Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #453999 > unrolled thread

pricing

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  pricing John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-28 08:59 -0700
    Re: pricing Taxed and Spent <nospamplease@nonospam.com> - 2017-03-28 09:11 -0700
    Re: pricing Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-28 09:34 -0700
    Re: pricing Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-28 12:05 -0500
      Re: pricing Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-28 14:52 -0400
      Re: pricing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-29 10:54 +0200
    Re: pricing Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-28 12:14 -0500
      Re: pricing bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-28 16:01 -0400
    Re: pricing Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-28 18:19 +0100
    Re: pricing tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 11:58 -0700
    pricing klaus.kragelund@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 12:02 -0700
      Re: pricing John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-03-28 12:24 -0700
      Re: pricing John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-28 13:06 -0700
        Re: pricing Klaus Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-28 14:15 -0700
          Re: pricing Klaus Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-28 14:18 -0700
          Re: pricing John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-28 15:44 -0700
            Re: pricing krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-28 22:39 -0400
              Re: pricing Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2017-03-30 17:53 +0200
                Re: pricing Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-30 09:12 -0700
                  Re: pricing krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-30 20:29 -0400
                    Re: pricing Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-30 17:57 -0700
                      Re: pricing krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-30 21:11 -0400
                        Re: pricing bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-30 19:36 -0700
                  Re: pricing Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2017-03-31 08:32 +0200
                    Re: pricing John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-03-31 08:36 +0100
                      Re: pricing Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2017-03-31 09:57 +0200
                        Re: pricing John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-03-31 09:42 +0100
                      Re: pricing rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 05:30 -0400
                        Re: pricing John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-03-31 12:04 +0100
                        Re: pricing Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-31 10:36 -0700
                Re: pricing krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-30 20:28 -0400
                  Re: pricing Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2017-03-31 08:41 +0200
                    Re: pricing krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-31 20:20 -0400
      Re: pricing Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 21:21 -0500
    Re: pricing Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-28 12:39 -0700
    Re: pricing doh@yipee.com - 2017-03-29 12:31 -0700
    Re: pricing Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2017-03-30 17:47 +0200
      Re: pricing Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-03-30 17:03 +0100
        Re: pricing krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-30 20:34 -0400
          Re: pricing Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-03-31 09:20 +0100
            Re: pricing krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-31 20:25 -0400
        Re: pricing bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-30 19:47 -0700
          Re: pricing rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 23:45 -0400
            Re: pricing bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-30 21:45 -0700
              Re: pricing Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-31 15:55 +1100
              Re: pricing rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 01:30 -0400
                Re: pricing krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-31 22:30 -0400
            Re: pricing Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-30 16:07 +1100
              Re: pricing Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2017-03-31 10:11 +0200
              Re: pricing Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-31 10:20 +0100
                Re: pricing Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-31 20:41 +0000
              Re: pricing krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-31 22:27 -0400
                Re: pricing Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-04-01 14:30 +1100
                  Re: pricing krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-31 23:43 -0400
                    Re: pricing Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-04-01 18:15 +1100
                      Re: pricing krw@notreal.com - 2017-04-01 09:46 -0400
            Re: pricing "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-04-03 01:32 -0400
              Re: pricing krw@notreal.com - 2017-04-03 12:55 -0400
          Re: pricing Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2017-03-31 10:05 +0200
            Re: pricing Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-31 10:21 +0100
              Re: pricing krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-31 22:31 -0400
            Re: pricing Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-04-01 09:10 +0100
    Re: pricing Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> - 2017-03-31 00:21 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#454524

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:20:03 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 31/03/2017 01:34, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:03:15 +0100, Martin Brown
>> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/03/2017 16:47, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I give up. If they don't want to sell stuff, that's OK with me.
>>>>
>>>> If somebody is shy about their prices, there usually is a good reason
>>>> for that.
>>>
>>> It is a common misconception that everything is based on materials cost
>>> plus pricing, but things are often priced on what the market will stand
>>> and how few alternatives are available. De facto not quite monopolies.
>>
>> Absolutely.  I have FAEs fighting this battle with their marketing
>> people all the time - "At $x we can sell zero volume but at $x/n we
>> can sell millions - can we sell the part for $x/n and still make
>> money?"
>
>FAE's ?

Sure.  Good ones know their customer and will fight for the business.
They know we have alternatives.
>
>The scientific instrument company I worked for would not put anything 
>into production unless the raw BOM cost was under 25% of selling price. 
>This led to insane late stage cost cutting to shave off pennies to hit 
>the rigid budget target (like switch stainless nuts and bolts for mild 
>steel which quickly rusts and using a lower grade powder coat finish). 
>It is actually a damn good heuristic for relatively low volume high end 
>kit in a fast moving market but they applied it far too rigidly.

Very different businesses.

>There was a story I was taught about this pricing distinction. Two or 
>three major players shared all major contracts to supply cleaning 
>products. A new start-up came in that hadn't done their market research 
>properly and bid at materials plus 30% profit margin costing - 
>undercutting all the existing players by about a factor of three. The 
>won almost all of the contracts but didn't survive for very long.

Like the dog that caught the car...  "What now?"
>
>The market encumbents took it in turns to corner the market in the key 
>ingredients so that the newcomer could not make enough finished product 
>to fulfil the contracts they had won. They quickly went bust.
>
>A variant of this trick is how Pilkington/Chance wiped out all other 
>competition in the UK window glass market during the Victorian era.
>(you only have to corner the market in one key ingredient)

The Hunt brothers tried that a couple of decades ago and found out
that the game is rigged.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454327

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 3:03:19 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 30/03/2017 16:47, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
> > John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >> I give up. If they don't want to sell stuff, that's OK with me.
> >
> > If somebody is shy about their prices, there usually is a good reason
> > for that.
> 
> It is a common misconception that everything is based on materials cost 
> plus pricing, but things are often priced on what the market will stand 
> and how few alternatives are available. De facto not quite monopolies.
> 
> Good quality window glass in the past is a classic example. Or for some 
> more modern examples the Apple iP*d, Levi Jeans or Nike trainers.
> 
> You are paying a lot extra for having the right badge on it...
> (beyond what the engineering cost of manufacture entails)
> 
> Unusual components with a long lead time a bespoke maker wants to know 
> if you will buy enough of them to be worth the effort of dealing with.

http://www.businessballs.com/tompetersinsearchofexcellence.htm

is a 1982 book by Tom Peters. He talks about "excellent" companies - Hewlett Packard, and IBM at that time - who could charge half-as-much-again more than the competition for essentially the same product because they had built up a reputation for quality and reliability. 

"Nobody got fired for buying IBM" though by the 1980's they should have been.

Apple is the current example.

That's what prestige is worth.

"Origin

Mid 17th century (in the sense ‘illusion, conjuring trick’): from French, literally ‘illusion, glamour’, from late Latin praestigium ‘illusion’, from Latin praestigiae (plural) ‘conjuring tricks’. The transference of meaning occurred by way of the sense ‘dazzling influence, glamour’, at first depreciatory."

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454329

On 3/30/2017 10:47 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 3:03:19 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 30/03/2017 16:47, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> I give up. If they don't want to sell stuff, that's OK with me.
>>>
>>> If somebody is shy about their prices, there usually is a good reason
>>> for that.
>>
>> It is a common misconception that everything is based on materials cost
>> plus pricing, but things are often priced on what the market will stand
>> and how few alternatives are available. De facto not quite monopolies.
>>
>> Good quality window glass in the past is a classic example. Or for some
>> more modern examples the Apple iP*d, Levi Jeans or Nike trainers.
>>
>> You are paying a lot extra for having the right badge on it...
>> (beyond what the engineering cost of manufacture entails)
>>
>> Unusual components with a long lead time a bespoke maker wants to know
>> if you will buy enough of them to be worth the effort of dealing with.
>
> http://www.businessballs.com/tompetersinsearchofexcellence.htm
>
> is a 1982 book by Tom Peters. He talks about "excellent" companies - Hewlett Packard, and IBM at that time - who could charge half-as-much-again more than the competition for essentially the same product because they had built up a reputation for quality and reliability.
>
> "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" though by the 1980's they should have been.
>
> Apple is the current example.
>
> That's what prestige is worth.

If you think Apple charges more and delivers nothing but prestige, you 
haven't used an Apple product.  HP made equipment with high quality that 
was worth the price.  It performed then and continues to perform.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454338

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 2:46:00 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote:
> On 3/30/2017 10:47 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 3:03:19 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
> >> On 30/03/2017 16:47, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
> >>> John Larkin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I give up. If they don't want to sell stuff, that's OK with me.
> >>>
> >>> If somebody is shy about their prices, there usually is a good reason
> >>> for that.
> >>
> >> It is a common misconception that everything is based on materials cost
> >> plus pricing, but things are often priced on what the market will stand
> >> and how few alternatives are available. De facto not quite monopolies.
> >>
> >> Good quality window glass in the past is a classic example. Or for some
> >> more modern examples the Apple iP*d, Levi Jeans or Nike trainers.
> >>
> >> You are paying a lot extra for having the right badge on it...
> >> (beyond what the engineering cost of manufacture entails)
> >>
> >> Unusual components with a long lead time a bespoke maker wants to know
> >> if you will buy enough of them to be worth the effort of dealing with.
> >
> > http://www.businessballs.com/tompetersinsearchofexcellence.htm
> >
> > is a 1982 book by Tom Peters. He talks about "excellent" companies - Hewlett Packard, and IBM at that time - who could charge half-as-much-again more than the competition for essentially the same product because they had built up a reputation for quality and reliability.
> >
> > "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" though by the 1980's they should have been.
> >
> > Apple is the current example.
> >
> > That's what prestige is worth.
> 
> If you think Apple charges more and delivers nothing but prestige, you 
> haven't used an Apple product.  HP made equipment with high quality that 
> was worth the price.  It performed then and continues to perform.

I certainly wasn't arguing that Apple doesn't produce good products that do what they claim. What I was saying was the you can get the same sort of performance for about two thirds of the price from less prestigious manufacturers.

It a lot to pay to save doing a bit of research on what you might buy before you buy it.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454340

On 31/03/17 15:45, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 2:46:00 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote:
>> On 3/30/2017 10:47 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 3:03:19 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> On 30/03/2017 16:47, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I give up. If they don't want to sell stuff, that's OK with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> If somebody is shy about their prices, there usually is a good reason
>>>>> for that.
>>>>
>>>> It is a common misconception that everything is based on materials cost
>>>> plus pricing, but things are often priced on what the market will stand
>>>> and how few alternatives are available. De facto not quite monopolies.
>>>>
>>>> Good quality window glass in the past is a classic example. Or for some
>>>> more modern examples the Apple iP*d, Levi Jeans or Nike trainers.
>>>>
>>>> You are paying a lot extra for having the right badge on it...
>>>> (beyond what the engineering cost of manufacture entails)
>>>>
>>>> Unusual components with a long lead time a bespoke maker wants to know
>>>> if you will buy enough of them to be worth the effort of dealing with.
>>>
>>> http://www.businessballs.com/tompetersinsearchofexcellence.htm
>>>
>>> is a 1982 book by Tom Peters. He talks about "excellent" companies - Hewlett Packard, and IBM at that time - who could charge half-as-much-again more than the competition for essentially the same product because they had built up a reputation for quality and reliability.
>>>
>>> "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" though by the 1980's they should have been.
>>>
>>> Apple is the current example.
>>>
>>> That's what prestige is worth.
>>
>> If you think Apple charges more and delivers nothing but prestige, you
>> haven't used an Apple product.  HP made equipment with high quality that
>> was worth the price.  It performed then and continues to perform.
>
> I certainly wasn't arguing that Apple doesn't produce good products that do what they claim. What I was saying was the you can get the same sort of performance for about two thirds of the price from less prestigious manufacturers.
>
> It a lot to pay to save doing a bit of research on what you might buy before you buy it.

