On 07-May-08, at 2:47 AM, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:
if MS did have lower prices in some countries, they could face
pressure
from more consumers in rich countries, shocked that the software is
available at lower prices elsewhere. this, plus the difficulty of
enforcing price differentiation in different markets due to the
practical difficulty of limiting parallel imports, is why MS prefers
to
keep a uniform (and uniformly high) price worldwide. anti-trust has
very
little to do with it, except as a cover story, and not even that, MS
doesn't use that argument often (maybe they do in india?), since "we
want these prices in EU and US and can't restrict parallel imports, so
we keep the same prices worldwide" is obvious, straightforward, and
perfectly legal.
The explanation I got from a Microsoft rep was that as a result of
anti-trust regulations, they were not at liberty to offer special
pricing without approval from their anti-trust lawyers in the US.
Microsoft licensing has three categories:
1. Retail. The boxed unit you buy in the store.
2. OEM. What they sell you via your computer maker.
3. Volume. Available for deployments of 1000 or more only.
OEM licensing has the most restrictions because that is the crux of
the anti-trust case. They get their flexibility with volume licensing,
but it is not exactly on a per-customer basis:
1. Microsoft's lawyers must approve a narrowly defined criteria such
as "telecentre agency operating over a 1000 telecentres in rural areas
in a developing country"
2. Your sales contact at Microsoft must be aware of this scheme and
willing to exercise it for you.
As a result of this construct, settling a deal can take months, during
which MS reps can't help but watch helplessly while one waves Linux at
them. MS may be many things, but they're no longer a nimble company.
