Re: Benchmarks

["Erick Andrews" <eandrews@star.net>]

  On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 16:55:06 -0500 (EST), Chuck Swiger wrote:
  
  >From: 	Beech Family[SMTP:tobeth@lava.net]
  >>A friend and benchmark maniac on our local mac user group list has sent me
  >>a good page for *real* benchmarks..
  >>
  >>http://www.MacMissionControl.com/~MMC/Whetstone/Whetstone.html
  >>
  >>In addition to providing a number of benchmark "scores" for various
  >
  >This just reinforces my previous post about how, when doing a comparison, that
  >economics completely flys out the window. It constantly amazes me, being a 12 year
  
  <snip>
  
  >And what does this have to do with antitrust and the problem of one company getting
  >royalties for a de-facto os standard (i.e., buying a pc and getting  win95 & company
  >whether you want it or not) just like buying a vcr and you get vhs.
  
  Probably not much.  Except VHS will go the way of the "little records with the big hole
  in the middle" in a few years, just as soon as the "royalties" are sorted out with 
  DVD-[add your own extension].
  
  >It seems that the implication is, again,  that a "better" product has lost market share due to some
  >illegal market manipulations and machinations. In a very real sense, when marketing
  >to the masses one does strive for the lowest common denominator, which means lower
  >quality. It should be no suprise then, that a higher quality machine like a Mac
  >(for the rest of us!) costs more, and sells to the classes. One may as well wonder
  >why a Ferrari has a smaller market share than a Geo, why it's the technically
  >superior machine! The difference is cost.
  
  <snip>
  
  Ah!  Cost is not the only issue.  Choice is up there, too.  Both better and lesser products
  are being squeezed out.  And most consumers neither buy Ferrari's nor Geo's.  
  When they are offered a better value for their purse most will choose in between.
  
  >
  >That's another self reinforcing factor in capturing a market share and keeping it: a high
  >volume of product can spread your cost and keep prices down, ensuring a large
  >market share that's difficult to break into.
  >
  >Since this started with comparing Java VM's on different platforms - it may be a neat
  >hack, but economics with prevail - is there enough economic advantage to "write
  >once, run everywhere" making software cheaper, with the added cost of slower execution, to 
  >appear as better value, or lower cost of ownership to end users and corporate purchasers
  >than a much faster, more expensive native code product?
  
  Good point, but economics are not one-dimensional.  If we can speculate just beyond the
  next curve, hardware speed (mostly) will make todays slower execution irrelevant.  
  An application has to be useful for the user.
  
  >
  >That, my friends, an informed market will decide, not what the DOJ orders MS to produce.
  >
  
  True, but not until consumers become more informed.  That's what's now beginning to happen.  
  The consumer population moves slowly, in general, with hi-tech stuff,  but when they wake 
  up to admitting that they have been "piped", or just "held back" the market will shift.
  
  >There also appears to be a clear need for a sort of "Consumer Reports" or govt run testing
  >lab so there CAN be an informed market - we're drowning in advertising disguised as
  >technical "facts", promulgated by untrustworthy media companies with suspicious motives
  >and corporate loyalties.
  >I'd as soon trust a benchmark published by "MacMissionControl" as a Mac fanatic trusts
  >my quotes from "WinNT Mag"  :))
  >
  
  Whatever form any "Consumer Reports" might take, public or private, it will have to reach
  consumers widely...and be credible...to stop this major upgrade-hostage scenario with MS.
  I would welcome that too.  I think the developing DOJ case is the tip of the iceberg.
  
  <snip>
  
  Erick