Re: one more thing
From: sms admin \(real name david manor\) (notlikely@you.com)
Date: 11/09/02
- Next message: paul.nicholas2@ntlworld.com: "help"
- Previous message: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]: "Re: 143 pages on this newsgroup alone"
- In reply to: Rob Walker: "one more thing"
- Next in thread: Karl Levinson [x y] mvp: "Re: one more thing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "sms admin \(real name david manor\)" <notlikely@you.com> Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 12:15:54 -0500
and stop whining, already. good lord, get a life. there are alternatives
to microsoft products. if you're too lazy or limited to try them, i hardly
see how it's microsoft's fault.
"Rob Walker" <robwalker785@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:24a101c28807$9079df90$3bef2ecf@TKMSFTNGXA10...
> Microsoft is where they are today not because they
> produce good quality products but because they are very
> good at marketing and spin. Good marketing and spin can
> easily cover up all the skeletons and rotten worms.
> Because they are a monopoly that is very good at
> marketing and spin, they are able to take advantage of
> consumers and get away with it. For example, they are
> able overcharge consumers for bad and defective softwares
> and take advantage of them with never-ending rounds of
> software upgrades of little or no value. If you use their
> Windows and their Office suites, you can easily see that
> every second major upgrade of their software almost
> certainly mean an unnecessary hardware upgrade as well.
> This is because we, the consumers, have to pay for the
> slow and inefficient programs created by Microsoft. I
> believe that Microsoft is the most up front monopolistic
> underhanded don't give a damn about consumers or their
> rights company on the market today..
>
> Microsoft's Cost of Producing Software
> Now, for Microsoft's case, it is obvious that with their
> marginal cost of less than a few dollars per shrink-
> wrapped software product (in the case of OEM distribution
> and volume licensing, it actually is ZERO, since the
> licensee pays for any packaging and distribution), they
> have massive market power since they can charge hundreds
> of times above marginal costs for many of their
> softwares. Therefore, with economies of scale and
> negligible marginal cost, the more software they sell,
> the lower the average cost Let me give you a hypothetical
> example. Suppose it cost you $1 million to develop
> software called Doors (Fixed Cost). That $1 million
> includes programming, equipment, administrative,
> advertising, marketing and other overhead costs. Also,
> suppose that it cost you, on average with economies of
> scale, $1 to produce each shrink-wrapped package of Doors
> (Marginal Cost). Suppose you are bad at marketing and
> manage only to sell 1 copy of Doors. What is the average
> cost of each copy of Doors you sell? The answer is
> $1,000,001. If you sell 2 copies of Doors, what is the
> average cost? The answer is $500,001. If you sell 10
> million copies of Doors, what is the average cost? The
> answer is $1.10!!
> So, what is the lesson here? As Microsoft increase sales
> of their softwares, the average cost of producing each
> copy of these softwares declines.
>
>
>
> How did Microsoft Set the Price of Their Software?
> But have we ever seen Microsoft reduce prices for their
> software products (even when we take into account
> inflation) and pass the savings of declining average cost
> to their customers? No! In fact, the opposite is true.
> Look at how prices for the Windows operating systems
> steadily increase over the years! Windows XP is yet the
> most expensive operating system Microsoft has ever
> produced. Why is Microsoft able to do that? The answer is
> obvious. They are a profit-maximizing monopoly i.e. they
> set price such that maximum profit is yielded. In order
> to maximize their profit even more, they cut costs
> further by cutting corners and do not bother to improve
> their software much. Also, ask yourself this question:
> why are the costs of Microsoft software (that are bundled
> with new computers) consuming a larger and larger
> proportion of a new PC's price?
>
>
>
- Next message: paul.nicholas2@ntlworld.com: "help"
- Previous message: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]: "Re: 143 pages on this newsgroup alone"
- In reply to: Rob Walker: "one more thing"
- Next in thread: Karl Levinson [x y] mvp: "Re: one more thing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
