cosmodan, are you asking about these types of typical business scenarios?:
The competitor is better at marketing and sales and therefore an inferior product wins in the marketplace (seems to happen almost 98% of the time in software)
A company with multiple product lines artificially restricts one to avoid eating into their cash cow (perfect example, IBM’s as400 was stopped at the low end of the mainframe arena to avoid eating into mainframe sales)
Lack of competition slows down the rate of advancement or timing of release of new products (multiple intel examples over the years)
Or you are you asking about something further beyond the above listed day to day type of activities?
[QUOTE=protruding cobblestone]
Having a competitive market does not automatically mean that a manufacturer with deliberately unsophisticated products gets outcompeted by those with more advanced products. Competition can also mean that you can be the most successful when your product simply doesn’t suck more than the junk that your competitors sell, as long as you can make more money from it than they can.
The Phoebus cartel had a pretty tight grip on the lightbulb industry. Formed not in spite of a competitive market but because of a too competitive market.
“The cartel served as a convenient way to lower costs and decrease the life expectancy of light bulbs, while at the same time hiking prices, without fear of competition.”
The industry realized that if you made longer-lasting bulbs, everybody makes less money. So, to protect what’s left of their own business, everybody agreed to make the same short-lived bulbs. The technology was there to produce long-lived bulbs, for essentially the same cost. But nobody wanted to sell them and be the first to ruin their profits in the long run.
[/QUOTE]
Back in the 1980’s you could buy littl “button” rectfiers; these went into a bulb socket, and chopped oof half og the AC cycle. So your 60 watt bulb was now 30 watts-and the bulb would last forever. Only problem: you got less than 50% of the light, and those rectifiers generated TONs of RF noise! Closeby AM radios were impossible to listen to!
[QUOTE=TokyoPlayer]
Clever not including your whole quote.
Please refer to the immediately proceeding sentence.That, however is a declaration, and not based on any evidence presented here.
[/QUOTE]
Aha!! and very clever of you to leave out the sentence that preceded the sentence that preceded the sentence you quoted, which preceded the sentence I cleverly quoted as a part of my quote.
Look, I’m not in GQ that often so maybe I don’t quite understand the rules but the guidelines say a **factual **answer and that’s what I was looking for. I have no conspiracy theory to defend. If someone has specific facts to share {such as the link about the cartel,} that’s helpful. People have offered their opinion based on their understanding of how business works and that’s appreciated as something to consider. Other than that I have no interest in any debate and am not taking any position , but merely using the information offered to explore the possibilities.
If you have facts with cites to offer that’s great. If you have an opinion feel free. If you want to argue I have zero interest and will not participate. Is that clear?
[QUOTE=RaftPeople] cosmodan, are you asking about these types of typical business scenarios?:
The competitor is better at marketing and sales and therefore an inferior product wins in the marketplace (seems to happen almost 98% of the time in software)
[/QUOTE]
I think that relates. The thread has made me think about all the other factors other than profit that might make a superior technology fall by the wayside.
Possibly. Was the as400 a better mainframe than the others offered?
That would definitely qualify. A superior technology is purposely held back and delayed from release for profits sake.
Mind you I’m not making a moral judgment about the companies. Just looking for examples. Could you elaborate on the intel examples?
Those are all related and I’m interested. More specifically I was thinking of a scenario where a company had superior technology available but either didn’t promote it or stopped making it because an inferior technology was more profitable.
That’s the unverified story behind Corningware, and the EV. I was asking if anybody had other documented examples.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Possibly. Was the as400 a better mainframe than the others offered?
[/quote]
The AS/400 is still simpler to use and maintain than a comparable System/390-class computer, but that’s because it’s more of a dedicated box whereas the 390-class machines are general-purpose. A really beefy AS/400 would likely replace System/390s that are only used to run database software for huge numbers of users/transactions/records.
A better example was the fact Compaq introduced the first 386-based IBM-compatible PC. IBM held off on the 32-bit 386 because they thought it would cannibalize sales of their RS/6000 workstation. (That is, people who would otherwise have bought an expensive RS/6000 would buy a much cheaper but otherwise similar 386-based PC instead. In fact, that is what happened: The 1990s saw 32-bit PCs based around the 386, 486, and Pentium CPUs kill the market for expensive workstations like the RS/6000.)
[QUOTE=RaftPeople]
[
2) A company with multiple product lines artificially restricts one to avoid eating into their cash cow (perfect example, IBM’s as400 was stopped at the low end of the mainframe arena to avoid eating into mainframe sales)
[/QUOTE]
Winchester did the same thing with the Model 1887/1901 lever-action shotgun; They deliberately didn’t chamber it for 12ga smokeless shells so it wouldn’t compete with their Model 1897 pump-action shotgun.
[QUOTE=puppygod]
What about medieval China? IIRC there were several technologies that were banned or frozen in their development mostly due to political decisions.
