Discussion of WMC & Windows Versions (& pickles)

[adam1991]

End users pay for every penny of the profits of Google and Facebook.

[hmmurdock]

*Sigh* So, I didn't say it here as well before that? http://www.thegreenbutton.tv/forums/vie ... 147#p61147

Or, are you gonna start another tirade disavowing yourself of any fault on this as well? I'm pretty sure I know what your answer is.

You keep calling me a troll - I won't argue over whether or not I am - we will get no where based on your past behavior - but this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black then.

No it would appear that you didn't. Those words you quoted yourself as saying? You didn't actually say them before. Troll or not. The liar part is pretty definitive. I can prove that you didn't say those words before. I simple search of this thread proves that the post I quoted was the first time those words appeared in the thread.

Edit: Liar remark redacted.

[hmmurdock]

Or did you mean that all those stories about Microsoft spending millions on projects like the Kin phone, or writing off the billions that they invested in the aQuantive web advertising agency, didn't happen, because in your universe, companies don't "eat costs".

Sure, companies eat costs all the time.

Great example of the Kin. Microsoft took a bath on that one didn't they? I guess that means the Kin was free too, right?

[staknhalo]

*Sigh* So, I didn't say it here as well before that? http://www.thegreenbutton.tv/forums/vie ... 147#p61147

Or, are you gonna start another tirade disavowing yourself of any fault on this as well? I'm pretty sure I know what your answer is.

You keep calling me a troll - I won't argue over whether or not I am - we will get no where based on your past behavior - but this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black then.

No it would appear that you didn't. Those words you quoted yourself as saying? You didn't actually say them before. Troll or not. The liar part is pretty definitive. I can prove that you didn't say those words before. I simple search of this thread proves that the post I quoted was the first time those words appeared in the thread.

This guy, lol.

Alright, well if you do it now, like I say, I will agree and leave it at that. Will you?

[hmmurdock]

Your argument might just be inane, if the PRICE of Windows was even slightly related to the COST to Microsoft of producing and supporting it. But it's not - the PRICE of Windows is based solely on Microsoft's judgement of what the market will bear.

Still waiting for proof on this claim.

[hmmurdock]

This guy, lol.

Alright, well if you do it now, like I say, I will agree and leave it at that. Will you?

Ok. After searching a third time, I did find it. Not sure how I missed it the first two times, but you did indeed say it once. Liar remark is rescinded. My apologies.

That being said, I'd still like a simple yes or no answer...

I can go to McDonalds and buy a hamburger for $.89 and a cheeseburger for $.99 is the cheese free?

[staknhalo]

Whatever you think is the right answer, I agree.

I admit no one here knows for certain if WMC cost customers anything before Windows 8.

Discussion of WMC & Windows Versions (& pickles)

Lol.

[hmmurdock]

That being said, I'd still like a simple yes or no answer...

I can go to McDonalds and buy a hamburger for $.89 and a cheeseburger for $.99 is the cheese free?

[staknhalo]

no.

[hmmurdock]

no.

Ok, if the cheese isn't free, is it unreasonable to suggest that WMC wasn't free either?

Let's forego the pedantic stuff. No absolute certainties necessary. No knowing beyond any reasonable doubt. Just looking at reasonable conclusions. Is it reasonable to suggest (nothing definitive, mind you, just to suggest) that WMC wasn't free?

[staknhalo]

no not at all. goodnight.

[foxwood]

We can infer approximate value of features based on cost increase but since there are many, many more differences between editions besides just WMC, we can't say it costs X amount. And the exact value is irrelevant anyway as it is pretty daft to suggest that Microsoft is just eating the cost of anything. Those costs are always passed on to the consumer.

Your argument might just be inane, if the PRICE of Windows was even slightly related to the COST to Microsoft of producing and supporting it. But it's not - the PRICE of Windows is based solely on Microsoft's judgement of what the market will bear.

Okay, I'll play staknhalo for a moment...

