Linux-Advocacy Digest #623, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:00 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 1 Mar 2001
>"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In 1992 MS-DOS plus Win3.0 costs £135. Allowing for inflation, WinME costs
>> about the same as Dos+Win3.0, and adds some additional functuality.
>
>"some" additional functionality? Windows 3.0 came on less than 6 floppies
>(compressed). WIndows ME is about 150MB's (also compressed).
If you intent is to discuss functionality, why do you describe volume?
>> Hardware costs are half, add considerable additional components, and are
>> several orders of magnitude more powerful.
>>
>> There is no doubt that Microsoft software prices have not tracked reduced
>> hardware costs.
>
>Nor should they? What is the price of Adobe Photoshop in 1992 versus today?
>What is the price of PageMaker? Illustrator? Quark Express? FreeHand?
>Novell Netware? OS/2?
These are name brand products, you see; whether they have reduced in
price is meaningless to the issue. This is the tricky part which you
find it either easy or fatally difficult to avoid, depending on whether
you are paying attention. Microsoft is in trouble, not because Windows
hasn't decreased in price, or even their OS, however it might be
defined, but because *the component cost of an OS as part of the
_necessary_ parts of a PC* has not decreased, as all other *component*
prices except the most trivial (peripherals) have. That these
components are different components, of course, means that the cost of
none of them "track" any other. The point is that the *applications*
which you described earlier, and the *operating systems in a market
controlled by the monopoly*, aren't relevant comparisons. The only
relevant comparison is a component which is fully substitutable for
Windows. Since there aren't any, and MS has intentionally caused this
situation, and has not reduced the cost much, or not at all, or has
raised it (regardless of which, to be sure, though obviously its more
obvious when they are raised, as they have been), it is *irrefutable*
that Microsoft charges monopoly prices, and that these are substantially
above competitive levels.
The problem with your argument is as it always has been, Erik; it is an
argument from ignorance. Because it is literally impossible to
determine what competitive levels are, since there isn't any
competition, you insist that MS's prices cannot be considered to be
above them. But, logically, they *must* be greater than competitive
levels, since it is entirely obvious that, if you could purchase Windows
from either MS or someone else, MS couldn't charge as much and maintain
95% of the market. In fact, if MS hadn't intentionally monopolized the
pre-load market, stymied all innovation, and raised the applications
barrier to entry as much as possible, if you could purchase *any OS for
a PC* and use it effectively without incurring additional cost due to
your not "going along" with the monopoly (which Erik and other sock
puppets would characterize, disingenuously, as "the network effect"),
Microsoft couldn't charge as much as they do for Windows.
QED.
>I think you'll find all these are roughly the same prices they were in 1992,
>if not more expensive today.
Only if you're already bent over with your hands spreading your cheeks.
Like adding together the cost of the OS and Microsoft's Windows makes
the consumer feel any better about being ripped off, when they'd rather
not pay for either, let alone both. And like it doesn't constitute
doubling the cost of the OS.
>> The reason should be self-evident. The PC hardware market is extremely
>> competitive, but there is no competition in the PC OS market, due in the
>> main to Microsoft's illegal anti-competitive and monopolistic practices.
>
>Then how does that explain OS/2 hasn't dropped in price? How does it
>explain that Netware hasn't dropped in price?
You have again reached the rather abrupt limits of your understanding.
How do you explain prices of alternatives to a monopoly? Your
kindergarten level understanding of "supply and demand" simply cannot
deal with it.
Will Netware dropping its price result in Novell selling more units?
Will Microsoft dropping its price result in Windows selling more units?
The answer is "no", in both cases. Now invert the question:
Will Novell raising its price (to greater than comparable to Windows,
the monopoly) result in less Netware being sold?
Will Microsoft raising its price result in Windows selling less?
The answer to the first is "yes", since it would remove one more reason
not to avoid the monopoly (that isn't the same as 'competing', Erik,
though I have literally no hope you will ever understand the
distinction), while the answer to the second is still "no". Microsoft
can set its price at whatever it wants. The question your soft-headed
reasoning requires in such a case is "why don't they", while anyone with
a brain knows that it would simply make it too obvious they are a
monopoly. Their failure to raise prices so fast and studiously it
defuses your apologies for monopolization does not, however, mean their
current prices are not above competitive levels, nor that they are not
grievously excessive, nor that they do not have impact on the pricing of
alternatives, and so it does not mean that monopolization is not
occurring.
