"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't really know why and I don't particularly care. I think it has a
> lot to do with support costs and may also have to do with the type of deals
> Microsoft offers.
It has nothing to do with support costs. It has everything to do with
the types of deals that MS offers. In particular, MS won't (wouldn't)
sell a company Windows software at OEM prices unless they payed for a
copy of Windows for *every* computer they sold.
> The point is, they do. And there's nothing unusual, immoral, or
> problemmatic about it.
If MS weren't effectively a monopoly, you'd be right. That's not the
case. A computer OEM can't hope to survive without offering
Windows. They can't hope to survive if they are paying retail for
Windows while their competition is paying OEM prices. MS was using
their market dominance to coerce consumers who into paying for their
software when they didn't want it.
The latter is problemmatic, unusual and definitely immoral. More to
the point, it's illegal. It's also typical of MS marketing ever since
IBM created a market for MS to dominate.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
