Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
Jerry Feldman wrote: | We can look at the history of the PC. | When the first desktop computers were introduced in the late '70s, few found | their way to the corporate desktop. Some software, such as VisiCalc started | | to get the feet in the door. However, in comes IBM with a piece of junk, | and instantly, just about every corporate accountant had one on their desk. | | Was IBM's marketing that good? What they did was to legitimize the PC. | Something, Apple et. al. could not do. I think the same is with enterprize I've seen the theory that there are two ways for a product to be successful: 1) high quality, 2) a large marketing budget. The important thing to realize is that there's no point to having both. If you have either, the other won't increase your sales. It will only increase your costs. This has been presented as the explanation behind the low quality of market leaders in many fields, and computers are often the very first example. Bill Gates leverages his IBM connections to get a huge ad budget for his software. Given that budget, quality software was pointless. | Your statements brings up some interesting questions. | The enterprise vendors, such as Red Hat and SuSE are not selling the bits, | they are selling the support and services. The corporate mentality is | always going to question the freebie, whether good or bad. Very true. The mantra is "You get what you pay for." This has long since been proven untrue in the computer biz, of course. In fact, you could make a fun argument that there's an inverse relationship. But business people do tend to fall for this. So they're suckers for junk that has a large price tag, such as IBM or MS products. They're not the only ones. A few years ago, I read an anecdote about a doctor who wanted to lessen his work load. He raised his prices, thinking that would scare away patients. He was flooded with new patients. He had to resort to turning away sick people, which is kinda hard for a doctor to do. But he pretty much had to, because the logical alternative wasn't economically viable. For that matter, look into the pricing of diamonds. They should be rather cheap, considering that there's a good supply of them and not all that many real uses. But the supply is also concentrated in a few physical locations. So it's possible to implement a cartel that controls the sources and sets a high price. This in turn produces an artificial demand for a status good. Some economists like to use the word "perverse" ...
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |