From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:19:50 GMT

In article <8349@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.190756.23050@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>>Microsoft did not FORCE Gateway to choose to put MS-DOS on all their
>>machines.  Gateway CHOSE to do so.  Gateway is CONTINUOUSLY choosing to do
>>so.  They can, at any given timeframe, simply say "well, MS-DOS+Windows is
>>not selling as well as it used to--too many customers are asking for OS/2,
>>so let's start shipping machines with OS/2 instead.  Betty get me the number
>>for IBM..."
>
>According to the news reports posted here, the contracts between MS and the
>manufacturers run for 3 years...so if they started selling computers with
>OS/2, they'd STILL have to pay MS-DOS and Windows royalties for every machine
>they sell. 
>
>>As I've posted before, exclusivity is NOT new to the world.  Soda pop
>>companies "force" (to use your terminology) large fast food chains to sign
>>exclusivity agreements.  That's why you won't see pepsi in Burger King or
>>McDonalds...  But the fast food restaraunts can always switch companies
>>IF THEY DEEM IT PROFITABLE TO DO SO--Burger King made headlines when it
>>switched to Coke... but the FTC didn't go near ANY of the transactions.
>
>Gateway 2000 can't switch; they're locked in for whatever period is left on
>that contract.
>
>Besides, not even Coke or Pepsi can keep Dr Pepper out of fast food chains...

Dr. Pepper, last I checked, is canned and marketed by KO.  Last time I checked,
it's in all the "Coca Cola" vending machines...

>
>>Dammit.  If you want to ride the Matterhorn, ya gotta go to Disneyland.  And
>>if you think the entrance fee is "fair" you obviously don't have a family
>>of six (like I do).  If you want MS-DOS or Windows you gotta go to Microsoft...
>>there just is no way you can get those products otherwise.  Is this the
>>"coersion" you're talking about?
>
>No; the situation with MS is like Disney telling you that, if you want to ride
>the Matterhorn, you have to pay them their ticket price when you go to Knott's
>Berry Farm.

Well, it's also like the situation where I want a better price per visit to
Disney (because I wanna ride space mountain)--so I buy the season ticket.
I think you are saying that THAT's unfair--because even if I go to Knott's
Berry Farm, I've still paid for Disney.

Let's take this analogy a bit further.  Say your employer docks your paycheck
("voluntarily"--but you know what that means) of X dollars for a "recreation
fund."  Because of the purchasing power of your employer, they're able to
get movie tickets, gasoline, grocery coupons, dining out coupons (all of which
you use) for much cheaper than necessarily available.  Now suppose that they
also offer tickets to Disneyland for "free."  Do you want your money back
because you don't LIKE Disneyland--and prefer Knott's?

Keep in mind that the money you just saved on movie tickets, gasoline, etc.
more than covers the cost of X dollars... just like the buying power of
increased sales at a vendor providing bundled systems allow them to 
discount the overall system price... so what if you get something you don't
want... in the end you win out anyway.

>
>>Likewise, vendors are out there selling MSDOS and Windows because their
>>clients WANT MS-DOS and Windows.  And because so many of them want it,
>>the vendors find it profitable to get the best deal they can on it.  This
>>leads to cheaper prices for the vendor, cheaper prices for ALL of the 
>>clients, and bigger profits for the developer.  The only people that aren't
>>happy are a minority that can't get it through their heads that the 
>>resulting price of the system is usually CHEAPER than if the vendor never
>>signed the agreement.
>
>I'm still paying for a MS-DOS and Windows license I neither need nor want.
>If someone wants MS-DOS and Windows, fine, let them pay for it, but don't make
>me subsidize their choice.

Are you willing to pay more money for a system without MS-DOS and Windows?
Remember vendors do not sign up for that agreement for no reason.  They
do it because they find that they can generate more sales--and therefore
get cheaper prices (due to volume) which in turn generates more sales.  Sure,
they can stop at the termination of the contract--BUT WHY SHOULD THEY?

Some companies generate enough volume that they are not concerned if they
"credit" you with the cost of the package.  Many don't... the reason is the
same reason why they won't give 5% discounts to everybody who walks through
the door... why should they?


>
>-- 
>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
>      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
>              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_