[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SGI



To All,
At 01:43 AM 11/4/97 GMT, bob at bluescreen.com wrote:
>>On Nov 3, 15:38, Alan Lasky wrote:
>>> I really don't want to get into an NT vs. SGI pissing match,  because
>>> frankly, it isn't all that interesting of a discussion. However, do an
>>
>>Just as an aside, NT has a very long way to go to catch up to Unix in
>>reliability, features, philosophy, and ubiquity.
>>--Rob
>>
Without a doubt! But...

>I agree with both you and Alan that SGI makes by far the superior box, and
>that Unix is a superior OS with a much larger high-end market penetration
>than NT.
>
Completely True, But...

<snip>
>So the question is: why not?  Are the boxes too expensive? Did the
>marketing/sales department overestimate demand?  Are people defaulting on
>leases?  Is it competition from other box makers - Wintel or Sun? It may be
>any, all, or none of the above. I don't know. 
>
The answer is that you no longer need 50 overpriced Indys to feed each Onyx.
The numbers have turned against SGI, just as they did against their latest
acquisition (Cray). Oh, and BTW, Warner just flooded the market with obsolete
SGI machines at their auction last week.

>But I do know that it doesn't help SGI that NT can run SoftImage (however
>slowly), that the Ultimatte software for SGI boxes is $25,000 while the
>Adobe After Effects version (which works easily as well if not as fast) is
>$1,500, and that you don't bounce 1000 people when things are going just
>ducky.
>
Well, nothing is ducky, and McCraken deserves to be shot, but...

Unix software has always cost *way* too much because the market is too small
to achieve economies of scale. But when a rich competitor comes along
who is willing to lose money in the short term to buy the market, software
vendors are *especially* vulnerable to this attack. The smart ones (like
SoftImage) get bought, the rest go bankrupt.

>And although I, too, "like to use the machines that get me home at
>nite," the graphics and editing end of the business is rapidly being
>invaded by people who work out of their homes, don't value their time in
>the least, and are eager to pay less than half for a box that will take ten
>times as long to get anything done.  Some of the messages in the graphics
>and non-linear editing newsgroups and mailing lists make the hair on the
>back of my neck stand up...
>
If you really want your hair to get a rise, take a look at the record business.
The entire studio business was destroyed in 1982-85 when it became possible
for the average musician (usually in poverty) to own most of a recording studio.
Literally, an investment of of $10,000 sufficed to avoid 80% of the charges
associated with making a record. After 1985, record producers only needed
to pay the $200/hr rates for the last 20% of the project. Musicians stopped
writing in the studio at $150/hr and started writing at home for $0/hr., much
to the improvement of their bottom lines.

You had better hope that telecines and color correctors remain expensive!

Cheers and best wishes,
Bill Elswick
Entertainment Technology Associates, Inc.


---
thanks to South London Filter for support of the TIG in 1997
TIG subscriber count is 882 on Tue Nov  4 01:06:32 PST 1997
visit the TIG website at  http://www.alegria.com/telecinehome.html
mailinglist digest available.... unsubscribe via a message to
'telecine-request at alegria.com' with Subject: unsubscribe