Re: Re: Article: Microsoft¹s Outrageous Office Profits

In article <1189702116.486787.15830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ed
<news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 13, 3:16 am, Mitch <mi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <gVXFi.33705$RX.33...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ed
<snip>
but if you're going to get 2 of those why NOT get all three, since it's
cheaper than buying two?!

Yes, that was how they made the scam look. See how effective it was?

ah, more mitch economics- "it's a SCAM to get 3 pieces software for
less than the price of two, even though you were going to get two
anyways! a SCAM i tell you!" some people would be glad to get more
for their dollar, eh? :D
Are you really this clueless?
Look, since THEY set the price for each of the three products, you
aren't getting a bargain. You are getting what they decided on in the
first place! (There is no 'cheaper' price than what they wanted from
you!) So, since they benefit if you use their products in the future,
yes, it's a scam. They have tricked you into using their tools, almost
certainly into _not_ using some competition, and even trying to tell
other people that you got a deal!

Here's the problem: the buyer may not know the particulars of whether
the package is any better than the separate deals. He may not know if
he needs to choose only from major packages. He might even be allowed
to choose from a limited list of options; most seem to be so limited.

then the buyer's not going to make good choices on individual packages
either, so what's your point?
That the worker's benefits are the important ones, not the typical
concerns (and often low understanding) that buyers have.

no, it's not. say hypothetically a purchaser has a budget of $200.
say i've told him i need a wp, spread***, and presentation software,
each available at $100. but the suite of all three is $150. i really
need the wp and spread*** on a daily basis, but only occasionally
use presentation software. if he buys the suite, i can have all
three, versus prioritizing out the presentation software.
Good example, although I'll skip the budget for now:
why, seeing that the package of three products costs (from the
publisher!) $150, do you not feel that people buying any item at $100
isn't a rip-off?
Do you see the point about tricking users into using more of their
tools than they would otherwise is a benefit to the publisher? (Note
I'm not saying he can't still get use out of the products, I'm saying
he is being tricked into giving up the choice of using another.)

Sure, you sometimes need more than just the
basic programs for a specific job, but where does this show it needs to
be the Microsoft program? (I mean, yes, a second Excel license alone
might be $300, but another spread*** might cost $80 --so they could
also get the cheaper one separately.)

these days, *maybe* (although it's still tough to get good
compatibility w/ excel (due to vba support)), back in the day (what we
were talking about), mixing and matching wasn't nearly as viable an
option- the standalone apps were closer to $500 a pop, and not nearly
as compatible with each other.
Right -- although by bringing up 'compatiility with Excel' you've
revealed another _assumed_ problem choosing a competing product. If
your company is going to use their own spreadsheets, no one needs to be
compatible with Excel. That's one of the fundamental tricks Microsoft
works so hard to keep in people's minds!

2- forofficein particular, around the time they were getting popular, it
made things like OLE available

Now, that's a great example that I wasn't including. I understand lots
of companies made good use of OLE and VBA.
The problem is, I don't know
how many of those functions actually involve more than one of the MS
apps. I had the impression most are just about Excel alone.
eh?
What I mean is, while I understand that many businesses find great uses
for scripting and app-building inside Excel, I don't hear that many
need it to interoperate with PPT. Thus, no benefit to having it in the
suite. (Because I'm really trying to keep this about whether the suite
is an important benefit, rather than specific technologies in each
app.)

Again, they may be only cheaper than the two identical MICROSOFT
programs. They are _not_ necessarily cheaper than all choices they
could be choosing from!

of course it's not cheaper than *all* packages (depends what else you
want to toss in the comparison- maybe vi and tex, eh? :P )- but this
discussion started about when ms was getting their dominance in the
office suites- what other programs (that were legit contenders then
(wp, 1-2-3, etc)) were cheaper? from my recollection of prices, and
paying out my own pocket, i recall the ms programs to be cheaper.
Alas, I probably did less price-comparison of suites those years than
did you. I didn't recall Microsoft ever being cheapest back then, but
I'll have to defer.

You're making a valid argument, it's just that it assumes that you are
only considering the Microsoft programs from the start.

no, it doesn't. i've specifically mentioned wp and 1-2-3 multiple
times.
I think I was writing about the suite issue at this point; I knew we
started comparing the Borland and Corel and whatever stuff.
I have frequently seen businesses list choices of software for their
employees, and it's alarming to see lists that have nothing but the MS
Office packages on them for software. Of course, businesses making more
complex use of the suite may have good reason for it, but when you're
talking about a secretary workstation, or marketing desk or something
away from production or research, I'd want to include choices. There
was a time when WordPerfect was well-known to business employees.

<snip>
you can feel there are better options out there for cheaper / free, but
that's a totally different point than making bogus arguments aboutoffice
causing prices to go up.

That wasn't actually my argument; it was that Microsoft didn't invent
the idea ofofficesuites, that they didn't cause prices to drop,

if *that's* your point, perhaps you should point to some actual prices
(as i've done) for the timeframe you've mentioned, eh? :D
You're right; I should emphasize the one below as my real point.
I'm not very awake yet, and can't recall any competing prices for
suites this morning; may not know any.

and
that their popularity isn't because of those other things.


.

Loading