Should new computers be increased by $140 or reduced by $140?

By Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.

One choice is to separate out the operating system from the application (Internet Explorer) and reduce the cost of new computers by $140 immediately. Since Microsoft has spent hundreds of millions of dollars researching and developing the browser bundled with the OS, a significant price reduction would be in order if that application is removed from every new computer to be purchased.

A second choice is to do nothing. All new computer customers would just be forced to buy both a new operating system and a new internet browser whether they want one or not. This is the current situation. Microsoft only supports forcing all of its customers buying the bundled OS and browser regardless of the intended use of the computer. Microsoft does not think it matters whether the customer even has a telephone or network. The browser is a must purchase item (no options whatsoever) and it drives the cost up about $140. I guess you could argue that it just keeps the price as high as it was 5 or 10 years ago. This is equivalent to forcing all new computers to have a DVD player installed, no option. It must be on the machine. And, the customer must pay the extra price. (Don't worry, the vendors will certainly say that the DVD player is free.)

A third choice is to also bundle the browser from Netscape. To be fair to Netscape and to be sure Netscape also gets paid for its browser (precisely as Microsoft does), the price of all new computers would have to be increased by $140. This too could be done almost overnight. It is a simple solution. And, all of those Netscape customers would be assured that they too will get their upgraded browser.

So. What is a fair solution?

This question has been asked upon more than one occasion. However, few if any readers have taken the opportunity to expressed their opinion on what is fair. Opinions on what is fair are rare indeed on this BBS.

Some have. Some have noted that dropping the price is the only fair thing to do for the consumers. Others have argued that the question was stupid. Some have even argued that the question did not have an answer to it. And, almost no one suggested the price increase to cover both browsers. I can understand why the last choice is not favored. (I do not favor it either.)

But, what is wrong with the first choice? Why is it not fair to consumers? It would drop the price of new computers by $140 and it would give the consumers the option to pick and choose which browser they want if in fact they even want one or don't already have one. (Most business computers do not need a browser at all. Never did. Never will. For those business computers that do want a browser, they are clearly capable of figuring out which application best meets their needs.) In other words, should everyone be forced to upgrade their word processor or buy the one from Microsoft just because they buy a new computer or want to upgrade the OS?

I can understand that Microsoft would vote for choice #2. Hey, they get paid more that way. But, the consumer pays $140 to much for a system. And, adding $140 to a low end PC is very significant indeed. The third choice of forcing the consumer to buy both browsers is twice as bad as forcing consumers to buy one of them.

So. What is fair? What is fair to consumers? What is fair to Microsoft customers? What is fair to other competitors in the industry? And, why?

If you want to argue some technical reason why consumers should be forced to pay $140 more for their PC, please do so I am sure readers would like to hear it. If you would like to argue that customers should not be given any choice of which products they buy, you can argue that too. (But, do not expect a single consumer to agree that you should make their decisions for them. They just do not believe that.)

Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer)