Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

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

Wandered,

Wandered Inn wrote:
> 
> "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote:
> 
> > Wandered Inn wrote:
> >
> > > Really?  I'd like to hear your take on who is pushing what?
> >
> > But, what you are seeing on this list is direct product promotion by
> > suggesting that consumers should be denied logical options regarding
> > their purchase.
> 
> You're confusing this with personal preference.  Although I advocate
> Linux, I don't think everyone should use it, or for that matter, have to
> 'purchase' networking with it.
> 
> > I have never seen so many arguments for screwing consumers.
> >
> > Everyone (almost) seems to think that consumers must do this or must do
> > that.  Practically no one (save for myself) suggests that consumers
> > should have as much a say about which products are on the market as the
> > vendors do.
> 
> Thank God there's at least one sane person on this list...
> 
> >
> > In a free and open market, buyers and sellers determine which products
> > are sold.
> 
> The key there is buyers AND sellers.  The point is, there are those
> times when 'forced' bundling makes sense.  I challenge you to go out and
> buy a car without a steering wheel.  Can you?

No.  But you can buy a pickup without a bumper, pickup bed or any number
of other options.  And, you can buy the engine without the chassis.

Are there some products that have a minimum configuration?  Absolutely. 
But, that is almost never the case in computer hardware or software.

I have not advocated that all software must only be purchased as
individual routines that the consumer must somehow figure out how to
install.  Although hardware is purchased precisely in that way if that
is your choice.  And, yes, I buy MBs, chips, Simms, etc., and put
systems together all the time as many people on this list do.

What I find amazing is the suggestion that somehow consumers are
incapable of doing the same with their software.

This is a prime example of what I mean by "slow".

Why should an operating system only come with a boat load of unwanted
applications when you can buy the chip and motherboard separately.  And,
I might add that doing so usually results in a lower cost.  That is
another idea that few people on this list have the intelligence to
understand.

I make a suggestion that buying less will actually mean lower prices and
everyone jumps up and suggests that can not possibly be the case.  It is
the case in computer hardware.  It is the case in automobiles.

But, heaven forbid should that idea make its way to the consumer of
software.

> 
> How about portable radios that come with both a power cord and battery
> compartments?  How dare they bundle that cord with a radio I'm going to
> power with batteries!  Come on, just as other's have stated on this
> list, you just can't say '100% of X want Y.'  You can't make broad
> statements with the expectation that it covers 100% of every consumer.

You describe the class of consumer and I will explain how all of part of
those consumers are harmed by bundling.

We already discussed those consumers who want and do buy nothing but the
Microsoft brand. You can make the same observations about Linux buyers.

What percentage of those who buy Windows 98 are actually buying their
very first copy of IE?  Do you think they know they can get a downloaded
copy without buying Windows?  If they did do you think they would want a
discount for leaving their "second copy" at the store?

If you are already chewing a stick of gum, do you buy another one before
you are finished?  Or, if you just finished off a soda, do you tell
Burger King to hold the cola and give you a discount?

Every reasonable consumer I know of would ask for the discount and leave
the product at the store if they already have one.  Maybe they have
Navigator?  Or, if they insist upon the Microsoft brand, maybe they
already have IE?  Maybe they have IE 5.5?

What kind of "stupid logic" (and I do mean stupid logic) suggests that
any consumer should have buy any product that they already have?

Any normal consumer would accept a $1 discount if they had the option. 
But, we are talking between $35 and $75 for those options, right? 
Absolutely we are.

Yet, without fail, someone will argue that being forced to buy the
product the consumer already has is going to be cheaper.

Bull.  And, it is in fact stupid to suggest that.

Can you buy a car without tires?  Actually you can.  Most dealers will
give you some form of credit for a number of the parts of the car should
you already have them.  Or, they will suggest you buy a basic model
without all the goodies.

> 
> There's also the possibility that by bundling a two products, the cost
> is actually cheaper.  

Does the Office suite cost less than Word standalone?  I do not think
so.

You are simply making up arguments for the purpose of refusing to honor
the needs of the consumer.

> Probably why you don't see an automobile that is
> sold with or without a ashtray.  Again, HOW DARE THEY BUNDLE AN ASHTRAY
> IN MY CAR!  Why should I pay for something I won't use?  Probably
> because it cost lest to manufacture that way, and they pass the savings
> on to both the smoker and non-smoker.

This is what I mean by a stupid suggestion.

Must I really explain this?

The ashtray is an insignificant part of the automobile. It accounts for
less than .02% of the cost of the car.

Yet there are those on this list that suggest (based upon the logic that
everyone buys ashtrays) that all consumers must buy IE which accounts
for anywhere from 30% to 70% of the cost of Windows 98 and cost half a
billion in R&D.

Why should anyone have to explain the stupidity of this "ashtray"
argument?

I also doubt you can find a single consumer who does not bust out
laughing if that is the excuse you give for making them spend $35 to
$140 more for their computer when they already have a browser.

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