Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
> >Martin Ling wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:26:04AM -0400, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> > > the evidence showing that the only other potentially comparable OS
> >that is cheaper is actually a 'free' OS that typically costs you $50 on a
> >CD (windows typically costs about $89.00 on CD-ROM).
> > >As a quick point (I am writing other replies to this thread).
> > >Although said free OS can be aquired for $50 on CD, it can also be
> > > aquired on CD for $2, or often given away free. I don't think it's fair
> > > to say it's 'typically' bought for $50.
> >I bought SuSe on a CD that was part of a linux book, that retailed for
> >$49.00. I bought it on remainder at a used book store for $15. A used
> >dual processor server I just bought from a guy for $50 happened to have
> >a Red Hat cd stuck in the drive (and he just moved out to Arizona, oh
> >well ;) ), so you could say i got that for free. But I doubt that most
> >people are as cheap as I am.
> Well for those who still think that there's no lunch like a free one, they
> can chow down at:
from that site, I quote:
"The following FTP sites offer the Linux Kernel, assorted distributions,
software applications, drivers, documentation, and more. Although Linux is
"free", not all distributions are free for
the taking. Some versions may be downloaded at no charge. Virtually all
distributions are also available for purchase on CD or floppy disk. Please refer
to our Linux Retailer page for
more information. "
As I have stated, the fact is that the only version of linux that is anywhere
near being as easy to install as windows is (and thus the only one qualified to
be price compared for similar value), is the Corel release, CLOS, which retails
for $59.00 for the basic and $89.00 for the delux edtion. These prices are very
much in line with the prices for windows' various flavors, so the original
argument, which I contested Judge Jackson's claim that consumers were harmed by
having to pay more for Windows (and thus any OS) than they should have had to.
This demonstration is totally leaving aside the fact that the case does not
recognize new developments in the market, it merely looks at the market at the
time that the suit was submitted, as a snapshot of frozen time. At the time of
the original suit, the primary competitors were MacOS, OS/2, and various
commercial flavors of Unix, all of which retailed at far higher prices than
Windows did. At that time, Apple had a monopoly on the market for
motorola-compatible PC's, to an even greater extent than MS can have ever been
said to dominate the Intel-compatible market.
The original basis for the suit, which was the bundling charge for including IE
for free, has now been tossed, since its been shown that giving consumers a
product for free does not harm them, it only harms competitors, and while there
may be charges pending for dumping violations, that is not part of anti-trust
law at all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:05 MDT