Discussion of WMC & Windows Versions (& pickles)

[adam1991]

I can go buy a hamburger for $.89 or a cheeseburger for $.99 Are you really going to suggest that the cheese on the cheeseburger is free?

I'm just going to keep quoting this.

[staknhalo]

Except that there are no 2 identical versions of the same release of Windows with only WMC removed to use that comparison on. But Vista Business cost the same as 7 Professional which included WMC - that's the closest you're gonna get and supports what me and foxwood are saying.

Windows Media Center has been free for customers before Windows 8 because it never drove the price of Windows up or down for customers and Microsoft never raised the price of Windows versions from Vista + for customers.

[hmmurdock]

Except that there are no 2 identical versions of the same release of Windows with only WMC removed to use that comparison on.

So you're saying that because we don't know the exact value that it has zero value? That's an interesting leap.

How much do pickles drive up the price of a burger at McDonalds?

Windows Media Center has been free for customers before Windows 8 because it obviously never drove the price of Windows up for customers and Microsoft never charged customers for it based on what their past pricing for multiple versions/families of Windows taken form the present and past pricing; bottom line.

And you're speculating and stating it as a fact. You don't know if Microsoft charged customers for WMC based on their past pricing or not. The versions that included WMC were indeed more expensive than those without. That increase could have been WMC it could have been other components, it could be arbitrary pricing, but you don't know that they didn't so stop stating it as if you do.

You're still just arguing in circles because you refuse to acknowledge that richard's original assertion was right.

Do you think that MS just ate the cost of developing WMC, the cost of the licensing, and the cost of the guide data, or do you think it was passed on to the customers? It's not a hard question. It's no false dichotomy. Either MS paid for it or the consumers did. Who do you think paid for it?

[staknhalo]

Except that there are no 2 identical versions of the same release of Windows with only WMC removed to use that comparison on.

So you're saying that because we don't know the exact value that it has zero value? That's an interesting leap.

How much do pickles drive up the price of a burger at McDonalds?

Windows Media Center has been free for customers before Windows 8 because it obviously never drove the price of Windows up for customers and Microsoft never charged customers for it based on what their past pricing for multiple versions/families of Windows taken form the present and past pricing; bottom line.

And you're speculating and stating it as a fact. You don't know if Microsoft charged customers for WMC based on their past pricing or not. The versions that included WMC were indeed more expensive than those without. That increase could have been WMC it could have been other components, it could be arbitrary pricing, but you don't know that they didn't so stop stating it as if you do.

Then none of you can know either that Microsoft passed the cost of WMC on to customers and need to stop claiming that as well. If you want to leave it at no one knows if WMC cost customers anything before Windows 8 - I'll be fine with that.

And again, Vista Business is the equivalent of 7 Pro. Vista Business didn't have WMC, 7 Pro did. The price didn't change for customers. This implies there was never any charge to the customers for WMC.

Do you think that MS just ate the cost of developing WMC, the cost of the licensing, and the cost of the guide data, or do you think it was passed on to the customers? It's not a hard question. It's no false dichotomy. Either MS paid for it or the consumers did. Who do you think paid for it?

I think they ate it. Loss leader. Gets people tied to Windows (or was the plan).

[hmmurdock]

I think they ate it. Loss leader. Gets people tied to Windows (or was the plan).

Do you think pickles are a loss leader too? Do you think they put free pickles on burgers to get people hooked?

Loss leaders are typically marketed heavily. That's the whole point, they're a marketing tool. How hard did MS promote WMC, even at it's peak?

You just can't ever bring yourself to admit that richard was right, can you? You'll go in whatever asinine direction you can to avoid the simple truth.

[staknhalo]

I think they ate it. Loss leader. Gets people tied to Windows (or was the plan).

Do you think pickles are a loss leader too? Do you think they put free pickles on burgers to get people hooked?

They can be if the person selling the burgers wants them to be. Nothing excludes them from being a loss leader. You seem to think pickles can never, ever, anywhere in the world be a loss leader. Explain what precludes them from being a loss leader then the world over? Would the universe collapse on itself if someone suddenly started selling pickles as a loss leader on a hamburger and didn't charge for the price of the pickles?

