«

On 9/10/2012 1:33 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:56:23 -0400, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>> On 9/9/2012 5:32 PM, Mayayana wrote:
>>> | There is no link between amorality and the
>>> | ability to get away with
>>> | what you call 'price gouging'.
>>>
>>> No. I said their prices are exploitively high because
>>> they're amoral *and* they can get away with it.
>>>
>>> | It was long ago pointed out to me that
>>> | there is no link between the cost of production
>>> | and the price at which you can sell an object....
>>> | I don't blame them.
>>> | --
>>>
>>> So whatever anyone can get away with.... You
>>> respect them for that? There's no such thing as
>>> price gouging? In that case, can I interest you in a
>>> glass of water? I'm running
>>> a special today for New Zealanders. Only 7 easy
>>> payments of $79.99 each. (Plus shipping and handling,
>>> processing fee, single order adjustment fee, currency
>>> translation fee, and parcel insurance fee.)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Is buying the program a matter of life % death.
>> If no, competitive forces in the marketplace will adjust prices.
>
> Actually, I have just installed Paint Shop Pro X5. I have only dabbled
> with it but it looks as though it might be starting to cover some of
> Photo Shop's ground. The RAW conversion has worked very well so far
> but I do miss the entirely non-destructive editing of NX2.
>

I occasionally dabble with Corel Painter. I get some interesting
effects, and the program dos most of the work.

--
Peter

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:23:26 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:

>>> Of course there is such a thing as price gouging. The point is that if
>>> you sell at too large a margin above cost you leave room for someone
>>> to come in underneath you. What both MS and Adobe have done is so
>>> shape the market it is not possible for someone to easily slip in
>>> underneath them.

>>What about a company that constantly takes decisions that are
>>detrimental to it's users and customers but help cementing their
>>position as a quasi-monopoly?

>>What would that be called?

> Microsoft?

So you say that Microsoft is a bad thing for their users and
consumers?

-Wolfgang

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:18:38 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:

>>> you can sell an object. Price is a matter of how you position yourself
>>> in the market and in their own separate ways Microsoft and Adobe have
>>> positioned themselves very well. I don't like it but (except for the
>>> early years of Microsoft) I don't blame them.

>>Would it change your mind if someone like Microsoft broke laws
>>to reach and hold it's position? Or is that OK (in which case,
>>what about the Mafia and other organized crome circles)?

> Microsoft has broken laws in the course of reaching its position in
> the market. That's one of the reasons that I only deal with them under
> duress.

And they have been punished, haven't they?
They have paid their debt to society, haven't they?

So you don't blame them for their behaviour any more (hint,
bundling IE and adhesion contracts to stop distributors and
system builders not to put any other browsers on the system
aren't "early years" for Microsoft)?

-Wolfgang

| > | > Period. A roofer who
| > | > charges a little old lady $5,000 for a $1,000 job, because
| > | > she doesn't know any better, or because she's desperate,
| > | > or because he's the only roofer in town, or for any other
| > | > reason, is cheating her. He's not "shaping the market".
| > | > What he's doing is just plain old lying and stealing.
| > |
| > | So you're saying that the corporations that buy Adobe products are too
| > | ignorant and stupid to research the market before they buy?
| >
| > I guess I'm saying that I wouldn't hire someone with
| > your attitude to replace my roof. Thus I avoid Adobe.
|
| Well, now, how much do those stupid corporations that you would not hire
| make in a year, and how much do you make?

You've managed to entirely distort what I'm saying,
twice. What I said was fairly simple: Price gouging is
dishonest and I avoid doing business with dishonest
people. That's partly for my sake and partly as a matter
of principle: If I don't support them they'll be that much
less successful at cheating people, which will benefit both
themselves and others. My view is rooted in a sense that
"virtue is its own reward" and also a sense of citizenship --
that we're all responsible for promoting decency and dignity.

You may not agree with that position. (Indeed, these days
most people have become conditioned to think of themselves
as "consumers" rather than citizens... and consumers are like
cattle: their only "social" duty is to eat.) But you should be
able to at least understand what I'm saying. It's very basic
stuff.

I don't know anything about the "stupid companies" you
keep referring to. You'd have to explain what conversation
you unilaterally decided to have before I could address that.