Which is also not to say that Microsoft does not constantly and
studiously raise their prices to outrageous extremes. I count no less
than four times in the last six years that Microsoft has essentially
doubled the cost of Windows to large corporate customers, merely by
changing their licensing without even touching the dollar amount.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:01 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 2 Mar 2001
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > There is no doubt that Microsoft software prices have not tracked reduced
>> > > hardware costs.
>> >
>> > Nor should they? What is the price of Adobe Photoshop in 1992 versus today?
>> > What is the price of PageMaker? Illustrator? Quark Express? FreeHand?
>> > Novell Netware? OS/2?
>> >
>> > I think you'll find all these are roughly the same prices they were in 1992,
>> > if not more expensive today.
>>
>> Actually, Photoshop is substantially cheaper now than back then. In
>> the past you needed very expensive computers to run it, but now the
>> bargain machines from the department store can easily do it. It
>> followed the classic market of scale model: more people buy it, the
>> price goes down.
>
>Nice dodge. You know that's not the point, so stop trying to twist it.
Dodge? No, Erik, that is *EXACTLY* the point. You are the one doing
the twisting. You and your sock puppet handlers and their boss,
Microsoft.
>The price of the software is roughly the same.
The price of Microsoft's OS is roughly five times what it cost in 1985,
while the number of units has increased by orders of magnitude.
>> Windows does not follow that same rule, for whatever reason. More
>> people buy it and the prices go *up* (ie, Windows 2000 is more
>> expensive than Windows for Workgroups was -- regardless the price scale
>> you use).
>
>Windows 2000 is a workstation class OS, not a consumer OS. Windows XP will
>be available in a consumer version that is the same price as Windows 9x/ME
>today.
Which is, what, four times the cost of an OS in 1985?
>> PageMaker, Illustrator and Quark Express are all niche applications
>> that will probably never have a growing market; the same people use it
>> today as used it in the past.
>
>I think that's a far stretch. Electronic Publishing has gone through the
>roof. The markets for these software packages are orders of magnitude more
>than they were 10 years ago.
However you want to twist around your definition of "market", Craig's
point is valid and you don't have a response for it. The market for
page layout software like the three above (which don't, by the way,
benefit from 'electronic publishing' at all, but are geared towards
printed media) is still limited to those who use them professionally; a
niche.
>> For a better comparison, look at WordPerfect's price over time.
>
>That's not a better comparison. WordPerfect became a failure in the market,
>and was sold from company to company. They sell it for a fraction of the
>cost because nobody will buy it at it's full cost.
This is the same confusion, still, that assails all aspects of this
issue: the monopolist so confounds market forces that obvious facts of
economics and anti-trust become regressive acts of second-guessing when
used to apologize for the monopoly.
>> > > The reason should be self-evident. The PC hardware market is extremely
>> > > competitive, but there is no competition in the PC OS market, due in
>the
>> > > main to Microsoft's illegal anti-competitive and monopolistic
>practices.
>> >
>> > Then how does that explain OS/2 hasn't dropped in price? How does it
>> > explain that Netware hasn't dropped in price?
>>
>> They are both niche markets.
>
>That doesn't change the fact that they're PC operating systems. WordPerfect
>is also a niche market today, yet it's price has gone down by your own
>assertion.
A wordprocessor is hardly a "niche market".
>> Windows is not.
>
>Try being consistent.
We are. You aren't. You squirm and flop around unendingly, convinced
that if you can't be pinned down, then your ignorance of the fact that
Microsoft monopolizes is justified.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:02 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 2 Mar 2001
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Actually, Photoshop is substantially cheaper now than back then. In
>> > > the past you needed very expensive computers to run it, but now the
>> > > bargain machines from the department store can easily do it. It
>> > > followed the classic market of scale model: more people buy it, the
>> > > price goes down.
>> >
>> > Nice dodge. You know that's not the point, so stop trying to twist it.
>> >
>> > The price of the software is roughly the same.
>>
>> I think this debate is silly anyway; it's pretty obvious that
>> Microsoft charges more than they need to, look at their enormous
>> profits. They have every right to do so, but denying that Windows
>> costs more than it should is silly.
