jackg@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Jack Gjovaag;6160;50-321;LP=A) (02/07/89)
In article <11630010@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> ham@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (Bob Hamilton) writes: >"Pulling out the slow-down boards" is an old IBM marketing tactic. When I >worked at Memorex, I heard IBM did it when we upgraded one of the CPU's in >the data center. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to characterize >the ethics of a company which would build slow-down boards into its >products in the first place. The ethics of adding "crippling" circuitry to an otherwise high performance machine to fill a gap in a product line is not at all clear to me. It certainly seems absurd if we expect that the price of a machine is directly related to its manufacturing cost but if we assume that what a customer is purchasing is functionality with no regard to how it is obtained, then cripplers make some sense. I am interested in others views of this practice, since I used to work for a company that occasionally did it (not my present company to the best of my knowledge. If anyone thinks they know of Tektronix doing it, make that another topic.) Jack Gjovaag Tek Labs
jborza%burgundy@Sun.COM (Jim_Borza) (02/10/89)
In article <4602@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>, jackg@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Jack Gjovaag;6160;50-321;LP=A) writes: > The ethics of adding "crippling" circuitry to an otherwise high > performance machine to fill a gap in a product line is not at all > clear to me. It certainly seems absurd if we expect that the > price of a machine is directly related to its manufacturing cost > but if we assume that what a customer is purchasing is functionality > with no regard to how it is obtained, then cripplers make some > sense. > > I am interested in others views of this practice, since I used > to work for a company that occasionally did it (not my present company > to the best of my knowledge. If anyone thinks they know of > Tektronix doing it, make that another topic.) > Jack Gjovaag I had occasion to witness an "upgrade" of a large mainframe machine to a higher-performing model back in the late '60s. The upgrade consisted of changing a small PCB clock generator and the nameplate on the console, plus some jumpers. It seems the manufacturer made only one actual computer but sold it as two models with significant- ly different performance specs. I never saw it as an "ethical" issue but a "customer satisfaction" is- sue. On the lower-performing machine (call it model "L"), the user was limited to the number of jobs which could be run and, theoretically, necessitating fewer calls for support, repair, etc. than if the model "H" had been in use. The customer who wanted the functionality but couldn't afford the price was able to buy the machine and "upgrade" to the model "H" later. The manufacturer was (supposedly) able to provide a better quality product through uniform manufacturing & quality control. The "ethical" question depends on whether you see the computer as "iron" or a "solution" (pardon the marketing jargon); and whether there's an ethical question at all depends on the buyer. If a business-type purchased the machine, he/she was likely buying the performance specs, not the machine. A techie might buy the hard- ware in hopes of maximizing the performance. At the bottom of it all is: what camp are you in? Also, what were told to expect (by the salesperson)? Jim Borza - Sun Microsystems Disclaimer? Sure, why not?
hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) (02/10/89)
In article <4602@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> jackg@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Jack Gjovaag) writes: # In article <11630010@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> ham@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (Bob Hamilton) writes: # # >"Pulling out the slow-down boards" is an old IBM marketing tactic. When I # >worked at Memorex, I heard IBM did it when we upgraded one of the CPU's in # >the data center. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to characterize # >the ethics of a company which would build slow-down boards into its # >products in the first place. # # The ethics of adding "crippling" circuitry to an otherwise high # performance machine to fill a gap in a product line is not at all # clear to me. It certainly seems absurd if we expect that the But the car manufacturers do that all the time, don't they (almost). RE-naming cars for different coasts, naming cars differently for added options on others... Madison Avenue is always finding ways to make "just-the-right- -level" appear to exist for any person out there. # Jack Gjovaag # Tek Labs And it's likely to stay that way for no good reason :-> ### C>H> ###
tat@pccuts.pcc.amdahl.com (Tom Thackrey) (02/10/89)
In article <4602@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> jackg@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Jack Gjovaag) writes: > >The ethics of adding "crippling" circuitry to an otherwise high >performance machine to fill a gap in a product line is not at all >clear to me. It certainly seems absurd if we expect that the >price of a machine is directly related to its manufacturing cost >but if we assume that what a customer is purchasing is functionality >with no regard to how it is obtained, then cripplers make some >sense. > Price is a function of supply and demand, not just manufacturing cost. If a manufacturer can "cripple" a fast machine to make a slower and CHEAPER machine and still make reasonable margins, where's the problem? In the case of computers, the manufacturing costs of such machines may be far less than the design costs of creating a new machine with the lower performance. Many large computer models only sell a few hundred copies in the life of the product. -- Tom Thackrey sun!amdahl!tat00 [ The opinions expressed herin are mine alone. ]
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (02/11/89)
What about a related issue: OS licenses that restrict the number of
users. You purchase a computer and an OS, but pay different amounts
depending on the number of users you want to allow to use it
simultaneously, although there are no software changes other than
changing a parameter to the routine that enforces the restriction.