Unless you were the one selling Windows, you can't tell me if WMC was or wasn't a loss leader. Like I said, I'll agree to 'no one can know if WMC cost anything to customers or not before Windows 8' if you all want to agree to that as well.

But seeing as you all insist there was a charge - things like the discrepancy between Vista Business and 7 Pro (as well as other facts) completely contradict what you all are 'claiming to know'.

Loss leaders are typically marketed heavily. That's the whole point, they're a marketing tool. How hard did MS promote WMC, even at it's peak?

Whether it was marketed or not in no way shape or form proves if it was a loss leader or not. People happen stumble upon it in Windows - after a while they can't live without it and want every new version. Suddenly your loss leader just did what you intended it to do. Without marketing.

You just can't ever bring yourself to admit that richard was right, can you? You'll go in whatever asinine direction you can to avoid the simple truth.

If he could prove he was right, I would admit it. He hasn't. He even switched part of his argument. Me and foxwood have been saying the same thing from the start. So, show me how I "have been going in every direction to avoid the truth", please.

It sounds to me like you jumped the gun picked a side too soon and are now trying to save face as well.

[hmmurdock]

They can be if the person selling the burgers wants them to be. Nothing excludes them from being a loss leader. You seem to think pickles can never, ever, anywhere in the world be a loss leader. Explain what precludes them from being a loss leader then the world over? Would the universe collapse on itself if someone suddenly started selling pickles as a loss leader on a hamburger and didn't charge for the price of the pickles?

Common sense, and basic economics. Two things which you refuse to acknowledge.

Sure, hypothetically, Microsoft could have sunk billions heck... why not trillions, since we're in fantasy land, and eaten the cost. It could work that way, if we assume that Microsoft operates differently from every other successful company in the world, then yeah, you're totally right, they could have been giving WMC away fro free, and not passing a penny of their costs on to the consumers. That's certianly a non-zero probability. There is absolutely no evidence to point to that, or even suggest it. But it is a possibility. No denying that.

However if we stick to common sense and basic economics, its a pretty reasonable conclusion that Microsoft included the cost of WMC in Windows ever since Vista, passing it on to the consumer just like every other successful business has done since the inception of capitalism.

So if you're looking for an acknowledgement that your fantasy scenario could be true. Consider it done. If you're hoping to convince someone that your fantasy scenario is what Microsoft actually put into practice, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Because you're trying to convince people that the cheese on the cheeseburger is free, and we all know that isn't true. "Included in the package price" isn't the same as "free" no matter how much you try and say otherwise.

[staknhalo]

They can be if the person selling the burgers wants them to be. Nothing excludes them from being a loss leader. You seem to think pickles can never, ever, anywhere in the world be a loss leader. Explain what precludes them from being a loss leader then the world over? Would the universe collapse on itself if someone suddenly started selling pickles as a loss leader on a hamburger and didn't charge for the price of the pickles?

Common sense, and basic economics. Two things which you refuse to acknowledge.

Sure, hypothetically, Microsoft could have sunk billions heck... why not trillions, since we're in fantasy land, and eaten the cost. It could work that way, if we assume that Microsoft operates differently from every other successful company in the world, then yeah, you're totally right, they could have been giving WMC away fro free, and not passing a penny of their costs on to the consumers. That's certianly a non-zero probability. There is absolutely no evidence to point to that, or even suggest it. But it is a possibility. No denying that.

However if we stick to common sense and basic economics, its a pretty reasonable conclusion that Microsoft included the cost of WMC in Windows ever since Vista, passing it on to the consumer just like every other successful business has done since the inception of capitalism.

So if you're looking for an acknowledgement that your fantasy scenario could be true. Consider it done. If you're hoping to convince someone that your fantasy scenario is what Microsoft actually put into practice, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Because you're trying to convince people that the cheese on the cheeseburger is free, and we all know that isn't true. "Included in the package price" isn't the same as "free" no matter how much you try and say otherwise.

Common sense if used after looking at the current and past pricing on previous and current versions of Windows along with the knowledge of what a loss leader is and how it works (a basic principle of basic economics) work against your guy's argument. Many things which you all refuse to acknowledge.

Try and look smart all you want. You have egg on your face just like the rest.

Microsoft could have charged for WMC - but all the actual provided evidence shows they didn't. You haven't provided any proof they did aside from flimsy arguments easily disproven and bullcrap arguemnts to try and sound smart and make others think you know what you are talking about - when you in particular are talking out of your ass. Bringing up pickles like that is going to prove your case. Lol

Which brings me to what you said previously:

You're still just arguing in circles because you refuse to acknowledge that richard's original assertion was right.

You all refuse to acknowledge foxwoods original assertion was right with which richard didn't agree with and started this all - we have provided links and proof to support our claims and arguments; none of you have provided any proof there was a charge for WMC aside from your words alone - which doesn't mean crap seeing as none of you were the ones working on the development/selling of WMC or Windows; so it's nothing but conjecture on your part because you can't provide any proof to support your claims aside from 'nuh-uh'.

Again - if you want to admit no one knows if there was a charge for WMC before Windows 8 - I'll agree - but you even snidely say up above:

However if we stick to common sense and basic economics, its a pretty reasonable conclusion that Microsoft included the cost of WMC in Windows ever since Vista, passing it on to the consumer just like every other successful business has done since the inception of capitalism.

So if you're looking for an acknowledgement that your fantasy scenario could be true. Consider it done. If you're hoping to convince someone that your fantasy scenario is what Microsoft actually put into practice, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Because you're trying to convince people that the cheese on the cheeseburger is free, and we all know that isn't true. "Included in the package price" isn't the same as "free" no matter how much you try and say otherwise.

Proving you will not allow yourself to ever admit you are or even legitimately could be wrong. You have to say "I could be wrong, but I'm obviously not - you are" It's no mystery why you are not persuading anyone with your 'knowledge'.


YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO ADMIT MY CLAIMS COULD BE TRUE - IF ALL OF YOU JUST SAY "NO ONE KNOWS IF THERE WAS A CHARGE FOR WMC BEFORE WINDOWS 8" - AND THAT ALONE, WITH NO SNIDE COMMENTS ASSERTING YOU ARE ACTUALLY RIGHT OR SUCH, I WILL AGREE AND LEAVE IT AT THAT.

But you all want to keep assuming you are so much 'smarter' and 'better' and 'knowledgeable' and 'really know the truth'.

[hmmurdock]

Common sense if used after looking at the current and past pricing on previous versions of Windows along with the knowledge of what a loss leader is and how it works (a basic principle of basic economics) work against your guy's argument. Many things which you all refuse to acknowledge.

Try and look smart all you want. You have egg on your face just like the rest.

Microsoft could have charged for WMC - but all the actual provided evidence shows they didn't. You haven't provided any proof they did aside from flimsy arguments easily disproven and nonsense arguemnts to try and sound smart and make others think you know what you are talking about - when you in particular are talking out of your butt. Bringing up pickles like that is going to prove your case. Lol

Actually the pricing shows nothing. It can be used to bolster either argument depending on how you want to cherry pick your numbers. Richard showed where, editions of Windows that included WMC cost more than Windows editions that didn't. That would suggest that some cost was indeed passed on to the consumer for WMC, however you decided to arbitrarily ignore the versions of Windows that didn't include WMC (because you decided they weren't targeted at the right audience) so of course you can't compare versions with against versions without, if someone decides to make the versions without, off limits for the discussion. In reality since Starter and Home Basic are valid editions of Windows, and available to to be purchased (even if the purchases is an OEM) there is no valid reason to ignore them. You aren't disproving anything. You're simply dismissing it.

You all refuse to acknowledge foxwoods original assertion was right with which richard didn't agree with and started this all

This assertion?

That's why Microsoft started charging for it last year, after years of giving it away for free.

Yes, Microsoft did start charging for it last year. That much is correct. Giving it away for free? Well, I seem to recall you agreeing that we don't really know for sure, so I don't suppose I can agree with the above statement. Looks like speculation to me by your standards.

we have provided links and proof to support our claims and arguments; none of you have provided any proof there was a charge for WMC aside form your words alone - which doesn't mean crap seeing as none of you were the ones working on the development/selling of WMC or Windows; so it's nothing but conjecture on your part because you can't provide any proof to support your claims aside from 'nuh-uh'.