Prove it.

You can prove it yourself, it's all in Microsoft's public accounts. The fact that the PRICE charged to different categories of customer varies enormously for exactly the same product might also help you get your head around the concept that PRICE and COST aren't always closely coupled.

Of course, someone who can only understand the world from a "do you want fries with that" point of view might struggle with the concept that the marginal cost of software is pretty much zero (it doesn't cost any more to write a program that will be used by a million people rather than a thousand whereas it costs about a thousand times as much to produce a million hamburgers than a thousand hamburgers).

Now if you want to argue that the price of Windows includes the cost of the toilet paper used by Microsoft staff in Redmond, because fundamentally, that's what Richards case is, go right ahead. If you want to campaign for the removal of the word "free" from and transaction that involves a commercial entity, be my guest. But admit that you're actually disagreeing with the way everyone else in America uses the term when they say "buy one get one free" or "20% extra free" or "free gift included". I might even agree with you that there's a problem with "500 free minutes", but that's how the word is used.

[foxwood]

How about "buy a hamburger, get a 2nd one free"?

Thanks for proving my point for me.

I provided a concrete example. It's real. I can go to McDonalds and buy those burgers for those prices right now. You and halo continue to rely on hypotheticals.

What's hypothetical about a "buy one, get one free" hamburger. My Sunday paper includes a coupon for exactly that, from McDonalds.

A concrete example that you conveniently ignore.

[hmmurdock]

You can prove it yourself, it's all in Microsoft's public accounts. The fact that the PRICE charged to different categories of customer varies enormously for exactly the same product might also help you get your head around the concept that PRICE and COST aren't always closely coupled.

Of course, someone who can only understand the world from a "do you want fries with that" point of view might struggle with the concept that the marginal cost of software is pretty much zero (it doesn't cost any more to write a program that will be used by a million people rather than a thousand whereas it costs about a thousand times as much to produce a million hamburgers than a thousand hamburgers).

Now if you want to argue that the price of Windows includes the cost of the toilet paper used by Microsoft staff in Redmond, because fundamentally, that's what Richards case is, go right ahead. If you want to campaign for the removal of the word "free" from and transaction that involves a commercial entity, be my guest. But admit that you're actually disagreeing with the way everyone else in America uses the term when they say "buy one get one free" or "20% extra free" or "free gift included". I might even agree with you that there's a problem with "500 free minutes", but that's how the word is used.

A couple of points...

1) Just because the cost and the price aren't directly coupled, doesn't mean that the price isn't affected by the cost. If adding a $0.10 piece of cheese to a burger only raises the price of the burger $0.05, does that mean the cheese was free? From where I stand, it doesn't really matter what the increase is, if there is an increase, it isn't free.

2) I'm well aware of the difference between burgers and software,I chose burgers because it is a simple example that everyone can relate to. Sorry it wasn't up to your standards. That being said, it doesn't really matter if you're trying to recoup your costs on a single purchase or over millions of purchases in the context of this discussion. The objective of every company that I'm aware of is to turn a profit. Last I checked that magic "profit" equation included something called "overhead" which most people know as "costs"

If you asked a beancounter at Microsoft how much money they netted on Vista, do you think they could tell you a dollar amount? I bet they can. Do you think that value accounts for development costs? I bet it does. Do you think those development costs include things like Paint, Wordpad and WMC? I bet it does. If Microsoft considers it to be part of the cost of Windows, why wouldn't you?

Now, if you want to argue that the cost of developing WMC is passed on to XBox consumers instead of Windows consumers, I'm willing to give that argument a listen. (iirc the eHome group was actually part of the XBox group, but I'm not sure if that happened before or after Windows 7 was finished)

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that most of America considers "free" to mean, "no additional charge." I didn't think that was even being debated. It just looked like to me, richard was trying to clarify the "proper" definition of free and some people didn't want to accept that.