>
>This is a nasty proposition. If they charged a price that was in line with
>"typical profits" of a company, they would be accused of dumping and
>preventing competition by making it impossible for another company to make a
>profit selling at the same prices.
Says who?
>MS's profits are because of their large volume.[...]
Learn some economics, then get back to us.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:03 GMT
Said Amphetamine Bob in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 02 Mar 2001
[...]
>> Then why don't people buy it?
>
>Cuz it doesn't read and write Word docs, you lying fool! Also,
>network effects, bundling and the everyone is doing it philosophy.
I'd like to make this point clear, because Bob has done something that
has been going on far too long already.
When you said "network effects, bundling, and the everyone is doing it
philosophy", what you should have said was "the application barrier to
entry". Because the issue you raise is entirely and completely that,
and has nothing to do with:
a) the value of a system increasing based on the number of systems it is
interconnected with (the network effect)
b) efficiency of distribution (bundling)
c) popularity (generally purposefully confounded with 'marketing' or a
need to do what everyone else, though it is neither)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:04 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Mar 2001 17:46:44
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:40:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Feb 2001 02:33:23
>>>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:58:24 -0700, Dave wrote:
>
>>My point is that, from all appearances (and certainly a comparison to
>>the GNU tools such as you've made), Windows is a piece of crap, so how
>>much money they spent on it is hardly important, as it is obvious that
>>the bulk of it was wasted.
>
>A subjective judgement (but one I happen to agree with in my own subjective
>way)
>
>BTW, I remember you were going to install Linux. How did it go ?
Good and bad. The judges are still out; I'm currently dual-booting to
support the existing games, but most of them don't work (I suspect a
DirectX bug with my Voodoo II running on an 850MHz Athlon), so I'm
probably going to be doing more on Linux. But that application barrier
is mighty high, for someone who's been using Windows for almost a
decade, and Linux isn't magic that makes up for lack of competition.
The OEM desktop needs a few million thrown at it; there's plenty of
polish, but not enough spit, if you know what I mean.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:05 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 27 Feb 2001 17:47:05
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:55:26 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>No, the customers *hope* the product is maintained. Only a moron would
>>have expectations for what a company will due in the future just because
>>you bought something from them in the past.
>
>There 8are* expectations that products will be maintained. Yes, it might
>seem unreasonable to extrapolate future events from past events -- who
>knows if the sun will rise tomorrow ? While the philosophers contemplate
>questions like this, the pragmatists get things done.
The pragmatist is aware that the likelihood of the sun rising is a bit
more realistic than an expectation that a producer is somehow required
to use his money to fund future developments. The cost of a product is
the production of it, not the speculation about how it will change in
the future or underwriting of future profits for the producer.
>>The cost of software packages cannot be considered to include future
>>expenses, and whether or not a company maintains a product cannot
>>retroactively change any of their previous sales figures.
>
>Nice dogma, but it's simply wrong.
It is neither dogma nor wrong, but simply the reality of the matter.
>A software package that has been
>abandoned is definitely less valuable than a software pacakage that
>is not.
What "abandoned"? You're acting as if you *know* what's going to happen
in the future! Nice idealization, but its simply wrong. ;-)
>Therefore the expectation that a product will be maintained
>makes it more valuable. Even the fact that a product *might* be maintained
>makes it more valuable to consumers than a product that is certain to
>be abandoned.
None of this has anything to do with the point. Are you going to sue a
company because you bought their product, and later they decided not to
improve it? What kind of ass-backward thinking are you engaging in
here? That "might" you seem to have stumbled onto is, in fact, what I
said to begin with: you have the hope, not the expectation, that a
product you buy will be developed, or even available, in the future.
And that is all you ever get, as a consumer in a free market.
There's certainly nothing wrong with paying attention, and buying
products for which this hope is more well-founded than with an
alternative. But only a fool would make this anywhere near as important
as, say, whether the price is acceptable or whether the functions you
require are supported. In the current version.
>>>No, the old versions are not expensive. I picked up Windows 3.1
>>>(shrink wrapped) for about $20 a year ago. Win95 is fairly cheap
>>>too -- the current market price seems to be less than $40- right now.
>>
>>There is no "market price"; you can only purchase that from a single
>>vendor. No competition means no competitive market prices.
>
>OK, the so-called "monopoly price" is $40-. Is that better?