Well, no, you haven't provided any proof what-so-ever. You just stated earlier that since none of us know the exact way MS came to their pricing it can't be proven one way or the other.

That being said, reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion that MS did pass on the cost of WMC to the consumers in some way. You've shown nothing that disproves that, so stop saying otherwise. What you've done is provided theories about what could have happened. nothing concrete. nothing real. I've provided concrete, real examples. I can go to McDonalds right now and order a hamburger or a cheeseburger, with or without pickles. These things actually exist (so do Starter and Home Basic for that matter) All you've done is dismiss those examples. It's much easier to do that than to answer the questions posed to you though, isn't it? (Is the chesse on the cheeseburger free, stak? Is it?)

You said that you think WMC is a loss leader. You've provided nothing to back that up other than it must be so.
I said I don't think it is a loss leader because the purpose of a loss leader is to drive sales for another product, and in this case that product would be Windows. So it would make sense as a loss leader if they were using WMC to drive Windows sales, but I've seen nothing to indicate that's true, and see no reason to think that they would add a loss leader to not market windows. That isn't "nuh uh" that's common sense and basic logic.

[staknhalo]

Common sense if used after looking at the current and past pricing on previous versions of Windows along with the knowledge of what a loss leader is and how it works (a basic principle of basic economics) work against your guy's argument. Many things which you all refuse to acknowledge.

Try and look smart all you want. You have egg on your face just like the rest.

Microsoft could have charged for WMC - but all the actual provided evidence shows they didn't. You haven't provided any proof they did aside from flimsy arguments easily disproven and nonsense arguemnts to try and sound smart and make others think you know what you are talking about - when you in particular are talking out of your butt. Bringing up pickles like that is going to prove your case. Lol

Actually the pricing shows nothing. It can be used to bolster either argument depending on how you want to cherry pick your numbers. Richard showed where, editions of Windows that included WMC cost more than Windows editions that didn't. That would suggest that some cost was indeed passed on to the consumer for WMC, however you decided to arbitrarily ignore the versions of Windows that didn't include WMC (because you decided they weren't targeted at the right audience) so of course you can't compare versions with against versions without, if someone decides to make the versions without, off limits for the discussion. In reality since Starter and Home Basic are valid editions of Windows, and available to to be purchased (even if the purchases is an OEM) there is no valid reason to ignore them. You aren't disproving anything. You're simply dismissing it.

You all refuse to acknowledge foxwoods original assertion was right with which richard didn't agree with and started this all

This assertion?

That's why Microsoft started charging for it last year, after years of giving it away for free.

Yes, Microsoft did start charging for it last year. That much is correct. Giving it away for free? Well, I seem to recall you agreeing that we don't really know for sure, so I don't suppose I can agree with the above statement. Looks like speculation to me by your standards.

we have provided links and proof to support our claims and arguments; none of you have provided any proof there was a charge for WMC aside form your words alone - which doesn't mean crap seeing as none of you were the ones working on the development/selling of WMC or Windows; so it's nothing but conjecture on your part because you can't provide any proof to support your claims aside from 'nuh-uh'.

Well, no, you haven't provided any proof what-so-ever. You just stated earlier that since none of us know the exact way MS came to their pricing it can't be proven one way or the other.

That being said, reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion that MS did pass on the cost of WMC to the consumers in some way. You've shown nothing that disproves that, so stop saying otherwise. What you've done is provided theories about what could have happened. nothing concrete. nothing real. I've provided concrete, real examples. I can go to McDonalds right now and order a hamburger or a cheeseburger, with or without pickles. These things actually exist (so do Starter and Home Basic for that matter) All you've done is dismiss those examples. It's much easier to do that than to answer the questions posed to you though, isn't it? (Is the chesse on the cheeseburger free, stak? Is it?)

