Re: bundling (again)

[Joe Moore <Joe.Moore@sdrc.com>]

"Lewis A. Mettler" wrote:
> Let's assume even more facts that you have allowed in your suggestion
> that some consumers are not harmed by bundling.
> 
> Joe Moore wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> 
> Let's assume that a particular customer wants to only purchase Microsoft
> products.
A reasonable assumption in some circumstances.

> Let's assume that a particular customer also wants an OS and a browser.
Fine.

> Now.  Your argument is that since the bundle costs less than buying the
> two products separately, that consumer is not harmed, right?
No, my argument is that the bundle of the OS with a browser is not
_unfair_ to that customer.

> What if they only have enough money for one of them on the day they
> purchase?  Have you not forced them to either borrow money or not buy at
> all?  Yes, you have.  You caused harm.
So, by charging money for software, the industry is harming moneyless
consumers?  Thank you RMS.

> What if they want their browser to work best in conjunction with some
> other package (a web server or some other application like a billing
> package)?  Have you harmed them?  Yes, you have.
Then Windows + IE is NOT the combination they want.  We have assumed
that the customer wants an OS and a browser.  We have also assumed that
they want to buy only Microsoft products.  The logical conclustion is
that they want to buy a Microsoft Browser.  If the Microsoft browser is
not what they wanted, they either need to complain to M$ for a bugfix or
reevaluate their requirements.

> What if the "required minimal functionality" does not come in any
> bundle?  What if you need a browser but not IE?  What if you are not
> sure what browser you will need (next week) and you want to wait until
> you ascertain your browser requirements?  Are you harmed then?
If a consumer fits the assumptions above, they want to buy IE, which is
Microsoft's only browser.

> What if you already own a browser?  Are you still stupid enough to buy
> the bundle?  Most consumers are not.
No.  There should be a choice.  That wasn't the point.  The point (in
case you've forgotten what you're talking about) is that bundling is NOT
unfair to ALL consumers.

> Is there a difference to you in the "cost of the required minimal
> functionality" if you already have some of those applications?  What
> percent of new computer users already have a browser?  5%?  2%?  10%?
> Or, do you suppose it is closer to 50-60% or more?  Why are they being
> forced to buy the bundle?
Yes, the "cost of the required minimal functionality" should not include
the repurchase price of applications, if the license terms allow the
migration of that application to the new system.  If the license does
not allow moving the application, then you lose the rights to use the
software when you upgrade, and so that cost should be counted (maybe
twice, depending on how smart your accountant is)

> Your "exception" above fails in most cases.
Most?  I don't care if an exception fails in most cases.  Exceptions
are, by definition, a relatively small number.  But they do disprove
rules that refer to ALL consumers.

> If you already have a copy of Word, should you be required to buy
> another in order to get Excell?
> If you already have a copy of IE, should you be required to buy it yet
> again in order to upgrade your OS?
No, and No.  But the license for IE specifically ties it to a single OS
installation.  Microsoft DOES require you to buy it yet again.  But
that's another issue.

> Why do you think Microsoft distributes IE separately and independently
> of any OS?  
I don't know, nor do I care.  Probably to gain revenue, to make the Nth
quarter books look better.

> Why do you think that you have to buy IE in order to get an
> OS but not the other way around?
Err.... IE5 will run on Windows 3.1?

> Your exception above fails to take that into account.  If you need a 
> browser and an OS, then you should rightly be forced to buy both with 
> you buy one of them, right?  That is the bundling you are referring to.
Err... No, If a consumer needs a Microsoft browser and OS, then bundling
the two together is NOT unfair to that consumer.

> But Microsoft does not do that.
> They do not require that you always buy both at the same time at all.
> They only require that you always buy IE.
So?  This is not relevant to this argument.

> And, as has been pointed out, if you already have a copy of IE, you are
> a fool for buying it yet again.
Except that if you install IE on the new computer, you are breaking the
license agreement, and are subject to software piracy prosecution.

> So, even in the above so called exception, consumers are in fact harmed.
This conclusion is not justified.  You have given no evidence about the
above exception.

> All products must be sold separately (or at least that option made
> available to the individual buyer) or they are harmed.
How are products harmed?  When sentences have parenthetical comments,
they should not affect the grammatical structure, and may be ignored by
the reader.  You should not define the antecedant of "they" in a
parenthetical comment.  Did you write like this in law school?  Did you
pass?

--Joe

-- 
IBM's vision is apparently to make IBM hardware "scream with Microsoft 
software" --The Register,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/990927-000003.html

I have visions of screaming with (at and about) Microsoft software, too.