J. Clarke <> wrote:
> In article <k2kqph$bd8$>, says...

>> | > Period. A roofer who
>> | > charges a little old lady $5,000 for a $1,000 job, because
>> | > she doesn't know any better, or because she's desperate,
>> | > or because he's the only roofer in town, or for any other
>> | > reason, is cheating her. He's not "shaping the market".
>> | > What he's doing is just plain old lying and stealing.
>> |
>> | So you're saying that the corporations that buy Adobe products are too
>> | ignorant and stupid to research the market before they buy?

>> I guess I'm saying that I wouldn't hire someone with
>> your attitude to replace my roof. Thus I avoid Adobe.

> Well, now, how much do those stupid corporations that you would not hire
> make in a year, and how much do you make?

Be fair: How much does the average employee of those stupid
corporations make in a year?

-Wolfgang

| >>Would it change your mind if someone like Microsoft broke laws
| >>to reach and hold it's position? Or is that OK (in which case,
| >>what about the Mafia and other organized crome circles)?
|
| > Microsoft has broken laws in the course of reaching its position in
| > the market. That's one of the reasons that I only deal with them under
| > duress.

This is becoming a very confusing discussion.
Eric started out equating morality with business
success.

| And they have been punished, haven't they?
| They have paid their debt to society, haven't they?
|

That's a good one.
I live in Massacusetts, where MS lost one of the many
cases against them. (Among those cases was one in
which MS cheated their own employees out of benefits
by calling them part-time workers, at 39.5 hours per
week.) In the Mass. case it turned out that I was entitled
to a $7 rebate, if I could produce the original packaging
and receipt for my Win98 disk, and if I were willing to
fill out the requisite paperwork. As I recall, that was one
of the cases in which MS was allowed to donate software
to schools in lieu of paying the people (everyone) who
didn't file a claim. So their punishment was marketing.

| So you don't blame them for their behaviour any more (hint,
| bundling IE and adhesion contracts to stop distributors and
| system builders not to put any other browsers on the system
| aren't "early years" for Microsoft)?
|

With XP and Product Activation they started threatening
system builders with claims that a PC sold without an OS
is promoting piracy. They were implying that a PC without
Windows is illegal.

In article <k2ne47$710$>, says...
>
> | > | > Period. A roofer who
> | > | > charges a little old lady $5,000 for a $1,000 job, because
> | > | > she doesn't know any better, or because she's desperate,
> | > | > or because he's the only roofer in town, or for any other
> | > | > reason, is cheating her. He's not "shaping the market".
> | > | > What he's doing is just plain old lying and stealing.
> | > |
> | > | So you're saying that the corporations that buy Adobe products are too
> | > | ignorant and stupid to research the market before they buy?
> | >
> | > I guess I'm saying that I wouldn't hire someone with
> | > your attitude to replace my roof. Thus I avoid Adobe.
> |
> | Well, now, how much do those stupid corporations that you would not hire
> | make in a year, and how much do you make?
>
> You've managed to entirely distort what I'm saying,
> twice. What I said was fairly simple: Price gouging is
> dishonest and I avoid doing business with dishonest
> people.

So let's see, corporation that do business with the "price gougers" make
a lot of money and you don't make much money, so who's being smart and
who's being stupid?

> That's partly for my sake and partly as a matter
> of principle: If I don't support them they'll be that much
> less successful at cheating people, which will benefit both
> themselves and others. My view is rooted in a sense that
> "virtue is its own reward" and also a sense of citizenship --
> that we're all responsible for promoting decency and dignity.

Adobe doesn't particularly want _your_ business so your efforts to
"harm" them by not buying their product are wasted.

> You may not agree with that position. (Indeed, these days
> most people have become conditioned to think of themselves
> as "consumers" rather than citizens... and consumers are like
> cattle: their only "social" duty is to eat.) But you should be
> able to at least understand what I'm saying. It's very basic
> stuff.

I understand what you are asserting. I do not accept that charging the
price that the market will bear for what is positioned as a premium
product is "gouging". By your argument Rolls-Royce and Ferrari are
"gouging" because they charge more for their cars than does Hyundai.

> I don't know anything about the "stupid companies" you
> keep referring to. You'd have to explain what conversation
> you unilaterally decided to have before I could address that.

The "stupid companies" that are the major purchasers of Adobe products
of course. By your logic since they are allowing themselves to be
"gouged" they must be stupid.

