the market forces exerted by a product like ST ??[/color]
[color=blue]>  	Or did atari make a mistake by not pricing their hardware[/color]
[color=blue]>  	in some inflated fashion ?? And just what is a throwaway[/color]
[color=blue]>  	computer ?? C64 ?? Apple ][ ?? Perhaps our stance from[/color]
[color=blue]>  	VAXinated ivory towers does not quite mesh with what[/color]
[color=blue]>  	that 13-year-old thinks of "throwaway" computers. I have[/color]
[color=blue]>  	a feeling that how the ordinary folk think about a computer[/color]
[color=blue]>  	is much more important than how this entire net thinks about[/color]
[color=blue]>  	a computer.[/color]
[color=blue]>  Oz[/color]
[color=blue]>  	[/color]
Here, here, right on.

I know personally a software developer who wrote an application for the
so called throw away machine; 400, 800, 800XL, etc.  He wrote Action! and
his name is Clinton Parker.  I don't know how much longer the old Atari line
is going to be around, but I can tell you first hand that good ole Clint has
done alright financially with his Action! and is continuing to do alright.
There were approximately 2,000,000 machines out there who could use Action!
If only one percent of them purchased Action!, there would be proceeds from
20,000 sales and at ten dollars commission per sale, this could be $200,000
bucks.  Of course if you were really a good programmer and came up with a    
really good application you could perhaps reach 10% or more, really big bucks.
Of course the catch here is you have to be good and write something the people
want.  No easy task, but don't blame the type of computer you are writing for 
if you don't hit it big, after all it only does what YOU tell it too. 8-)

ray

Article-I.D.: uokvax.38700007
Posted: Mon Jan 20 14:42:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 20:17:34 EST
References: <8@<12174475176>
Lines: 27
Nf-ID: #R:<12174475176:8:uokvax.UUCP:38700007:000:1193
Nf-From: uokvax.UUCP!emjej    Jan 20 13:42:00 1986


/* Written 4:29 pm Jan 11, 1986 by MRC%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA in net.micro.atari */
[color=blue]>      There are several ways you can build and market a computer[/color]
[color=blue]> to replace (or compete with) some other computer:[/color]
[color=blue]> (1) build a better machine and charge more[/color]
[color=blue]> (2) build a better machine and charge the same[/color]
[color=blue]> (3) build a better machine and charge less[/color]
[color=blue]> (4) build an equivalent machine and charge less[/color]
[color=blue]> (5) build an inferior machine and charge less[/color]

Then how did IBM manage with the PC?

[color=blue]>      Atari's marketing strategy leaves them with no way to[/color]
[color=blue]> maintain the curve they have set.  The value is almost guaranteed[/color]
[color=blue]> to go down with little or no significant equipment enhancements.[/color]
[color=blue]> This is fine for throwaway computers (a.k.a. toy computers), but[/color]
[color=blue]> not for serious computers.  A software developer writing a[/color]
[color=blue]> serious application is going to want the machine to be on the[/color]
[color=blue]> market for some time so his software product would be saleable.[/color]

So what should they have done?  Intentionally charged too much for it
so they could appear to give us a good deal later on?  (Sounds like
the Amiga--it may be better, but is it $1K worth of better?  I don't
think so.) 

					James Jones
/* End of text from net.micro.atari */