Re: On the entire "Quality Cost" Debate

[Myron Tribus <mtribus@home.com>]

At 11:35 AM -0400 8/30/00, SCheek wrote:
>My position is that quality can cost too much if it drives one out of
>business from lack of sales and necessary profit.

SCheek then went on to use Apple an example saying that Steve Jobs 
had improved the quality and then tried to raise the price.
It seems to me that in the discussion there was a confusion between 
the concepts of FEATURE and QUALITY.

What Steve Jobs did was improve the FEATURES of the product, not the 
quality.  People did not want to pay as much as Jobs thought they 
should for the FEATURES.

FEATURES are put into a product to provide something new that a 
customer might want.  In general FEATURES cost money and customers 
then decide if they wish to pay for them. Improving the quality of 
the process which produces the product does not cost, it pays.

Years ago (1953 to be precise) I owned both a Cadillac and a 
Volkswagen "bug".  The Volkswagen did not even have a gas gauge or 
even a heater. But it ran all the time.  No features, high quality.

The Cadillac had (for its day) great features such as a radio that 
tuned itself, the antenna went up and down at the touch of a button, 
the windows went up and down at the press of a lever (unlike the VW 
which relied upon on hand cranks.)  I also had to have the Cadillac 
in the dealer's shop for repair about every other month as one or 
another feature failed for lack of quality.

Myron Tribus,  350 Britto Terrace,  Fremont, CA 94539
Ph:510 651 3641  Fax: 510 656 9875   e-mail: mtribus@home.com
Always choose words that are soft and sweet.  You never know when you 
might have to eat them.
=====================================================================