[/QUOTE]
I understand that isolationist Japan did the same thing - for instance, they developed extremely advanced firearms for the time but did not continue to develop them for various reasons.
We’ve heard stories of engines that were too efficient to be put into production. I’ve heard of some pots and pans that were virtually indestructible but once the company realized that they would be a one time buy with no repeat customers they started making them in a lower quality model.
My question is, are these myths or facts? Are there any documented cases of a technology that was very good for the public that disappeared because it was not profitable enough?
[/QUOTE]
Myths. There are cases where mediocre-quality merchandise is sold more widely than high-quality versions, but the obvious explanation (the former is cheaper in the short run, and the Teeming Millions don’t think through the fact that the latter might be cheaper in the long run) suffices for those cases – and the high-quality versions rarely disappear completely (as they would under this theory).
[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
Not good for the public, but certainly convenient, I remember in the UK in the 1960s buying Deca Self-Lighting cigarettes . You rubbed the specially prepared tip against the edge of the packet and it started to smoulder. The first couple of draws tasted a little odd but they were fine after that.
[/QUOTE]
How many customers bought a pack on spec thinking “Hey, cool”, noticed that the first couple of puffs tasted like crap, and decided not to buy the things ever again (and perhaps warn their smoking friends away from them)?
[QUOTE=protruding cobblestone]
The standard lifetime of a mass-market lightbulb still is 1000 hours. Surely we learned to make more advanced bulbs since 1939?
[/QUOTE]
Like CFLs and LEDs?
[QUOTE=Zsofia]
This may be a viable answer to the question - there are certain technologies that are discontinued or underused partly because of public prejudice. I think zeppelins would be great vehicles for, say, sightseeing, but could you take a trip and not punch out everybody who made a Hindenburg joke?
[/QUOTE]
I love zeppelins, but face it: Zeppelins are not safe. They’re way too susceptible to the weather–zeppelin histories are full of hair-raising incidents.
And that luxurious travel everybody is nostalgic about, well, that came at luxurious prices.
Your everyday old boring 747 is a far far better way to get places.
Not sure if this counts towards the OP, but what about pharmaceuticals and the profit motive, particularly with diseases in the developing world? It took the Gates Foundation removing the profit motive to start serious work on malaria cures, governments are fighting drug companies to give discounted rates for AIDS drugs for Africa, etc.
This isn’t the same as saying that Pfizer has a secret cure for cancer they won’t let out, but there is something to technology that could be fairly easily developed, but isn’t because of the profit motive.
Last I checked, anything will have a limited lifespan. Electronics degrade from heat and the stray cosmic ray that turns a 0 into a 1. Friction on any moving part wears it down.
How much are you willing to pay for a CD player that uses magnetic bearings and superconductors (of course with the liquid nitrogen cooling system).
[QUOTE=GargoyleWB]
Except for toasters and blenders. Other than that, great post! (remembers going with my mom to the grocery store and getting to hold the dead TV tubes while she plugged them into the tester).
[/QUOTE]
Depends on the product. I just killed an electric chain saw (50’s or 60’s) that was meant to be serviced. I suspected the brushes were going bad (by the sound) and just had to make that last cut. one of the brushes popped out and destroyed the motor. This thing was built like a tank. Except for the dirt the gears looked brand new. If I had just replaced $2 worth of brushes it would be alive and well.
My first VCR (1985?) cost $800 and required that each channel be manually programmed (10 year life span). My first 13" color TV (1975) was $300 (still alive after falling on the floor). My first car (1972) was a rusted out piece of poo at 76,000 miles.
Years ago, porsche announced a car that would last 25 years. No doubt this could be done (and there are plenty of 25+ year old cars on the road-in low rust places like Arizona and So. California). The question is: who would buy such a car? It would cost a lot more, and it would cause yearly car sales to drop.
Preston Tucker envisioned a long-life car; his idea for the TUCKER was to swap the engines out and have a virtually new car.
[QUOTE=protruding cobblestone]
It’s true enough, long-lived bulbs have always been available in the higher market segment. We know that the technology to make 5000-hour bulbs for the same costs as 1000-hour bulbs existed at least since the 1930s. Yet the bulk market did not adapt to it. For decades.
[/QUOTE]
When did these equivalent-in-every-way-but-but-lifespan bulbs eventually emerge? Even if such technology did exist, investing money in retooling factories for consumer goods was pretty much a complete no-no between 1929 and 1945.
The wiki article links to a 1951 Monopolies Comission report from the UK which says: http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1950_1959/fulltext/003c09.pdf
It’s highly possible there is some more interesting information buried in this PDF, but from what I have skimmed through it looks more like a classic ‘ramp up the profit margin’ cartel with a side order of ‘standardise the product’ cooperation than a ‘kill the new technology’ type seup.
