From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Rude behavior on this group.
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:13:01 GMT

In <1992Dec16.234708.18159@microsoft.com> richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut) writes:

>In article <1992Dec15.183951.23430@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Dec15.054239.12858@microsoft.com> richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Dec14.213730.28787@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>[S]ome of us have taken more than a few
>>>>Economics courses.

>>>Good.  Let's see how much you remember.

>>More than you've taken, I guess.

>You guess wrong.

Really?  Where did you get your degree from?  My statement,
categorized as a 'guess', was correct.  Your certainty above is
absolutely stupid, since you don't know anything about me or my
background.  However, stupid comments from you probably shouldn't be
too surprising, given this thread.

>>>I was responding to the notion that "the cost gets passed along to the
>>>buyer."

>>So it is your position that vendors will sell at a loss indefinitely
>>instead of passing along costs to their customers?

>You just flunked Economics.  It is my position that demand must be such
>that vendors will be able to sell at a price which exceeds the additional
>costs.  It is demand which makes the whole thing possible in the first
>place.

Gee, I wonder if someone should tell CU so they can revoke my degree?
:-) 

Anyway, you are making some potentially invalid assumptions, in that
you are assuming that someone who DOES NOT WANT this software is not
paying anything extra.  This is a fallacy of the first order in an
environment like PC cloning, where profit margins are already
ridiculously slim.

>>>As for whether or not Windows pre-installed can be considered a "freebie",
>>>that depends upon one's point of view.  If you want it, it's considerably
>>>cheaper to buy a system with Windows pre-installed than it is to buy a
>>>system without Windows, buy Windows seperately and install the software
>>>yourself.  For a number of people, this is very much a "freebie".

>>Not at all.  It's simply allowing them to buy in at a greatly reduced
>>price due to volume at their reseller.  This is not 'free',

>No kidding this is not 'free'.  I get what I want with less hassle and,
>probably, for less money.  Not only is this not 'free', but, in terms of
>opportunity costs, it's money in my pocket.

Assuming that it's what you want, of course.  And it's still not
'free'.  It gets passed through and spread around over the people who
DO want it and the peopel who DON'T want it.

>>and part
>>of those costs are born by people who didn't want it in the first
>>place and have to take it.

>Presumably people who don't want a machine bundled with Windows can ask for
>a machine without Windows and get a machine without Windows.  So what's the
>problem?

Nothing, except that often they will do you the favor of not shipping
you Windows while charging you the same amount for the machine.  This
does NOT mean that Windows is free on that machine -- it means that
you pay for it whether you want it or not.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy