Re: When is the last time you got money back from Microsoft?

In article <jhr742tr192ak8a117i80cb8s3rn6kujr4@xxxxxxx>, Mayor of
R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Microsoft doesn't grossly overcharge people in the first place.

Huh.
Several governments and courts have disagreed strongly on exactly that
point.

I seem to recall the cases being the exact opposite. They thought
Microsoft was grossly undercharging in order to kill the competition.
That was in reference to what they charge the OEMs, not to the retail
pricing. I think this thread is about retail pricing.

The price of Windows has remained largely the same over the years. You
must be thinking of MacOS X where you have to pay $130 for every
Service Pack.

Perhaps I am wrong about the pricing, but I thought Win95 sold for
about $150, and WinXP Pro sold for about $300.
IIRC, Mac OS versions have sold for $90, $120, $130, $130 or thereabout.

Please don't start with that nonsense argument again.
The Mac OS versions seem to have a LOT more in them worth paying for
than the Windows versions, and a Service Pack is not about adding whole
new features and apps and functions; it's typically a bug-fix package.

Common and standard and legal business practice would have the cost of
the product going DOWN.

Actually common and standard legal business practice would have the
cost reaching a point where Microsoft was willing to sell and the
public was willing to pay and remaining there until something changed.
The economic ignorance of those who kept insisting that Microsoft's
prices should ever be going downward was simply appalling.
If you've got an item that you can make for $1 and sell for $10 you
sell it for $10. If your cost drops to $.50 but you can still get $10
you don't drop your price.

You're comparing legal obligation to demand and coming up with the
wrong point. I was writing about JUSTIFICATION of the expenses.
I don't disagree that Microsoft CAN charge what they have been -- I
disagree that they should be claiming it is necessary, and that they
should get away with it by a very large consumer base that could easily
get them to change that.

Remember, please, the thread was about getting ripped off -- not about
supporting a legal position.

How can it go up?

It didn't.

How can it even stay steady?

You're assuming that costs and prices have anything to do with one
another. I'd suggest at least sitting in on an ECON 101 somewhere.

No point -- way beyond that. And it isn't relevant, because the point
isn't about those topics.

They produce less in the package than in the past (like the large
manual).
They have a more-established and more-influential distribution system.
They have more agreements with retailers and service producers than in
the past.
They have a firmer grasp of what their OS really needs to be to sell
the next version.
They still have a firm hold on the mindshare of most of their users.
They don't even have to convince users to upgrade.

All of which is irrelevant for setting prices.

No, its just irrelevant for what they can GET AWAY WITH.
All of those things are determiners of what it COSTS to make the
product -- and that is always the first point to evaluate. You can't
decide any of the rest until you know these points.


It really looks like they have been doing much less work and charging
more for it.

Except that they aren't.

Oh -- a new claim.
Why are they not? I demonstrated my examples.

So how can you suggest that Microsoft isn't grossly overcharging their
customers?


Mainly because they aren't. How can you suggest that Apple isn't when
they've made you pay $130 five times for the same OS?

For the same as the previous OS? You are really misinformed. There have
been major and serious changes in the Mac OS versions -- not small or
subtle or unimportant ones.
They provide a full, complete product for that price each time.
No second versions, no marketing of different models, just one complete
package that works one all of the hardware that OS was made for.

How often did Microsoft sell the XP Home to XP Pro upgrade?
Remember here that Microsoft's cost of development didn't change; they
just crippled one package in order to get upgrade money from some
users.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Im new to this group
    ... on Etsy, and google base, and am attempting to sell ... look at other sites and it seems prices are a lot higher that mine. ... My friends all tell me my jewelry is priced too low. ... Retail is usually about 300% of the cost. ...
    (rec.crafts.jewelry)
  • Re: Current price for used PCs
    ... >>> that prices are so low as to be near unprofitable to sell used PC's. ... >> want to sell used PCs. ... > of the PC equals the cost of fixing the old one. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Current price for used PCs
    ... He's able to sell used PC goods. ... >> that prices are so low as to be near unprofitable to sell used PC's. ... > want to sell used PCs. ... of the PC equals the cost of fixing the old one. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Announcing my new Sci-fi Book
    ... actual stores, and figured a little higher price would be ok. ... Which is ten times the manufacturing cost. ... extraordinary _high_ prices. ... I refused to play along with the "nifty new game, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Perfect Storm
    ... Fuel prices ... the cost of building materials. ... They tend to view illegals as future Dems. ... But the Shuttle program has shown the flip side of NASA, ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)