Almost any modern laptop would deliver performance that's adequate
for me. That simply isn't the dimension of quality I care about.

I care about *never* being impeded from getting my work done, and
Apple delivers that. Never again will I spend an hour searching
for an updated device driver so I can simply log in to my machine
and start work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454343

On 3/31/2017 12:45 AM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 2:46:00 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote:
>> On 3/30/2017 10:47 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 3:03:19 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> On 30/03/2017 16:47, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I give up. If they don't want to sell stuff, that's OK with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> If somebody is shy about their prices, there usually is a good reason
>>>>> for that.
>>>>
>>>> It is a common misconception that everything is based on materials cost
>>>> plus pricing, but things are often priced on what the market will stand
>>>> and how few alternatives are available. De facto not quite monopolies.
>>>>
>>>> Good quality window glass in the past is a classic example. Or for some
>>>> more modern examples the Apple iP*d, Levi Jeans or Nike trainers.
>>>>
>>>> You are paying a lot extra for having the right badge on it...
>>>> (beyond what the engineering cost of manufacture entails)
>>>>
>>>> Unusual components with a long lead time a bespoke maker wants to know
>>>> if you will buy enough of them to be worth the effort of dealing with.
>>>
>>> http://www.businessballs.com/tompetersinsearchofexcellence.htm
>>>
>>> is a 1982 book by Tom Peters. He talks about "excellent" companies - Hewlett Packard, and IBM at that time - who could charge half-as-much-again more than the competition for essentially the same product because they had built up a reputation for quality and reliability.
>>>
>>> "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" though by the 1980's they should have been.
>>>
>>> Apple is the current example.
>>>
>>> That's what prestige is worth.
>>
>> If you think Apple charges more and delivers nothing but prestige, you
>> haven't used an Apple product.  HP made equipment with high quality that
>> was worth the price.  It performed then and continues to perform.
>
> I certainly wasn't arguing that Apple doesn't produce good products that do what they claim. What I was saying was the you can get the same sort of performance for about two thirds of the price from less prestigious manufacturers.
>
> It a lot to pay to save doing a bit of research on what you might buy before you buy it.

That's the point I disagree on, that Android phones provide the same 
"sort of performance".  A friend bought an Android phone and has had 
nothing but trouble with it, not because it is a poorly made phone (not 
necessarily anyway) but because there is *much* less quality in the 
software in many respects.  I still use a dumb phone, but I go online to 
research how to make her phone do what phones are supposed to do and it 
is a HUGE PITA.  I tried to get her phone to use different ring tones 
for different callers.  I could not find info that matched her phone. 
Something happened that made her phone start notifying her of every 
little thing that happened.  I had to go online and dig into the how to 
manage notifications.  You would think that is something that would be 
handled in one location (like a regular phone) but no, there are many, 
many places in the software you have to find and set.

