LISTSERV - HP3000-L Archives

HP3000-L Archives

September 2002, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

	LISTSERV Archives
	HP3000-L Home
	HP3000-L September 2002, Week 1

	Log In
	Register

	Subscribe or Unsubscribe

	Search Archives

Options:	Use Monospaced Font Show Text Part by Default Show All Mail Headers
Message:	[<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic:	[<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author:	[<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Subject:	Re: HP Press Release about hp3000
From:	Dave Darnell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:	[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]
Date:	Fri, 6 Sep 2002 01:28:34 -0400
Content-Type:	text/plain
Parts/Attachments:	text/plain (10 lines)

 Let's not forget crippled Intel CPUs, starting with &lt;?&gt; 386/SX&lt;?/&gt; A relatively simple matter to block some functionality on an otherwise full-featured chip intended for higher-end users. Crippled chips sold for less, but non-handicapped chips for more, than if all chips sold were full-featured. Intel new the high-end users would pay slightly more for the "good" chips. demand/price curve was relatively flat for premium and commercial customers around the price of the full-featured chips. However, the demand/price curve was steeper for low-end "home" users. By differentiating the product, they could retain sales volume of the high-end chip while getting a higher margin, but sell a lot more low-end chips with a lower per-unit margin. Net result is more sales, more profit, and better return on fixed and sunk costs, plus, more poor folks would buy computers..Further on, due to much higher production volume, Intel could have (don't know if they did) sell all chips at a lower price than without differentiation.Dave [log in to unmask]
I do not receive email at this address.Please remove the string ".removethispart" from the below address to email me:[log in to unmask] On Fri 09/06, Jeff Kell &lt; [log in to unmask] &gt; wrote:
From: Jeff Kell [mailto: [log in to unmask]]To: [log in to unmask]: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 00:34:58 -0400Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] HP Press Release about hp3000Stan Sieler wrote:&gt;&gt; Re:&gt; John Clogg writes:&gt; &gt; While the software-induced degradation of the A400 is annoying, keep in mind&gt; &gt; that it was done in order to provide a lower-priced entry point for smaller&gt; &gt; customers. With the elimination of limited user licensing, the only way for&gt;&gt; Keep in mind, too, that HP didn't feel a similar crippling was&gt; necessary in the HP-UX world, where the same hardware was being sold :)Well, they bought Apollo, and had an initial history with the Motorolaplatform. They *HAD* to compete with this low-end newcomer with theirown hardware, and that established the price point for an HPUX server.The 3000 was never cheap, never intended to be (until later), and theprice point was similarly set for a 3000 server.Now that we have both on the same hardware platform, they have yet toreconcile their "legacy" marketing strategy/price/performance pointsbetween the two.Jeff

------------------------------------------------
Changed your e-mail?  Keep your contacts!  Use this free e-mail change of address service from Return Path.  Register now!

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

RAVEN.UTC.EDU