Re: bundling (again)

["Lewis A. Mettler" <lmettler@lamlaw.com>]

Joe,

Joe Moore wrote:
> 
> "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote:
> > Joe Moore wrote:
> > > Your general rule is that bundling is unfair to all consumers.  This
> > > premise is FALSE because there are consumers for whom bundling is fair.
> > > (see previous example)
> >
> > Incorrect.  The general rule is true.
> >
> > If your suggestion were acceptable (and no one can accept it) then there
> > would never be any general rules about anything because there are always
> > at least one exception.
> 
> Your statement that "bundling is unfair to all consumers" is false.
> There are consumers for whom bundling is not unfair.  There are
> exceptions to almost all generalizations and absolute statements.
> Refusing to accept that such exceptions can exist makes you look very
> slow.

Identify the class of consumers for which it is not unfair.

All you have done is stated your false conclusions.

I, on the other hand clearly explained the class of consumers for which
it is unfair AND I explained why.

You have done neither.  You have only stated your false conclusions.

> 
> > Look again at the three classes:
> >
> > 1) those who do not need the bundled product
> > 2) those who might need the bundled product but prefer to pick their
> > brand
> > 3) those who need the brand and do not want to pick their brand.
> >
> > Now.  Which of those classes are you claiming that bundling is fair?
> 
> 4) Those who choose to purchase the complete bundle because the amount
> paid for the bundle is lower than the cost of the required minimal
> functionality, if purchased separately.

And does that apply if they in fact made no choice?  I do not think so.

If they can buy all of the parts separately then and only then can you
assume they actually want to buy all of those products.  If they are not
available separately you can not make any such assessment at all.

In fact, you can not find anyone who qualifies to so claim that.

Is it important that you can IN FACT choose the package? Absolutely.

For one, you have no evidence that it is lower in cost without the proof
of separate prices determined in a fair market.  Neither can you prove
that any consumer really wanted all of them.  If given the choice they
may not have bought all of the same brand.

Your wording above is even incorrect.  It might be correct if you
include that the customer wants to buy the products all of the same
brand.  Usually, a particular vendor will price their suite less than
the separate products.  However, if you leave it in the general form as
you did, it is incorrect.  You can buy Microsoft Word for less than the
Office Pro Suite and then acquire Star Office for the rest of your
requirements.  That may be or would be a lower cost option.

So even in the case above you can not assume a benefit alludes to the
bundling.  It may not.  Plus if you buy them separately the benefits of
the various products might be greater such that the cost benefit even
favors the separate purchase of products.

Keep in mind that I have never objected to suites and packages providing
the consumer with a choice.

If the consumer does not have to buy the bundled in order to get one
application, then of course they are not harmed.  But, if the choice is
not a real one, then the above fails.

The argument above is little more than the pink Cadillac argument.  If
everyone is forced to buy pink Cadillacs, then yes they will most likely
be cheaper for you too.  But, if it is not a choice the consumer can
make or not make you only harm them.

> 
> (snip)
> > >
> > > If you would like to revise your statement to be "bundling is unfair to
> > > SOME consumers", I would accept it, as would (probably) most readers of
> > > this list.
> >
> > Sorry.  But, the proof is that it is unfair to 100% of consumers unless
> > you can accurately identify the class of consumers to which it is not
> > unfair.
> >
> > I have explained in detail how it is unfair to all classes.
> 
> Apparently, you have missed one, since there are consumers for whom
> bundling is not unfair.  Those who would choose to buy the bundle
> anyway.

Do you mean the stupid consumers?  Or, do you mean consumers who have no
idea of their own needs?

Do you also falsely conclude that all Windows 98 buyers WANTED IE?

> 
> > You have failed to even explain the exception to the general rule.
> > (There is not one.)
> 
> Err... do you not read?  Can you not understand english?  The consumers
> who would buy the bundle are not subjected to unfair bundling.  

They are if they have not in fact been given the choice.

> You are
> focusing too much on the needs of a few consumers, and ignoring another
> group.  

I have not ignored a single consumer.  Not one.

I have included 100% of all consumers in my analysis.

I fully support ALL options being available to consumers.

You are the one who thinks consumers should be denied the choice.

> There are consumers who need all the functionality a particular
> bundle provides.  They are not harmed by this bundling, nor is it unfair
> to them.

False.  Dead wrong.  I may in fact need a DBMS.  Let's just assume that
is the case.

There is still no reason what so ever that I must satisfy that need when
I buy any other product.

You truly insult consumers.

Bundling is in fact inherently unfair to consumers.

All you have done is insisted upon taking away the consumers right to
pick and choose for themselves.

You do not decide their needs.  You do not decide their timing.  You do
not decide that if they buy one product of one brand they must also
decide to buy all other products of the same brand.

I do not object to any consumer buying more than one product at a time.

I do not object to any seller putting together more than one product for
the purpose of making a special deal or package.

But that is very very different than "bundling".

Do you understand the difference between a suite of products and a
bundle?

Do you understand the difference between products only being available
if you first buy other products versus products in suites and products
also offered separately?

There is nothing wrong with Microsoft offering an Office suite.  Those
consumers who do not want all those products can and do buy what they
need.  The word "bundling" does not describe most office suites.  The
word "bundling" does not describe most development suites either.  It
does describe what Bill Gates meant to convey when he said he would just
bundle IE with the OS should anyone enter the market for an internet
browser on Windows.

-- 
Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer)
lmettler@LAMLaw.com
http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust
trial)