No. ;-D
"Monopoly price" is a qualitative, not a quantitative, measure. "Street
price" is used in the vernacular to indicate such a meaningless, yet
meaningful, figure. My point was that the "real price" you have to pay
attention to when examining the anti-competitive actions is the list
price, full license. And if indeed "nobody pays list price", it is no
less entertaining and educational to consider why it is the price
listed, then.
>If it's
>really a monopoly price, would you care to explain why it's cheaper
>than the Solaris *media*, several Linux distributions. MacOS, and OS2?
Because monopoly price doesn't mean "outrageously high", although
monopoly prices can certainly be outrageously high.
>You could say that it's because of a "high volume", but all that
>demonstrates is that it is more efficient to have a single product
>dominate the market because this results in low prices and high
>prfits -- win-win.
If the profits are high, the prices aren't low.
>>Is it really so incredibly hard for otherwise supposedly smart people to
>>understand that monopoly pricing doesn't mean it is a huge number?
>
>Then what does it mean ?
It means that what keeps it low is *not* the fact that if the price was
raised, fewer units would be sold, or if the price were lowered, profits
would decrease. It means that supply and demand no longer set the level
of price which is competitive, because there is no competition to
facilitate this mechanism. Therefore, the price is "controlled by the
monopolist", without any reason or need to decrease the price in order
to increase the sales. A monopolist already has effectively all of the
sales.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:06 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 27 Feb 2001 17:57:26
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:01:50 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>
>>Sure, then can do that. Or they could spend the money on marketing.
>>But they don't _have_ to do 2x as much work for a 2x increase in sales,
>>and I don't think they do. MS reports net profit margins in the
>>neighborhood of 50%, which means that they sure aren't putting all of
>>their money back into R&D.
>
>If their profits are 50% though, they certainly don't do 1x the work
>for 2x the sales, right ? BTW, I don't find 50% margins that excessive
>for a wildly succesful software company.
How about for an illegal monopoly?
>I wonder what id software's profits are as a percentage of their revenue --
[...]
I though you said "software company". When did "game developer" come
up? Are you honestly trying to suggest that id software's business
model has squat-all to do with Microsoft or even an honest application
developer?
(Don't jump the gun, BTW; I think it is quite possible that the answer
is "yes", in which case the possible existence of an 'honest application
developer' is brought into question.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:07 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Feb 2001 03:19:11
[...]
>In other businesses, the market leader does not make their prices cheaper
>just because they can afford to.
Of course they do. This is what free market capitalism is all about.
That's how you get to be the 'market leader', BTW. If you got there any
other way, then you probably broke the law.
> They price their products in such a way
>that the prices are reasonably competitive (eg: $50- for an OEM license)
I would think an OS would cost about $3 for a license, if you could make
it efficient to collect such small amounts.
>If they can price competitively *and* make a profit, they will.
They better. If they cannot do both, at all times, they will lose money
and eventually go out of business.
>>> I wonder what id software's profits are as a percentage of their
>>> revenue -- which raises another question -- why aren't id software's
>>> games cheaper?
>>
>>I don't buy games and so don't know what they cost. However, I would
>
>More than Windows OEM (-;
Depends on the game. And if you wait a couple months until after
they've been released, when the next generation is starting to come out,
you can watch as the prices fall, and buy them when they hit your
price-point.
>>expect that they follow economics similar to music CD's and videos.
>>They sell for a short period and then fade, in contrast to something
>>like Windows that sells year after year.
>
>A given game does, yes. However, id license their game engines, so they
>effectively "sell" the sam codebase several times over.
Now you're talking developers; not the same market, not the same
consumers, and not the same pricing models.
>What "percentage" profit would they make in a good year ? Their operating
>costs should be relatively low, so their profits could be enormous.
How low their operating costs are has no bearing on how much profit they
can support. This is a true statement for any producer, regardless of
their market or business model. IOW, anybody's profits "could be
enormous". The only thing that limits them, in fact, is competition.
Regardless of their operating costs or fixed costs or variable costs or
marketing costs or distribution costs or any other costs.
>> Therefore, game makers need to
>>continually come up with new games, as opposed to incremental
>>improvements to old games.
>
>Not true with id at all. THey license the same engine several times over.
People don't buy the game for the engine; they buy the game for the
game. Get it?
