If pricing for software is that 'pliable', I guess it shows very clearly that pricing of software is totally arbitrary, and has no relation to its actual value. The pricing of open source software clearly is much more honest.
Other related posts:
Half of Australians think it's OK to pirate Microsoft software
Windows 7 Starter: The anti-feature edition
Vista: Microsoft's biggest failure yet?
Comment by Jono, on 11-May-2008 12:26
Well, I'd argue that in general the price of software isn't arbitrary - it needs to cover the research, development, marketing [etc] costs.
In this case it would appear to me that $16 does not cover these costs. I'm thinking below cost pricing by a convicted monopoly. When Carter Holt Harvey did a similar thing with Pink Batts the Commerce Commission was all over them. http://www.comcom.govt.nz/MediaCentre/MediaReleases/ArchivedReleases/1999/highcourtfindscarte.aspx
Comment by capricornus, on 12-May-2008 06:18
These are clearly the rules of essential capitalism: create a need. Then provide a paid solution.
But even more essential is to create users that only know WinXP, and keep the above need alive.
And this is sustained by a marketing that makes the consumer believe that no pc can work without WinXP. It completes a circular thinking that microsoft wants to keep very active.
I know better. But 99 other consumers don't. They pay, even only $ 16. They will believe they are better of than the linux-fellows.
They will believe. Believe. Thats it.