If she had an iPhone, much, if not all of this would have been setup 
before she left the store.  *That* is the difference in quality with 
Apple phones.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454539

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:30:21 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/31/2017 12:45 AM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 2:46:00 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote:
>>> On 3/30/2017 10:47 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 3:03:19 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 30/03/2017 16:47, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I give up. If they don't want to sell stuff, that's OK with me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If somebody is shy about their prices, there usually is a good reason
>>>>>> for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a common misconception that everything is based on materials cost
>>>>> plus pricing, but things are often priced on what the market will stand
>>>>> and how few alternatives are available. De facto not quite monopolies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good quality window glass in the past is a classic example. Or for some
>>>>> more modern examples the Apple iP*d, Levi Jeans or Nike trainers.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are paying a lot extra for having the right badge on it...
>>>>> (beyond what the engineering cost of manufacture entails)
>>>>>
>>>>> Unusual components with a long lead time a bespoke maker wants to know
>>>>> if you will buy enough of them to be worth the effort of dealing with.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.businessballs.com/tompetersinsearchofexcellence.htm
>>>>
>>>> is a 1982 book by Tom Peters. He talks about "excellent" companies - Hewlett Packard, and IBM at that time - who could charge half-as-much-again more than the competition for essentially the same product because they had built up a reputation for quality and reliability.
>>>>
>>>> "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" though by the 1980's they should have been.
>>>>
>>>> Apple is the current example.
>>>>
>>>> That's what prestige is worth.
>>>
>>> If you think Apple charges more and delivers nothing but prestige, you
>>> haven't used an Apple product.  HP made equipment with high quality that
>>> was worth the price.  It performed then and continues to perform.
>>
>> I certainly wasn't arguing that Apple doesn't produce good products that do what they claim. What I was saying was the you can get the same sort of performance for about two thirds of the price from less prestigious manufacturers.
>>
>> It a lot to pay to save doing a bit of research on what you might buy before you buy it.
>
>That's the point I disagree on, that Android phones provide the same 
>"sort of performance".  A friend bought an Android phone and has had 
>nothing but trouble with it, not because it is a poorly made phone (not 
>necessarily anyway) but because there is *much* less quality in the 
>software in many respects.  I still use a dumb phone, but I go online to 
>research how to make her phone do what phones are supposed to do and it 
>is a HUGE PITA.  I tried to get her phone to use different ring tones 
>for different callers.  I could not find info that matched her phone. 

Oh, good grief.  Just install Zedge and be done with it.

>Something happened that made her phone start notifying her of every 
>little thing that happened.  I had to go online and dig into the how to 
>manage notifications.  You would think that is something that would be 
>handled in one location (like a regular phone) but no, there are many, 
>many places in the software you have to find and set.

Because you don't know how the OS works doesn't mean it's broken.
>
>If she had an iPhone, much, if not all of this would have been setup 
>before she left the store.  *That* is the difference in quality with 
>Apple phones.

Set up the way some pimply geek wants it set up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454339

On 31/03/17 14:45, rickman wrote:
> On 3/30/2017 10:47 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 3:03:19 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 30/03/2017 16:47, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I give up. If they don't want to sell stuff, that's OK with me.
>>>>
>>>> If somebody is shy about their prices, there usually is a good reason
>>>> for that.
>>>
>>> It is a common misconception that everything is based on materials cost
>>> plus pricing, but things are often priced on what the market will stand
>>> and how few alternatives are available. De facto not quite monopolies.
>>>
>>> Good quality window glass in the past is a classic example. Or for some
>>> more modern examples the Apple iP*d, Levi Jeans or Nike trainers.
>>>
>>> You are paying a lot extra for having the right badge on it...
>>> (beyond what the engineering cost of manufacture entails)
>>>
>>> Unusual components with a long lead time a bespoke maker wants to know
>>> if you will buy enough of them to be worth the effort of dealing with.
>>
>> http://www.businessballs.com/tompetersinsearchofexcellence.htm
>>
>> is a 1982 book by Tom Peters. He talks about "excellent" companies -
>> Hewlett Packard, and IBM at that time - who could charge
>> half-as-much-again more than the competition for essentially the same
>> product because they had built up a reputation for quality and
>> reliability.
>>
>> "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" though by the 1980's they should
>> have been.
>>
>> Apple is the current example.
>>
>> That's what prestige is worth.
>
> If you think Apple charges more and delivers nothing but prestige, you
> haven't used an Apple product.  HP made equipment with high quality that
> was worth the price.  It performed then and continues to perform.

