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.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MeDroogies who wrote (21428)	12/27/1998 1:13:00 AM
From: Jeff Hayden	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213173

* OT * >>>Syqt was superior...unfortunately, they had lousy PR....just like AAPL vs MSFT.<<< Actually I think Syquest's PR was OK. They were caught with their pants down when the Zip came out of the blue. They tried to compete with revised designs that didn't address the market. Their hardware was too expensive, yet they persisted in selling it under cost while trying to make money on the disks. In the end it was not certain that they could afford to keep the quality up. Consequently, their superiority was lost. True, Iomega had problems with Zip and Jaz units for a while - they have have since turned that around. Jeff

To: MeDroogies who wrote (21428)	12/27/1998 1:46:00 PM
From: Zen Dollar Round	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213173

Syqt was superior...unfortunately, they had lousy PR....just like AAPL vs MSFT. That is up to debate. I've seen the Usenet news groups filled with people complaining about lost data due to dropped SyQuest cartridges, and Jeff is right, Iomega beat the hell out of them on many fronts. SyQuest refused to lower their prices for too long, and Iomega took advantage of the lapse. SyQuest was too slow to innovate in a timely manner. If anything has ever been proven in computer universe, it's that price is King. Apple Computer learned that lesson so late it almost killed them. Rest in peace, SyQuest.