On 9/11/2012 9:24 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> | > | > Period. A roofer who
> | > | > charges a little old lady $5,000 for a $1,000 job, because
> | > | > she doesn't know any better, or because she's desperate,
> | > | > or because he's the only roofer in town, or for any other
> | > | > reason, is cheating her. He's not "shaping the market".
> | > | > What he's doing is just plain old lying and stealing.
> | > |
> | > | So you're saying that the corporations that buy Adobe products are too
> | > | ignorant and stupid to research the market before they buy?
> | >
> | > I guess I'm saying that I wouldn't hire someone with
> | > your attitude to replace my roof. Thus I avoid Adobe.
> |
> | Well, now, how much do those stupid corporations that you would not hire
> | make in a year, and how much do you make?
>
> You've managed to entirely distort what I'm saying,
> twice. What I said was fairly simple: Price gouging is
> dishonest and I avoid doing business with dishonest
> people. That's partly for my sake and partly as a matter
> of principle: If I don't support them they'll be that much
> less successful at cheating people, which will benefit both
> themselves and others. My view is rooted in a sense that
> "virtue is its own reward" and also a sense of citizenship --
> that we're all responsible for promoting decency and dignity.
>
> You may not agree with that position. (Indeed, these days
> most people have become conditioned to think of themselves
> as "consumers" rather than citizens... and consumers are like
> cattle: their only "social" duty is to eat.) But you should be
> able to at least understand what I'm saying. It's very basic
> stuff.
>
> I don't know anything about the "stupid companies" you
> keep referring to. You'd have to explain what conversation
> you unilaterally decided to have before I could address that.
>
>

And the factual basis for your statement is?

--
Peter

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:23:59 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:

>>> Microsoft has broken laws in the course of reaching its position in
>>> the market. That's one of the reasons that I only deal with them under
>>> duress.

>>And they have been punished, haven't they?

> Not completely.

Of course they have. They've been told that anyone else would
have their company broken up into different parts, but as they're
Microsoft, they got a "Tut tut" and "don't do that again for a
few months". Isn't that enough?


>>They have paid their debt to society, haven't they?

> Not completely.

They did comply with the court's orders, what more should
they need to do?

-Wolfgang

J. Clarke <> wrote:
> In article <k2ne47$710$>, says...

>> You've managed to entirely distort what I'm saying,
>> twice. What I said was fairly simple: Price gouging is
>> dishonest and I avoid doing business with dishonest
>> people.

> So let's see, corporation that do business with the "price gougers" make
> a lot of money and you don't make much money, so who's being smart and
> who's being stupid?

So you're saying "being smart" equals "making a lot of
money", and not making a lot of money equals "being stupid"?

Next you'll be saying that the ones who make lots of money
already have salvation by God (proof being that they are
successful), while the others, well, aren't predestined to be
saved. (Protestant Work Ethics)


And in the next step you'll allow the successful to ride
roughshod over the successless, as the former can't do
anything wrong and the latter are anyway a lost cause.


>> That's partly for my sake and partly as a matter
>> of principle: If I don't support them they'll be that much
>> less successful at cheating people, which will benefit both
>> themselves and others. My view is rooted in a sense that
>> "virtue is its own reward" and also a sense of citizenship --
>> that we're all responsible for promoting decency and dignity.

> Adobe doesn't particularly want _your_ business so your efforts to
> "harm" them by not buying their product are wasted.

Adobe wants *everyones* money!
Go ask them!


>> You may not agree with that position. (Indeed, these days
>> most people have become conditioned to think of themselves
>> as "consumers" rather than citizens... and consumers are like
>> cattle: their only "social" duty is to eat.) But you should be
>> able to at least understand what I'm saying. It's very basic
>> stuff.

> I understand what you are asserting. I do not accept that charging the
> price that the market will bear for what is positioned as a premium
> product is "gouging". By your argument Rolls-Royce and Ferrari are
> "gouging" because they charge more for their cars than does Hyundai.

Ah, but to build an additional copy of a car costs real money
(materials, tools, employee time), while the burning of another
CD or DVD --- or another delivery via download --- is dirt cheap.
Adobe shouldn't have to pay more than some cents per additional
download.

As to Ferrari, Rolls-Royce and Hyundai: the former cars cost quite
a bit more to make an additional copy from than the latter, so if
Rolls-Royce and Ferrari would have the same price than Hyundai,
Hyundai would be "gouging".

-Wolfgang