Yes. This.

I now buy Apple because I got tired of fixing things (mostly software)
that should not have been broken in the first place (Linux) or in
working around poor design, defects and limitations in software that
should never have been shipped (Windows).

With the Mac, I just get my work done, I *never* have to think about
the machine.

That said, I've never come really close to buying an iPhone, and only
ever had a low-end iPod. Nice products, but not enough value to me to
offset the higher cost.

Clifford Heath.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454366

Clifford Heath wrote:

> I now buy Apple because I got tired of fixing things (mostly software)
> that should not have been broken in the first place (Linux) or in
> working around poor design, defects and limitations in software that
> should never have been shipped (Windows).

I'm considering buying an iPhone after half a year of using Samsung J6.
The software is completely useless and destroys my mood every time I 
need to make a call or send a text message. Another option is returning
to my Nokia 3510, great device WITH BUTTONS, but died after a decade or so.

	Best regards, Piotr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454379

On 30/03/17 06:07, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 31/03/17 14:45, rickman wrote:
>> On 3/30/2017 10:47 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 3:03:19 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> On 30/03/2017 16:47, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I give up. If they don't want to sell stuff, that's OK with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> If somebody is shy about their prices, there usually is a good reason
>>>>> for that.
>>>>
>>>> It is a common misconception that everything is based on materials cost
>>>> plus pricing, but things are often priced on what the market will stand
>>>> and how few alternatives are available. De facto not quite monopolies.
>>>>
>>>> Good quality window glass in the past is a classic example. Or for some
>>>> more modern examples the Apple iP*d, Levi Jeans or Nike trainers.
>>>>
>>>> You are paying a lot extra for having the right badge on it...
>>>> (beyond what the engineering cost of manufacture entails)
>>>>
>>>> Unusual components with a long lead time a bespoke maker wants to know
>>>> if you will buy enough of them to be worth the effort of dealing with.
>>>
>>> http://www.businessballs.com/tompetersinsearchofexcellence.htm
>>>
>>> is a 1982 book by Tom Peters. He talks about "excellent" companies -
>>> Hewlett Packard, and IBM at that time - who could charge
>>> half-as-much-again more than the competition for essentially the same
>>> product because they had built up a reputation for quality and
>>> reliability.
>>>
>>> "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" though by the 1980's they should
>>> have been.
>>>
>>> Apple is the current example.
>>>
>>> That's what prestige is worth.
>>
>> If you think Apple charges more and delivers nothing but prestige, you
>> haven't used an Apple product.  HP made equipment with high quality that
>> was worth the price.  It performed then and continues to perform.
>
> Yes. This.
>
> I now buy Apple because I got tired of fixing things (mostly software)
> that should not have been broken in the first place (Linux) or in
> working around poor design, defects and limitations in software that
> should never have been shipped (Windows).

My one recent experience with Apple products was iTunes.
It was the most counterintuitive /thing/ I've used recently.

When trying to move music files onto my daughter's iPhone, it
silently deleted my music collection because I hadn't
bought it through the apple store (I had backups, of course).
"Sync" should have been called "sink"

OTOH, I do have a Mac M0001AP with Apple's Smalltalk
implementation. Glacial doesn't begin to describe it :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454475

On 2017-03-31, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> My one recent experience with Apple products was iTunes.
> It was the most counterintuitive /thing/ I've used recently.
>
> When trying to move music files onto my daughter's iPhone, it
> silently deleted my music collection because I hadn't
> bought it through the apple store (I had backups, of course).
> "Sync" should have been called "sink"

The only apple software I use is CUPS which seems to work pretty well,
except the open-source CITIZEN thermal P.O.S. printer driver doesn't
run right on Macs.  it runs fine on raspbery-pi though.