[foxwood]

But I'll tell you what, if you'll concede that in all likelihood Microsoft included the cost of WMC in with Windows Vista and 7, then I'll happily concede that the difference in that and "free" is meaningless.

Why the conditionality? You either believe that the difference is meaningless or you don't.

Unless you're offering to agree that I was right, as long as I agree that I was wrong first.

[hmmurdock]

What's hypothetical about a "buy one, get one free" hamburger. My Sunday paper includes a coupon for exactly that, from McDonalds.

A concrete example that you conveniently ignore.

"Buy one get one free" is just a hypothetical.

"Buy one get one free" all by itself is no different than "Buy one, bet eleventy billion free" It's just something you've made up. In your mind it may be based on something real and tangible, but if you haven't gone to the trouble to connect it to reality in this discussion, I'm not going to go to the trouble of addressing it.

"Buy one get one free at McDonalds with a coupon from my Sunday paper" is a real, concrete example. So allow me to retort....

No, "Buy one get one free at McDonalds" isn't free. You're still paying for the burger. It might be at a discount, and it might not be proportional to other burgers offered at McDonalds, but you're still paying for both burgers.

[hmmurdock]

But I'll tell you what, if you'll concede that in all likelihood Microsoft included the cost of WMC in with Windows Vista and 7, then I'll happily concede that the difference in that and "free" is meaningless.

Why the conditionality? You either believe that the difference is meaningless or you don't.

Oh just a little trick I learned from halo. Its one of his negotiation tactics. It's a great way to posture and act like you're trying to meet halfway without actually giving anything up. Ask him all about it or refer to his all caps posts (if the mods haven't uncapified them yet)

Unless you're offering to agree that I was right, as long as I agree that I was wrong first.

Well, actually yes. But to be fair, I was offering to agree that you were right about one point, if you'd agree to being wrong about a different point, so it's not as silly as you make it seem.

[foxwood]

1) Just because the cost and the price aren't directly coupled, doesn't mean that the price isn't affected by the cost. If adding a $0.10 piece of cheese to a burger only raises the price of the burger $0.05, does that mean the cheese was free? From where I stand, it doesn't really matter what the increase is, if there is an increase, it isn't free.

FFS, will you give over with the cheese thing!!! Cheese has a fixed unit cost - it has no relevance in a discussion about software.

WMC is more correctly viewed as an overhead. It's not the difference between an 89 cent hamburger and a 99 cent cheeseburger, it's the difference between a 99 cent cheeseburger in an air conditioned McDs and a 99 cent cheeseburger at an outdoor food truck on a 95 degree day - is the air conditioning free?

I don't care if you think that's a hypothetical example - the point is that it's a relevant example, and your cheeseburger example isn't.

Even Richard admitted that the reason for the cost of the Media Center Pack in Win 8 wasn't to pay for WMC itself, it was to pay for the 3rd party codecs that Microsoft decided were no longer a fundamental requirement for a Windows machine in 2012.

[choliscott]

IMO, I feel that if its listed as a separate purchase then I paid for the feature in question. W8 being the first & Vista being the other. Remember Vista Home basic didn't come with WMC, but Vista Home Premium did. If I remember the difference being $20-$30, so I would feel that part of the difference would be the cost of WMC, along with the other features that was a part of Vista Home premium & not under Home Basic.

For W7, I would feel WMC was free, but instead paid for features that was either a) part of Home Premium & not Home Basic or b) part of Professional/Ultimate, but not under Home Premium. For example, 2 bigger features added to W7 Professional was Remote desktop (you could not use remote desktop to connect to a machine running home premium) & XP mode. I would feel that I was paying for these 2 features, however I probably couldn't decided if each feature was "$50 each" or remote desktop was $30 & XP mode was $70, etc

[foxwood]

Well, actually yes. But to be fair, I was offering to agree that you were right about one point, if you'd agree to being wrong about a different point, so it's not as silly as you make it seem.

No, it's fundamentally the same point. You just tried to dress it up as two different points to make you look more reasonable.