>>> Why don't these unwritten rules about pricing also apply to id ?
>>
>>I thought we were discussing economics, not "unwritten rules". The
>
>Unsubstantiated whining that something is "too expensive" is not worthy
>of the word "economics".
Save it for someone easily cowed by false intellectualism.
>>original poster was arguing that MS pricing does not follow the normal
>>trends because they have a monopoly. I happen to belive that MS _is_
>>charging somewhat more than they would be charging if they had effective
>>direct competitition in their core markets.
>
>I find it hard to see how -- their prices are already reasonably
>competitive. Most of their sales of Windows are of the OEM edition,
>and that goes for $50-.
One suspects you find it hard to see anything at all, if you think $50
for Windows as an unavoidable Microsoft tax is "reasonably competitive".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:09 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 2 Mar 2001 16:13:59
[...]
>OTOH, I might also point out that the zealots haven't put forth
>any accurate numbers.
Why should they, if they're zealots? The fact is, they're not zealots,
and you use the term because you haven't a better point, despite their
inability to tell you what something would cost in some alternate
reality where monopolization hadn't occurred.
>If they want to prove something about the
>pricing, the onus is on them to make some sort of case.
Indeed, and we have, and it is indisputable. MS is a monopoly,
therefore their prices are monopoly prices. Had they competitive
pressure to lower them, they could, and since they don't, they have no
competitive pressure, and so they are a monopoly, and their prices are
monopoly prices. QED. No amount of flopping around in the bottom of
the boat will change this.
>I suppose
>the main thing I'm complaining about is this sort of knee-jerk
>herd mentality I'm seeing a lot of (maybe I should stop reading
>slashdot!)
Or perhaps you should learn more about why you can't grasp the argument
sufficiently to agree with it. Perhaps you jump to the conclusion that
it is a "knee jerk herd mentality", for lack of a better argument.
>I think a lot of people take the "against" position in any
>discussion about MS and sort of retroactively try to
>rationalise themselves.
People have hated Microsoft for years, long before there was such
overwhelming evidence of their intentional and illegal conduct. That
doesn't make recognition of this overwhelming evidence any "bias" or
"herd mentality".
>>And what I am doing is pointing out that in a free market it is market
>>conditions that determine what "fair" and "reasonable" mean. Anything
>>else is really just an arbitrary judgement.
>
>That would make it very difficult to show that pricing was unfair.
Perhaps there's hope for you, yet. Now, tell me, what *precisely* is
the problem with considering, given the difficulty you've noted, whether
the pricing is *fair*, and then, if it can be seen that it is not fair,
proclaiming it then, validly and correctly, to be unfair? Despite the
difficulty, indeed, the impossibility, of knowing whether a price is
unfair, are you saying it is impossible to know if it is fair?
>>And I am *not* saying that. I am saying that you and I have no way of
>>knowing what the price "would be" in a fair and competitive market.
>>Maybe they could charge *more* for all I know.
>
>That's not really good enough -- to make a case against the pricing
>you need more than pure conjecture. In particular, you need to show
>that the price "would be" less in a competitive market. And I've yet
>to see a decent argument for this.
You are incorrect, unless you're a Republican seeking to undermine
anti-trust law. No, you don't need to (because you can't, and we all
know it) show what "would be", ever. Its no surprise you haven't seen
such a 'decent argument', and it must make apologizing for a monopoly
quite easy, if you declare victory at that point and refuse to think any
more.
Again, all you have to do is look at the price and consider if it is
fair. You do not need to state quantitatively what a fair price is,
though obviously if you engage in this exercise repetitively, you can
get a fair approximation. You can't do it at all, however, if a
monopolist controls the pricing independently of competitive pressures.
Then again, you don't *need* to, then, since you already know that if a
monopolist is controlling the pricing independently of competitive
pressures, then the price isn't fair. Again, no quantitative breakdown
is necessary.
>>>Compare it with the price of other operating systems. It's in the same
>>>ballpark.
>>
>>Ok, there's some logic to that. But since those other operating systems
>>have such a tiny minority of the market, I can argue that Windows' price
>>is pretty much independent of what the other guys charge except at the
>>margins where the Windows fee becomes extortinate.
>
>But if the other OSs had a larger segment of the market, how would things
>change ?[...]
I would think it should be obvious why this question has no meaning.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
