[H-GEN] Laptops

[Martin Pool]

>>>>> "aover" == Andrew Over <aover at uq.net.au> writes:

 aover> I was under the impression that this (forced bundling) was
 aover> illegal, and was one of the "predatory" trading practices that
 aover> got MS into toruble with the DoJ in the first place.

It's not forced bundling.  Last time I heard, Microsoft merely offered
two pricing schemes to their resellers:

 a) $X per copy you install

or 

 b) $Y per machine you ship, whether the software is installed or not.

where X is perhaps three times Y.

M$ has at times explained this as a paperwork-saving measure: manf's
don't have to be able to demonstrate to M$ how many copies they
installed.  It's not unheard of in other industries to offer different
pricing schemes (cf 1yr/50,000km warranties), but this one seems
strongly anticompetive in practice.

 aover> However, I am not so much concerned with the copy of Win98, as
 aover> the copy of MS Office that certain (gw2k/dell et al)
 aover> manufacturers insit on bundling.  The value of MS Office is
 aover> significatnly higher than that of OEM Win98, and I'd rather
 aover> not pay for something I won't be using.

(Value, or price?)

Software has very unusual economics: almost zero marginal cost, and
the value both to the supplier and consumer increases with the number
of copies in use.  RMS's philosophy that it's unethical to charge for
something that can be given away free is one response; M$'s philosophy
that the important thing is to get 90+% of every market is another.

--
Martin Pool

Bill Gates said "I've never had a customer mention Linux to me." It's
believed Bill Gates doesn't meet many customers.
			-- Rick Moen