-- 
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454538

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:07:25 +1100, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:

>On 31/03/17 14:45, rickman wrote:
>> On 3/30/2017 10:47 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 3:03:19 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> On 30/03/2017 16:47, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I give up. If they don't want to sell stuff, that's OK with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> If somebody is shy about their prices, there usually is a good reason
>>>>> for that.
>>>>
>>>> It is a common misconception that everything is based on materials cost
>>>> plus pricing, but things are often priced on what the market will stand
>>>> and how few alternatives are available. De facto not quite monopolies.
>>>>
>>>> Good quality window glass in the past is a classic example. Or for some
>>>> more modern examples the Apple iP*d, Levi Jeans or Nike trainers.
>>>>
>>>> You are paying a lot extra for having the right badge on it...
>>>> (beyond what the engineering cost of manufacture entails)
>>>>
>>>> Unusual components with a long lead time a bespoke maker wants to know
>>>> if you will buy enough of them to be worth the effort of dealing with.
>>>
>>> http://www.businessballs.com/tompetersinsearchofexcellence.htm
>>>
>>> is a 1982 book by Tom Peters. He talks about "excellent" companies -
>>> Hewlett Packard, and IBM at that time - who could charge
>>> half-as-much-again more than the competition for essentially the same
>>> product because they had built up a reputation for quality and
>>> reliability.
>>>
>>> "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" though by the 1980's they should
>>> have been.
>>>
>>> Apple is the current example.
>>>
>>> That's what prestige is worth.
>>
>> If you think Apple charges more and delivers nothing but prestige, you
>> haven't used an Apple product.  HP made equipment with high quality that
>> was worth the price.  It performed then and continues to perform.
>
>Yes. This.
>
>I now buy Apple because I got tired of fixing things (mostly software)
>that should not have been broken in the first place (Linux) or in
>working around poor design, defects and limitations in software that
>should never have been shipped (Windows).
>
>With the Mac, I just get my work done, I *never* have to think about
>the machine.
>
>That said, I've never come really close to buying an iPhone, and only
>ever had a low-end iPod. Nice products, but not enough value to me to
>offset the higher cost.

I just about bought iPhones the last time around.  In the end, the
decision was tipped to Samsung because of Xi.  There wasn't a
significant cost difference.  We also have iPod Touches, mainly
because there isn't anything else in that market anymore.  But if you
think Microsoft software sucks, take a gander at itunes!  What a mess!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454557

On 01/04/17 13:27, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> But if you
> think Microsoft software sucks, take a gander at itunes!

I try not to look at iTunes. Sometimes I might use it to play
my music, but never to "organize" it.

I considered an iPhone just recently because the SE is the right
form factor, but ended up with a Samsung J7 for half the price.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454558

On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 14:30:59 +1100, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net>
wrote:

>On 01/04/17 13:27, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> But if you
>> think Microsoft software sucks, take a gander at itunes!
>
>I try not to look at iTunes. Sometimes I might use it to play
>my music, but never to "organize" it.

It doesn't let you organize it outside of iTunes.  It decides what to
do with it.
>
>I considered an iPhone just recently because the SE is the right
>form factor, but ended up with a Samsung J7 for half the price.

We bought Note-5s in early '16.  The price difference between an i6+
and a Note-5 wasn't all that significant.  We really like the Note-5s
(my son wasn't all that pleased with his Note-7s ;-).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454570

On 01/04/17 14:43, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 14:30:59 +1100, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 01/04/17 13:27, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> But if you
>>> think Microsoft software sucks, take a gander at itunes!
>>
>> I try not to look at iTunes. Sometimes I might use it to play
>> my music, but never to "organize" it.
>
> It doesn't let you organize it outside of iTunes.  It decides what to
> do with it.

No, you can tell it to leave the files where they are when you add a 
library. It works just fine, otherwise I would simply have deleted it.

