From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:33:08 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Oct11.190850.49157@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Oct10.225425.29765@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Sk
> elly) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct10.063949.16171@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.ed
> u wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >What I was hoping you'd do was to give me a real answer as to why
> >> >you don't want to have it around.  Does it take up space?  Does
> >> >it cost to much.  Does it give you hives.  Does it make your os of
> >> >choice look bad.
> >>
> >> Umm, I did give an answer:  it may not be one you like...
> >> Like I said, it costs too much when you don't need networking.
> >> One could buy OS/2 2.0 for $195 or NT for "under $500".  Tell me
> >> what advantages NT has when one does not need networking/multi-user/
> >> security.
> >
> >Your answer, NT may be to expensive with networking.  Well, the only
> >price we have for NT now is $69.  I don't see that as very expensive.
> 
> That is useless and you damn well know it.  The discussion was about the
> *real* price of NT, not the pre-release.  The vast majority of people will
> never know about this price.  Supposedly it will be irrelevant in a few days
> anyway.
It's the only *real* price we have to work with at this time.

> >
> >As for the under $500 number, well, I would say that
> >"under $500" means "we don't want to set a price yet", and
> >not "$499.95".  I suspect what the marketing guys are going to
> >do is look at the prospective market for NT, and set the price at
> >what the market will pay.  If the market is not willing to pay
> >$500, then the price won't be $500.  If the demand/price curve
> >tops out at $149.95, then that's what it may sell at.  Or it may
> >top out at $250.  However, because you yourself were complaining
> >that the $500 number is too much, I would take yourself as a data point
> >on the demand/price curve and estimate that the price may be less.
> >
> That isn't how things will work.  Remember that NT was origionally slated to
> sell for over $600.  People muttered that they wouldn't pay that.  Thus they
> made the statement "Under $500".  In america that means $499.95.  Considering
> all that has gone into it, MS would have a very hard time recouping any costs
> if it was priced similar to OS/2 or Windows.  NT will not sell like Windows or
> even close.  It will have to be more expensive and should be considering what
> is in it.

You are speculating on the development costs of NT, and the prospective
sales.  I think your speculations may be incorrect.  Also, your statement
that "Under $500" == "$499.95" I will attribute to cinicism.  I think you
can see that this may be one of those situations where that rule may
not apply.  I just don't think you have enough information to automatically
assume that the price of NT will be $500, or $69 for that matter.  So I don't
think arguments about NT can be made on the price of NT at this point in 
time.


> 
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >> I already have OS/2 2.0 .  But if I didn't, all I have to do
> >> >> is to call 1-(800)-3IBMOS2 and pay $149 (or $99 as an upgrade
> >> >> from DOS, or $79 as an upgrade from Windows), but I would have
> >> >> to do it before October 31 when this OS/2 sales promotion ends.
> >> >> Or I can wait until next year to buy NT for "under $500" to
> >> >> get features I don't need.  (blatant OS/2 advertising intended :)
> >> >
> >> >I'd put the same for another OS, but since there is a definite predjudice
> >> >against people with microsoft in their email address, I'll refrain.  No
> >> >use generating even more flame traffic.
> >>
> >> I have noticed that some people strongly criticize Microsoft (the
> >> company), but I have not seen ``a definite prejudice against people
> >> with Microsoft in their e-mail address''.  I have seen some OS/2 fans
> >> criticize people who happen to have MS in their e-mail address, but
> >> this does not prove your assertion.  Try changing your header to
> >> petesk@not_microsoft.com and see what happens.
> >
> >I seem to remember a thread about limiting MS employees abilities
> >to post things about MS products and other products on the net.
> >This was not about employees of companies in general, but about
> >MS employees.
> 
> No, I recall that it was about companies in general.  MS just happened to be
> the company that it was focused primarily at.  It doesn't seem to have stopped
> you though does it?
It was only companies in general after myself and a few others started complaining
that limiting just MS was unfair.  


> >
> >Wait and see what the price of NT is, then maybe you can complain.
> >Until then, your complaints are based on speculation which is most
> >probably incorrect.
> 
> As are yours.  Who is right?  My guess leans towards him.>

My complaints are made on observations of this newsgroup.  Are my
observations incorrect?

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:7427 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2421