You said that you think WMC is a loss leader. You've provided nothing to back that up other than it must be so.
I said I don't think it is a loss leader because the purpose of a loss leader is to drive sales for another product, and in this case that product would be Windows. So it would make sense as a loss leader if they were using WMC to drive Windows sales, but I've seen nothing to indicate that's true, and see no reason to think that they would add a loss leader to not market windows. That isn't "nuh uh" that's common sense and basic logic.

Your arguments are so flimsy and your hubris so big that I can just use what you say against you:

Common sense if used after looking at the current and past pricing on previous versions of Windows along with the knowledge of what a loss leader is and how it works (a basic principle of basic economics) work against your guy's argument. Many things which you all refuse to acknowledge.

Try and look smart all you want. You have egg on your face just like the rest.

Microsoft could have charged for WMC - but all the actual provided evidence shows they didn't. You haven't provided any proof they did aside from flimsy arguments easily disproven and nonsense arguemnts to try and sound smart and make others think you know what you are talking about - when you in particular are talking out of your butt. Bringing up pickles like that is going to prove your case. Lol

Actually the pricing shows nothing. It can be used to bolster either argument depending on how you want to cherry pick your numbers. Richard showed where, editions of Windows that included WMC cost more than Windows editions that didn't. That would suggest that some cost was indeed passed on to the consumer for WMC, however you decided to arbitrarily ignore the versions of Windows that didn't include WMC (because you decided they weren't targeted at the right audience) so of course you can't compare versions with against versions without, if someone decides to make the versions without, off limits for the discussion. In reality since Starter and Home Basic are valid editions of Windows, and available to to be purchased (even if the purchases is an OEM) there is no valid reason to ignore them. You aren't disproving anything. You're simply dismissing it.

Ok, then take the 'N' versions of Windows. They don't include Media Player and its codecs. So it should cost less than regular Windows right? But it doesn't: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/n-editions

Comes out to $159. Definetly not cheaper when you can buy the versions with WMP for $119. So if removing WMP and its codecs don't lower the price of Windows, then why does removing WMC do so? Because that's the only way you can support your argument.

But the 'N' version isn't sold to US customers? Neither were the versions you and richard are trying to use (aside from Home Basic Vista - which was intended for low end machines- not a machine capable of running WMC whether the user would use WMC or not - that's why it didn't include any graphics heavy features like WMC or Aero even) to boost your argument. So what gives then? Bam, more evidence. Let's see what 'proof' you provide besides 'cheeseburgers'. Lol.

You all refuse to acknowledge foxwoods original assertion was right with which richard didn't agree with and started this all

This assertion?

That's why Microsoft started charging for it last year, after years of giving it away for free.

Yes, Microsoft did start charging for it last year. That much is correct. Giving it away for free? Well, I seem to recall you agreeing that we don't really know for sure, so I don't suppose I can agree with the above statement. Looks like speculation to me by your standards.

Well, I seem to recall you agreeing that we don't really know for sure if they charged or not, so I don't suppose I can agree with your claim they did charge for it. Looks like speculation to me by your standards.

we have provided links and proof to support our claims and arguments; none of you have provided any proof there was a charge for WMC aside form your words alone - which doesn't mean crap seeing as none of you were the ones working on the development/selling of WMC or Windows; so it's nothing but conjecture on your part because you can't provide any proof to support your claims aside from 'nuh-uh'.

Well, no, you haven't provided any proof what-so-ever. You just stated earlier that since none of us know the exact way MS came to their pricing it can't be proven one way or the other.

That being said, reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion that MS did pass on the cost of WMC to the consumers in some way. You've shown nothing that disproves that, so stop saying otherwise. What you've done is provided theories about what could have happened. nothing concrete. nothing real. I've provided concrete, real examples. I can go to McDonalds right now and order a hamburger or a cheeseburger, with or without pickles. These things actually exist (so do Starter and Home Basic for that matter) All you've done is dismiss those examples. It's much easier to do that than to answer the questions posed to you though, isn't it? (Is the chesse on the cheeseburger free, stak? Is it?)

You said that you think WMC is a loss leader. You've provided nothing to back that up other than it must be so.
I said I don't think it is a loss leader because the purpose of a loss leader is to drive sales for another product, and in this case that product would be Windows. So it would make sense as a loss leader if they were using WMC to drive Windows sales, but I've seen nothing to indicate that's true, and see no reason to think that they would add a loss leader to not market windows. That isn't "nuh uh" that's common sense and basic logic.

