🚀 go-pugleaf

Dave G Smith <news@pict.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >> Rowland
> >  Paul
> 
> >> And anyway, we *are* paying for it:
> >> the cost of QT3 is factored into the cost of new Macs.
> 
> >Currently then yes it is, however this is a movement away from it, those
> >who use it, pay for it.
> 
> If you think about it though, it's not really the case. Up until now
> Windows users have never really had to pay for it. So does that mean when I
> bought my macs I was subsidising all those Wintel video junkies?
> 
> Of course not.

How's that then?  The development work on QuickTime was paid for out of
Apple's income, right?  That means that QuickTime for Windows was paid
for out of Apple's income.  Apple's income is largely from the sale of
Macs, so every who's bought a Mac during the development of QuickTime
has subsidised QT for Windows.

> QT has been the equivalent of a supermarket's loss leader. Designed to
> attract customers to the Apple brand.

Exactly the point: a supermarket's loss leader is paid for by sales of
other goods, so you subsidise a supermarket's loss leader if you buy any
profitably priced item from that supermarket.

> Now Apple are trying to turn that
> attraction into an earner. QT has become a de facto standard. Why should
> all that effort go unrewarded?

Because the business world isn't a nice place, and anyway there are
rewards other than a short-term `money in the bank' kind of reward.  The
best reward Apple could have is a migration of users from Wintel to Mac.
All other things being equal, the more Apple software Wintel users
*need*, the more likely this is to happen.  So there's a lot to be said
for Apple supplying software at no charge where this is not commercial
suicide.

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for my email address:   rebecca@astrid.dog.u-net.com
Sorry - the spam got to me.                       PGP pub key A680B89D
UK biker?                    Join MAG and help keep bureaucracy at bay
                          http://dredd.meng.ucl.ac.uk/www/mag/mag.html