From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:40:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Oct9.174033.25293
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Oct05.184749.23089@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <7470@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.023652.17342@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>
>>>Ok, Ok, just kidding, but nobody knows what price they are going to tack
>>>onto NT, and the estimated range is from $69 to your $1000.  In truth,
>>>we are not ready for price haggling because noone has announce an 
>>>estimated price for NT, the SDK, or anything.
>>
>>Remember, we're talking about NT _plus_ the C compiler and everything else in
>>the developers' package. The most-often-tossed-about quote - and I seem to
>>recall this one was cited as coming from MS - for just NT was "under $500",
>>and I discussed in an earlier post how MS would be stupid to say that and not
>>mean $499.95. I seriously doubt the development package would be less than
>>another $500. My $1K number starts to look optimistic, if anything. 

>     This shows a complete lack of understanding of simple economics.
>Please explain why you believe that Windows NT will retail for $499.95.

Well, I'd say that someone in this discussion doesn't understand
simple economics, but I don't think it is Jay on this one (and that is
a professional opinion).  The original price being bruited about for
NT was $600-$900.  This was met with a lot of, "Well, I certainly
won't pay that for it, so if it costs that much I just won't use it,"
from a lot of quarters.  The latest statements are on the order of
"under $500".  Now, think about it for a moment, Phil.  Given that the
less expensive people think NT will be (i.e., the better value it is
expected to be) the more likely they are to wait for it instead of
going with something else, wouldn't MS have to be pretty stupid to
name a maximum number that was much above the expected price?  That
just encourages more people to look for other alternatives (the people
whose positions on the indifference function leave them with
insufficient utility gain at that price).

>>Given that, why in the world is MS selling the SDK/beta for $69? FUD, pure and
>>simple.

>     Just what is your definition of FUD, anyway?  Please explain how
>competitive pricing of the Windows NT SDK is FUD in any way.

Personally, I think MS has put itself into a bind here.  Statements
have been made that NT will be priced at less than $500, which leaves
the impression that it will indeed be in that range.  This means that
people to whom it is not worth that much are not going to wait for it.
However, having sold the SDK for $69, it will be very hard for MS to
justify putting that kind of price on NT.  If it is more than a few
hundred dollars for the whole thing, people are going to feel like
they're being ripped off.  However, if it is too inexpensive, this
puts pressure on the rest of the Windows product line.  There is also
the 'competetive price' of various i386 UNIX products, which probably
come in around $300-$500 for a commercial UNIX product with NT-like
capabilities. 

Where will MS price NT?  I don't know, but wherever they price it, I
think they've put themselves in the position of it being a problem.

-- 
"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