Re: Bundling and operating systems

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

Eric Lee Green wrote:
> 
> Some interesting notes:

<snip>

> 
> 2) Every modern operating system currently being shipped comes with a network
> stack built-in, due to customer demand for the Internet. At least half of the
> customers out there want Internet capability.  In fact, the iMac's main reason
> for success is its easy Internet connectability -- without Internet capability,
> or with more-diffficult Internet connectability (i.e., that required installing
> extra-cost software), it wouldn't sell. That's reality.
> 
> There is something called "incremental costs" that applies here -- when a
> large percentage of the customers wants an add-on to the product (let's say
> 50%, a reasonable estimate of computer users who want Internet access), it is
> cheaper  from a manufacturer's point of view to integrate the two and sell them
> as one product, due to the accounting, packaging, and stocking costs associated
> with keeping the second product separate.  This, for example, is why SCO now
> bundles Internet connectivity into their Unix -- it was once separate, but
> keeping it separate after more than 50% of customers wanted it caused immense
> stocking and accounting problems, as well as being an inconvenience to
> customers. In addition to saving money for the software manufacturer, it
> also saves the average consumer money. If the incremental cost of the second
> component is $5, I have to charge a minimum of $29.95 on the retail market in
> order to cover the costs of packaging, charge-backs, returns, etc.  If I
> instead raise the cost of the final product by $10, I both make more money on
> average, and the average computer user saves $20.
> 
> In short: When Lewis A. Mettler states that bundling harms consumers, he is
> correct only when said bundling reduces consumer choice. 

Which it always does.

Can Windows buyers choose Lantastic as their only network or must they
first purchase the Microsoft brand and then purchase Lantastic?


> And bundling only
> reduces consumer choice when no alternatives are allowed. 

False. Harm is caused on the day of purchase.  See the Bill Gates Story.

Why do you continue to insist upon harming consumers?

> For example, Red Hat
> Linux comes with not one, not two, but THREE browsers -- Lynx, Netscape, and
> the KDE "Konquerer" file manager/web browser.  And as an OEM, I could bundle yet
> another browser (Opera?) as the default browser in place of, or in addition to,
> the other browsers.  Bundling in order to serve the customer is just that -- a
> service to the customer, and one which, for much-demanded components, saves
> customers money on the average due to the lower packaging, stocking, and
> accounting costs.

If the market for browsers is completely ruined then multiple brands
could be forced upon the consumer at their possible harm.  Most
companies DO NOT WANT MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF THE SAME SOFTWARE TO SUPPORT.

Why do you continue to refuse to honor the basic right of consumers?

You yourself insist upon your right.

Why do you refuse to honor other consumers?

> 
> Which points to Microsoft's licensing policies as the problem, not their
> bundling of Internet Explorer.  

See the Bill Gates story.  Licensing had nothing to do with it.

Bill Gates was financially harm on the day he bought that PC.

The rest of this garbage is snipped.

<snip>

Please disclose why you continue to refuse to respect the consumers
choice of products.

It is painfully obvious that you refuse any rights consumers might
have.  All we do not know is "why?".

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