Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

["Norm" <normanmo@clark.net>]

On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:15:51 -0500 (EST), Lewis A. Mettler wrote:

>>      AH..HA!!!  So now you're *FINALLY* getting it (albeit probably
>> without realizing it yourself).  You've been arguing about how *ALL* or
>> *ANY* bundling is harmful to consumers (and have even gone as far as to
>> claim it's against some unwritten 'consumer right'), but now you've
>> qualified it by stating that it's different when done by a
>> monopolist...with *THIS* I can agree.  
>
>It is different.  When a monopolist does it, it is also illegal.


     Then quit plugging in an argument about a monopolist when the
issue is a product not tied to a monopoly.


>
>But, fairness and harm is determined from the perspective of the
>consumer.
>
>There is in fact a lot of bundling which is not illegal.  But, that does
>not make it fair nor harmless.
>
>If you want to know if bundling is fair, break down the consumers into
>appropriate classes and ask them.
>
>Offer them a discount or sell separate products separately and see what
>they do.
>
>Microsoft Word is offered separately simply because a lot of customers
>only want and need the word processor and do not want to be forced to
>buy the suite, right?
>
>You really should ask those customers who buy just Word whether they
>would consider it unfair or harmful if only the Pro Suite with Access
>were available for purchase.
>
>Go ahead. Ask them.  They will most likely tell you they will switch to
>WordPerfect. Do you see a comparison here with the bubblegum deal?
>
>
>> This distinction (a monopolist)
>> is the defining issue, but to use it as an example for non-monopolistic
>> products is to engage in what we use to call 'pseudo-deductive
>> reasoning'.
>
>No. Not at all.
>
>I have always separated what was illegal and what was only unfair or
>harmful.

     WRONG!!!!   You're constantly using the IE/windoze marriage as an
example when trying to support your argument for products that don't
enjoy monopoly status.  They're *NOT* interchangeable.


>
>A legal act is not necessarily fair nor harmless.  To be illegal, a
>monopoly must be proven.  To be unfair or harmful, you only need to ask
>consumers what they think.
>
>For this reason, I have separated out consumers into certain classes. 
>In that way, you can easily understand how and why certain classes would
>find the act of bundling unfair or harmful regardless of whether it is
>illegal or not.
>
>Have you even bothered to ask a consumer without need for a modem if
>they want to buy browser technology?  If not, did you bother asking if
>they want a word processor or not?  Or, do you just force them to buy a
>particular brand of one regardless of their needs?  If so, I hope you do
>not hold out yourself as a consultant.  Consultants always ask the
>customer what they need as their first step. Too many people on this
>list suggest that the consumers should be flatly ignored and told what
>they must buy.


     That's nonsense, I've yet to read a post on this list in which the
poster advocated that consumers be ignored and forced to purchase a
particular 'bundle'.  Your claim is a 'red herring'.

>
>If you are still confused, read the findings of facts.  Illegal bundling
>acts almost always are unfair and harmful to consumers.  However, that
>does not mean that legal acts are not harmful or unfair.  Remember your
>logic class?  The converse of a true statement is not always true?


     Then maybe you should read it again.  Just two paragraphs above
you claim that those who don't agree with your position must then
support the opposite extreme...it ain't so.

     IMNSHO the main reason you're not getting any converts is because
your position is all the way to one extreme.  In 'real life' there are
very few 'absolutes', and your claim that *ANY* and *ALL* bundling is
harmful to *ALL* consumers just doesn't hold true.

--
 ...Cheers,

 ...Norm

***********************************************
* Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail *
* For a copy of my PGP key send me a message  *
* with "send pub_key" in the subject          *
***********************************************