> > We will have to disagree on this one! It is a good deal for
> > schools and for MS
> > and virtually costs them nothing! All they sell us is one
> > disc and a number of
> > licenses, and yes they do get the foot in the door, they do
> > start to build
> > brand loyalty etc etc. There is nothing stopping other
> > companies doing the
> > same, after all at the moment they are getting *nothing* from
> > schools, so
>
> Well actually there is a problem with this. Assuming that the prices
> offered to the schools are below MS actual cost to deliver, they are using
> their existing customer base to subsidise these prices and the marketting
> campaign behind it. This is actually anti-competitive and not legal in the
> US. I honestly don't know the Australia law, but suspect it is covered
> under trade practices. If the cost is not below their actual cost to
> deliver, they are just screwing the rest of us.
Probably the latter as they are not actually delivering anything except a
piece of paper that says you have a license. We buy the CD's in bulk at
about $200, to have say, all the MS Apps on site ready to go.
That is the rest of the
> consumers to deal with and is not actually anti-competitive. This issue is
> not for the school to decide however, they are accountable for getting a
> good deal for the school.
> I question the idea of whether free offerings are not up to scratch. I use
> StarOffice by choice at work since I consider it a better product. It is
> also free. On a cost basis I would expect the schools to look seriously at
> it.
>
> Finally, why are the schools only responsible for cost? They also have a
> responsibility to expose students to more than a single view of the world.
> To say we are users of technology and not responsible for the mind set
> engendered in students is a luxury not available to educational
> institutions. They do have such a responsibility and cannot abrogate it
> for cost reasons. Just because a deal is a good financial deal for the
> school, does not make it a good deal for the school. I expect that any
> school would have difficulty accepting a deal which involved tacit
> acceptance of, say, a Neo Nazi organisation. Not that microsoft is such,
> but where is the line drawn?
There are many curriculums in schools, very few of them deal directly with
technology and computing. What the teachers have an obligation to do is to
teach those curriculum to the best of their abilities with what they consdier to
be the best reosurces at the time - given financial and other constraints. You
have a singular focus on computing and technology, as you say it would be
wrong of schools to allow such a mind set to develop eaarly in a students life.
I am sure the geeography teacher would like to show them many different
partd of the world but they abrogate that responsibility on the grounds of
cost, the same would apply to many things the Science dept would like to
shaare with students. Cost is real and unavoidable, if thaat worries you then
talk to the Minister for Education.
--
Simon Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Information Technology Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OLMC Parramatta
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
