Anything that does not get significant market share even if profitable
per unit, the profit is too low for the ROI.
If I have 2 products each making $100 profit and both taking R&D well
the one that sells 10,000 units and the other sells 10 million units,
it does not make sense to keep selling the one making a lesser volume,
unless some faction in the company think it will reach a tipping point
later and appeals to management to 'stay in'. Management is about ROI
and R&D is expensive so if R&D translates into high volume ROI is
high, if not ROI is low.
The other thing is the press and the public do like to mock a loser or
low seller and many companies don't like that PR stench, so lack the
fortitude to wait for it to reach a 'tipping point'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 6:19 AM, David H. Bailey <dhbailey52@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/19/2013 5:34 AM, Charles Carroll wrote:
> [snip of appropriate response to Ted]
>
>> BTW Apple has not sold anything at a loss yet.[snip]
>
> Was the Newton profitable? Why did they discontinue it if it was
> profitable?
> (and I'm asking your opinion because I know you're an astute observer,
> not because I'm trying to be argumentative.) I have always been curious
> as to why the Newton didn't continue.
>
> --
> David H. Bailey
> dhbailey@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
> http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (55) |