You haven't provided any proof either then what-so-ever. You seem to agree none of us know the exact way MS came to their pricing it can't be proven one way or the other; but you won't leave it at that.

That being said, reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion that MS did not pass on the cost of WMC on to the consumers in anyway looking at previous and current prices of all versions of all Windows through the links I provided. You've shown nothing that disproves that, so stop saying otherwise. What you've done is provided theories about what could have happened. Nothing concrete. Nothing real. You have provided nothing concrete, no real examples; but falsely claim to have. Where are they? You can go to McDonalds right now and order a hamburger or a cheeseburger, with or without pickles. These things actually exist (so do Starter and Home Basic for that matter), please tell me now what relevance they have on the conversation. I've dimissed these examples through:

common sense and basic logic.

It's all up there for the world to see. It's much easier to be smug than admit defeat?

Is the chesse on the cheeseburger free, stak? Is it?

If cheese is included in the price of a cheeseburger - how does that prove it's not included for free on a cheeseburger anywhere else in the world? And again, how does cheese on a cheeseburger - free or not - prove there was a charge for WMC? And then, does a hamburger price including the price of cheese mean there are no loss leaders for any other product in the world? Or throughout all of retail history? Again, you are not helping your argument here - merely going of on some other wild tangent in hopes of distraction.

You said that you think WMC is charged for with windows. You've provided nothing to back that up other than it must be so. Nor have you disproven it was a loss leader.
I said I think it is a loss leader because the purpose of a loss leader is to drive sales for another product, and in this case that product would be any future versions of Windows when you want to get the latest Media Center included for free (or was) with it . So it would make sense as a loss leader if they were using WMC to drive Windows sales, which I believe is true - you can't provide anything to show it wasn't, and see no reason to think that they would not include a loss leader in Windows when they have to keep getting people to buy new Windows to stay in business and convince people it was alright to use new versions of Windows after the Vista debacle. This is all common sense and basic logic.

Let's see what 'proof' you provide besides 'cheeseburgers'.Lol

Just what I thought - nothing

[adam1991]

http://www.veoh.com/iphone/#_Watch/v16038377qEdkrym4

[staknhalo]

http://www.veoh.com/iphone/#_Watch/v16038377qEdkrym4

Lol

[foxwood]

You're the one that seems determined to keep introducing new and irrelevant aspects to the conversation

and then

I can go buy a hamburger for $.89 or a cheeseburger for $.99 Are you really going to suggest that the cheese on the cheeseburger is free?

Apparently introducing new and irrelevant aspects to the conversation is OK when you do it.

If you can buy a hamburger for $.99, and you can also buy a cheeseburger for $.99 is it OK to say that the cheese is free? How about "buy a hamburger, get a 2nd one free"?

Is it just the word "free" that you object to, on general principles?

If you want to insist that there's a meaningful difference between "no charge" and "free", go right ahead.

[hmmurdock]

If you can buy a hamburger for $.99, and you can also buy a cheeseburger for $.99 is it OK to say that the cheese is free? How about "buy a hamburger, get a 2nd one free"?

Is it just the word "free" that you object to, on general principles?

If you want to insist that there's a meaningful difference between "no charge" and "free", go right ahead.

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 if... what if they charged $0.00 for the burgers? What would that prove? What if they gave you a dollar with every burger, what would that prove? It doesn't prove anything, because it isn't real. The burgers are a real tangible example. Does it prove that Microsoft wasn't giving away WMC? No. As halo and I have both pointed out, it's going to be impossible to prove that one way or the other. What it does prove is that richard's assertion that the price included WMC is certainly plausable, and reasonable. I've yet to see anything from the counter side except a bunch of pedantic nit-picking of the information provided.

stak has used an age old trolling technique, set the standard of proof to an unreasonably high level, then demand that someone disprove his (often irrelevant) assertions all while refusing to engage in any actual debate or answer any questions.

I've conceded points in this argument, something halo seems unwilling to do, yet he accuses me of hubris. Nice touch.

