Your eMail from gopi@sloth.org on 8/5/00 2:19 AM said this:
>>
>> 2. Actually the R&D on the Newton was so high that, if they still sold the
>> unit's for the same price and quantity for the next 50 years they may have
>> broken even. It is more cost effective for them to reabsorb the technology,
>
>That investment was already gone. Having spent a lot of money on it in
>the past is not a sane arguemtn for cancelling it.
Agreed.
This in accounting terms is called a "sunk cost". Dumbing it down, when
you spend something on an investment, you don't look back at the
investment and try to justify that had already been spent. It's bad
business practice to do that.
CFO Anderson is a first class financial wizard, and if you try to argue
that Apple took into account the past money spent on R&D as a reason for
discontinuing Newton, you would be very wrong; there are very smart
people at Apple that do stupid things for the right reasons, which is a
much more reasonable argument.
-Oz
***************************************
NewtonTalk brought to you by:
EVOTE.COM -- the ESPN of politics on the Internet! All the players, all the news, and the hottest analysis and features (plus 'toons!) anywhere.... visit http://www.evote.com today!
***************************************
Need Subscribe/Unsubscribe info?
Visit the NewtonTalk section at http://www.planetnewton.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 00:00:11 CDT