On Sep 6, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk <[email protected]>
wrote:
> It shows what the machine could have been, if TI hadn't crippled it
> for fear of competing with its higher-end models.
I have heard similar arguments repeatedly, in reference to systems from
multiple different companies (DEC in particular, but also IBM, TI as above,
etc.).
It seems so short-sighted as to be almost improbable to me. Of *course*
if a company can offer similar performance in a cheaper model, they should do
that. The high-end customers will still pay premium for the slight extra
performance, but the lower-end model will enable a whole cadre of users and
developers which would otherwise have been priced away to the competition.
Is this just 20/20 hindsight on my part, or are there factors I don’t
understand in this decision? If it’s just internal company politics - high-end
system group doesn’t want to get squeezed from below - the CEO’s job is to put
a stop to that, I would think.
- Mark