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. sound reasonable?

I eagerly await your response, as well as halo's response to my cheeseburger question that he refuses to answer. (you'd think a simple yes or no would be simple enough)

[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.

[staknhalo]

If you can buy a hamburger for $.99, and you can also buy a cheeseburger for $.99 is it OK to say that the cheese is free? How about "buy a hamburger, get a 2nd one free"?

Is it just the word "free" that you object to, on general principles?

If you want to insist that there's a meaningful difference between "no charge" and "free", go right ahead.

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 if... what if they charged $0.00 for the burgers? What would that prove? What if they gave you a dollar with every burger, what would that prove? It doesn't prove anything, because it isn't real. The burgers are a real tangible example. Does it prove that Microsoft wasn't giving away WMC? No. As halo and I have both pointed out, it's going to be impossible to prove that one way or the other. What it does prove is that richard's assertion that the price included WMC is certainly plausable, and reasonable. I've yet to see anything from the counter side except a bunch of pedantic nit-picking of the information provided.

stak has used an age old trolling technique, set the standard of proof to an unreasonably high level, then demand that someone disprove his (often irrelevant) assertions all while refusing to engage in any actual debate or answer any questions.

I've conceded points in this argument, something halo seems unwilling to do, yet he accuses me of hubris. Nice touch.

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. sound reasonable?

I eagerly await your response, as well as halo's response to my cheeseburger question that he refuses to answer. (you'd think a simple yes or no would be simple enough)

If you don't wanna address the points above, fine. Like I have said multiple times in this thread over and over:

YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO ADMIT MY CLAIMS COULD BE TRUE - IF ALL OF YOU JUST SAY "NO ONE KNOWS IF THERE WAS A CHARGE FOR WMC BEFORE WINDOWS 8" - AND THAT ALONE, WITH NO SNIDE COMMENTS ASSERTING YOU ARE ACTUALLY RIGHT OR SUCH, I WILL AGREE AND LEAVE IT AT THAT.

But you, nor anyone else, are willing to do that. Or will you now? Ball is in your court.

[hmmurdock]

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.

[hmmurdock]

If you don't wanna address the points above, fine. Like I have said multiple times in this thread over and over:

YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO ADMIT MY CLAIMS COULD BE TRUE - IF ALL OF YOU JUST SAY "NO ONE KNOWS IF THERE WAS A CHARGE FOR WMC BEFORE WINDOWS 8" - AND THAT ALONE, WITH NO SNIDE COMMENTS ASSERTING YOU ARE ACTUALLY RIGHT OR SUCH, I WILL AGREE AND LEAVE IT AT THAT.

But you, nor anyone else, are willing to do that. Or will you now? Ball is in your court.

Actually, you never said that. Trust me I searched. The instance I quoted was the first time that those words appeared in the thread. Not multiple times before. not even once before. Zero times.

Now it would appear you're a troll and a liar.

Edit: Liar remark redacted.

[staknhalo]

If you don't wanna address the points above, fine. Like I have said multiple times in this thread over and over:

YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO ADMIT MY CLAIMS COULD BE TRUE - IF ALL OF YOU JUST SAY "NO ONE KNOWS IF THERE WAS A CHARGE FOR WMC BEFORE WINDOWS 8" - AND THAT ALONE, WITH NO SNIDE COMMENTS ASSERTING YOU ARE ACTUALLY RIGHT OR SUCH, I WILL AGREE AND LEAVE IT AT THAT.

But you, nor anyone else, are willing to do that. Or will you now? Ball is in your court.

Actually, you never said that. Trust me I searched. The instance I quoted was the first time that those words appeared in the thread. Not multiple times before. not even once before. Zero times.

Now it would appear you're a troll and a liar.

*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.

[foxwood]

Sure, hypothetically, Microsoft could have sunk billions heck... why not trillions, since we're in fantasy land, and eaten the cost. It could work that way, if we assume that Microsoft operates differently from every other successful company in the world, then yeah, you're totally right, they could have been giving WMC away fro free, and not passing a penny of their costs on to the consumers.

Did you mean successful companies like Google and Facebook?

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".