>> I considered an iPhone just recently because the SE is the right
>> form factor, but ended up with a Samsung J7 for half the price.
>
> We bought Note-5s in early '16.  The price difference between an i6+
> and a Note-5 wasn't all that significant.  We really like the Note-5s
> (my son wasn't all that pleased with his Note-7s ;-).

I haven't found a case and screen protector for the J7 yet - different
shape from the S7.

Clifford Heath.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454589

On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 18:15:03 +1100, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net>
wrote:

>On 01/04/17 14:43, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 14:30:59 +1100, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/04/17 13:27, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>> But if you
>>>> think Microsoft software sucks, take a gander at itunes!
>>>
>>> I try not to look at iTunes. Sometimes I might use it to play
>>> my music, but never to "organize" it.
>>
>> It doesn't let you organize it outside of iTunes.  It decides what to
>> do with it.
>
>No, you can tell it to leave the files where they are when you add a 
>library. It works just fine, otherwise I would simply have deleted it.

Yes, the files can be left where they are but it decides how the
library looks to iTunes and the iDevice.  To be fair, its organization
is light years ahead of anything I've found for Android but it still
doesn't let me organize things the way I want them.

>>> I considered an iPhone just recently because the SE is the right
>>> form factor, but ended up with a Samsung J7 for half the price.
>>
>> We bought Note-5s in early '16.  The price difference between an i6+
>> and a Note-5 wasn't all that significant.  We really like the Note-5s
>> (my son wasn't all that pleased with his Note-7s ;-).
>
>I haven't found a case and screen protector for the J7 yet - different
>shape from the S7.

That's another reason I wanted to stick with a common device.  I've
been in your position before, which is why the decision was between
the Note-5 and S6+.  Both had an extensive ecosystem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454870

rickman wrote:
>
> If you think Apple charges more and delivers nothing but prestige, you
> haven't used an Apple product.  HP made equipment with high quality that
> was worth the price.  It performed then and continues to perform.



    HP sold computers with the exact same components as similar 
E-machines for twice the price. The only difference was the ugly HP 
sheet metal, and the Bios flash screen at bootup. They used the same 
motherboards, RAM, drives and power supplies.


-- 
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454912

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 01:32:42 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>rickman wrote:
>>
>> If you think Apple charges more and delivers nothing but prestige, you
>> haven't used an Apple product.  HP made equipment with high quality that
>> was worth the price.  It performed then and continues to perform.
>
>
>
>    HP sold computers with the exact same components as similar 
>E-machines for twice the price. The only difference was the ugly HP 
>sheet metal, and the Bios flash screen at bootup. They used the same 
>motherboards, RAM, drives and power supplies.

To be fair, at the bottom-end consumer level, all computer companies
did the same thing.  It really shouldn't be surprising.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454365

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

> He talks about "excellent" companies - Hewlett Packard,
 > and IBM at that time - who could charge half-as-much-again
 > more than the competition for essentially the same product
 > because they had built up a reputation for quality and reliability.

I have recently thrown away an HP notebook (Pavilion x2, if
that matters), exactly because of its "quality" and "reliability".
I hated it so much that I was actually happy when it developed
a failure. It was still protected by the warranty, but the worst
thing they could do for me was to fix it.

I'll never, ever, buy anything from HP.

	Best regards, Piotr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454380

On 31/03/17 09:05, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>
>> He talks about "excellent" companies - Hewlett Packard,
>> and IBM at that time - who could charge half-as-much-again
>> more than the competition for essentially the same product
>> because they had built up a reputation for quality and reliability.
>
> I have recently thrown away an HP notebook (Pavilion x2, if
> that matters), exactly because of its "quality" and "reliability".
> I hated it so much that I was actually happy when it developed
> a failure. It was still protected by the warranty, but the worst
> thing they could do for me was to fix it.
>
> I'll never, ever, buy anything from HP.

As people on this group are aware, the "real HP"
is now called Keysight.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web