home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
- Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news!manta!discar
- From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
- Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
- Message-ID: <1993Jan6.181950.9008@nosc.mil>
- Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
- References: <8326@lib.tmc.edu> <1993Jan5.190756.23050@nosc.mil> <8349@lib.tmc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:19:50 GMT
- Lines: 93
-
- 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_
-
-
-