From: j g (atcnn2_at_yahoo.se)
Date: Sun Aug 08 2004 - 06:00:18 PDT
Let's be more philosophic.
The Holy Rules of the Market and the "financial structure" of the
corporation prefers income per share than Product innovation/quality.
The Product should be as much innovative as it is necessary, let's say
not too much innovative (like Newton). If the Product is too innovative
it will not be "accepted" by the market (they say), the corporation
will not earn money, the shareholders will not accept it. The problem
is the structure of the market and the corporation. As long as we keep
this way, we will have big(!) problem with promoting innovative
products. Instead we will see more of the old technology in a new box.
Examples: not only Mac and Newton were rejected as exclusive products,
Concorde was/is, idea of computerized home, energy saving solutions
(sun/wind etc..), electric cars, HDTV..., 3D TV...
On Aug 8, 2004, at 12:33, Alex Santos 100MB Neostrada Mail wrote:
> Obviously, the idea was ultimately rejected. Apple was earning
> startlingly high profit margins on Mac hardware at the time, and they
> didn’t want to share.
> That's it right there. Apple wanted to make a lot of profit. PCs have
> always, and still are cheaper. That kept people having to buy a PC, of
> course they wanted a mac, but couldn't afford it. Apple has been and is
> a prestigious product.
>
> My two cents
> --
> This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all
> inquiries
> Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/
> WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles:
> http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
>
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 08 2004 - 06:30:01 PDT