Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Any info about Iomega (IOM)? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rocky Reid who wrote (40559)	12/18/1997 7:17:00 PM
From: Eve Edelson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

Backward compatibility. >But wait... I thought that backward compatibility wasn't important for IOM bulls? <snip> Please at least stay consistent ... <etc> It is important to maintain backward compatibility with one's own family of previous products. It is not important to maintain backward compatibility with the floppy. Which you knew. The only nice thing about today is that people in my group keep asking to buy more zip disks... Eve

To: Rocky Reid who wrote (40559)	12/20/1997 2:14:00 PM
From: Ken Marcus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 58324

Rocky says: >>I thought that backward compatibility wasn't important for IOM bulls? << Backward compatability is nice. But, not overly important when what you are trying to be backward is useless, like the 1.44. But it is a shame for all those EZ 135, Flyer 230, Sparq, and Syjet users can't share disks with eachother. How long will Syquest keep making EZ 135 disks, or Flyer 230 disks? >>Last I heard, Zip Plus is not exactly flying off the shelves.<< I don't know how zip plus is selling. To me it's high margin gravy. I expect Iomega to phase out the SCSI and parallel and just have the plus at a lower price point in the future, Customers will then get the plus for $149 or less. Meanwhile internals keep getting cheaper and cheaper, barreirs to entry higher and higher. Ken Marcus