[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re:Total Cost of Membership (was Ownership)
On Sun, 21 Dec 1997 06:59:59 -0500 (EST), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>MS "OS" Windoze3.x Win1895 P2000 Crapolas Lose98 turkeys
Glad to provide a smile.....
>Bottom line: Macs cost more, people stayed away in droves.
But , as I said, scale could go along way to covering this discrepancy.
>Just another observation: The rocket fuel that powered this
>industry the last 24 years has been lowering costs - what
>used to cost $300,000 and was made of transistors could
>suddenly be had for $5000 and was made of IC's. Intel et al
>have been pushing forward with more and more performance/price.
And at the same time selling the "NEED" for rockets instead of cars.
If a wordprocessor didn't need 12MB RAM and 30-50MB of HDspace
you couldn't sell the numbers of "upgrades" that are occuring. And
those who really DO need a rocket do not want to hobble their craft
by building "windows" into a cylinder trying to acheive escape velocity.
We could have all these innovations and cost reductions post truly
impressive increases in productivity if we weren't using most of the
gain in performance to overcome the increasingly bulky and unbalanced
payload of code.
>Don't underestimate the power of price tag competition in
>this land of WalMarts! Many, many domestic and foreign PC
>manufacturers were stumbling over themselves to produce a
>cheaper product and undercut the competition. All the while
>Apple choose to be the sole source of a higher price box,
>go for an upscale market, and lost. They even did that at
>a product strategy meeting - someone help up a cheap, plastic
>low quality flashlight and said "This is your typical PC",
>we're going to be better than that. They're free do that.
>And shoppers are free to take it or leave it.
Yes but much of this discussion is about NOT being free to
"leave it", ie MS preinstalls.
>The rest of your reply goes into the TOTAL cost of ownership
>issue, the agressively, competitively priced PC 'trojan horse'
>with all it's hidden support and maintenance costs, which
>Apple could capitalize on to fight back, IF they can get the
>word out on the street and convince people that the higher
>up front cost is worth it in the long run, but it's a risky
>strategy that's bucking the above mentioned trend of getting
>more bang for your buck, warts and all.
But that is just my point. You don't have to invest in MORE
hardware (higher upfront costs) if your software makes efficient use
of what you have. Half the reason the customer is disappointed with
that "competitively priced PC 'trojan horse'" is that it won't run the
software that's bundled "free" at anything faster than a walk. And the
response is always - "well you need MORE machine" when in fact
what they need is to jettison the "free" cargo.
>Returning to the cost ignorant benchmark chart: a java app
>running on system8 running on a PowerPC 604 may outperform
>a java app running on Win9X running on a pentiumII - but
>boy is it going to cost ya, dollars. If you can just work
>out the price tag issue, you gotta business deal!
Java is new, and was never meant to be a screaming enterprise
engine. If allows more folks to customize their desktops. Maybe
in time it will perform well enough to supplant some "serious C"
applications (IF the customer/user is smart enough to build only
the application features they need in Java). But its early failures
have been greatly exagerated by attempts to write Java substitutes
for bloated office suites, instead of lean and mean BUT COMPATIBLE
miniapps to do the chores that each user needs to accomplish in
If you need to model a complex protein structure and twirl it about
a variable axis for designer drug development - you don't want a
Java app. But Java is for all those folks who just want to write letters
( with a cc: to their account files), analyse simple sales figures for a
market one human can actually comprehend (the accounts they are
directly responsible for), create a report of their activities and
- in other words, to communicate, produce/sell and document their work.
>If all the hidden maintenance costs were as bad as your insults
>make it out to be, you'd think people would learn and
>make different purchasing decisions, and 'tip' the market
>to a different, more reliable standard platform,
Tell me where I'm wrong about my "insults" re: hidden costs. I'll grant that
you might just wipe the harddrive and start over (its still your time but you
don't need to purchase utilities to surgically remove all the metastatic
dlls), but having done this for a decade with OS/2, I've got the receipts
to prove the costs of fighting for an alternative to MS.
And why should you think that "people (would) learn and make different
purchasing decisions, and 'tip' the 'market' to a different, more reliable
standard platform" if nothing about their current knowledge is changed?
Based on what? If the costs remain hidden, why expect insights?
If there is no practical alternative offered (eg exclusive MS installation
contracts), if marketing the big lie is 'enforced' by criminal tactics and
attempts to rein in the criminals are met by the 'Posse Comotose' chanting
antigovernment "free market" slogans, why should the "market" (Joe user
and friends) even sense the need for a revolt? We've got executives and
home users alike make purchasing decisions based on the computer
equivalent of Calvin Klein ads (fade from black......
to a pile of charred bodies being bulldozed into a trench, when one
of them arises from the pile, assumes a haughty but depressed
stance in front of the dozer, puts both hands in the pockets of
"its"-[neutral gender emaciated adolescent] jeans and sighs deeply,
as the voice over says 'Le Comp - outsourcing for those days when
your desk cannot contain your desires - computing for those people
who see above the crowd and stand to face the blade
'......fade to black).
>IF indeed it really is and not just someone's personal prejudices that they feel
>needs to be forced upon a public unable to make rational buying decisions.
"If indeed it (a different platform) really is (more reliable)" - Now really...can you
name one other "platform" (nonMS) that has produced such a relentless torrent
of disappointments in delayed or disappeared release dates, system lockups,
file deletions, data corruption, compatibilitiy issues, "security" leaks (I hesitate
to even use the word security within this context -given the expectations of its
meaning), and viral characteristics (corrupting competitors software installs)
that windoze has unleashed on the public - all in the name of "innovation" and
Benchmarks and resource requirements are not "personal prejudices".
I don't mean to hold up my own choice of OS as the new solution to all problems.
But we are talking about a MS monopoly that explicitedly does FORCE its code
upon a public that IS UNABLE to make rational buying decisions because they
are denied the facts about what is being offered for sale and because they are
denied MANY reasonable and SUPERIOR alternatives (Macs included) by way
of criminal business practices that create unfair (and technically unfounded)
advantages for MS.
Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.
Director of Perinatal Research
Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology
University of Nebraska Medical Center
600 South 42nd Street
Omaha, NE 68198-3255