My feeling is that you purchase a certain amount of performance, and
how you want to allocate it should be up to you. If you put lots of
users on a small machine, they'll get poor performance, so why should
you also get charged extra?
Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.
barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmarjs9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) (02/11/89)
In article <4602@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> jackg@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Jack Gjovaag) writes: >The ethics of adding "crippling" circuitry to an otherwise high >performance machine to fill a gap in a product line is not at all >clear to me. > One must realize that a company has every right to do whatever they wish to do with thier stuff. If they believe they can reap better profits by 'crippling' a machine and selling it as low-end with lots-o-sales, then they have every right to. If someone makes something, they can do what they wish with it. Sincerely, Jon Slenk / js9b CMU.
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (02/11/89)
In article <4602@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> jackg@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Jack Gjovaag) writes: >The ethics of adding "crippling" circuitry to an otherwise high >performance machine to fill a gap in a product line is not at all >clear to me. It certainly seems absurd if we expect that the >price of a machine is directly related to its manufacturing cost >but if we assume that what a customer is purchasing is functionality >with no regard to how it is obtained, then cripplers make some >sense. The idea is that the company spends x millions on development for the machine, and then has to price the machine at y dollars to make a profit. However, by selling a slower one for z dollars, the company can sell more of them, and thus help recoup the cost. Also, they can sell upgrades for alpha dollars, which also help. Does it work? I don't know, but I think it does. If people don't like it, competitors can come and try to force the price down (Amdahl has done this, I think, and so have the "crayettes"). -- Sean Eric Fagan | "What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, seanf@sco.UUCP | the master calls a butterfly." -- Richard Bach (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
tainter@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Tainter) (02/11/89)
In article <4602@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> jackg@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Jack Gjovaag) writes: >The ethics of adding "crippling" circuitry to an otherwise high >performance machine to fill a gap in a product line is not at all >clear to me. > Jack Gjovaag > Tek Labs In many cases I am sure this is done not as a marketing ploy but as a consistency matter. You introduce A. Mucho software and 3rd party hardware (or add-on hardware from your company) is designed and sold for it. Now you come out with B which is faster, and which can be made more cheaply than the original A. You can't stop providing A, there is hardware and software out there that might have timing dependencies so you stick in a slow down board (or wire). In fact, if you just publish the performance spec and never deliver one that has that speed you are obligated to slow it down. Then you get bad mouthed in comp.misc. Oh well. --johnathan.a.tainter
haynes@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) (02/11/89)
In article <MXwliIy00V45JUKFBg@andrew.cmu.edu> js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes: >One must realize that a company has every right to do whatever they wish to do >with thier stuff. If they believe they can reap better profits by 'crippling' a >machine and selling it as low-end with lots-o-sales, then they have every right >to. > >If someone makes something, they can do what they wish with it. There's also a legal doctrine of first sale I read about recently. Once something is sold the seller can't restrain the buyer from doing as he pleases with it, so long as what he does is not illegal. This came up in an article about videotapes. Originally the film companies expected tapes to be sold; but the high prices stimulated creation of the rental business, and because of the doctrine of first sale the film companies can't prevent rentals. They can of course prevent making copes, since that violates copyright law. But once they sell you the tape you can keep it or give it away or rent it or burn it. Article said they were lobbying to get the law changed so as to give them some control over use of the product, but so far they have been rebuffed. haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu haynes@ucscc.bitnet ..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
hans@nlgvax.UUCP (Hans Zuidam) (02/11/89)
You might want to read the following book: "Big Blue. IBM's use and abuse of power", Richard Thomas DeLamarter, Dodd, Mead & Company, 1986, 393 pages. The author was one the laywers on the antitrust case "US versus IBM". Allthough the author is (understandably) biased against IBM, he gives a good deal of factual information on IBMs use of functional pricing. Functional pricing is the method where you have a customer pay for functions and not for actual development and production costs plus a profit margin. By this method you ask more money for a product with extra features allthough the production costs are not much higher than a less featured version. By this token it is often cheaper to produce the full featured machine and cripple it a little to a less featured one. Of course you can substitute the word performance for feature. IBM and the computer industry at large are not the only ones using this pricing strategy. You see the same effect in pricing of audio equipement (CD players!), pocket calculators, and so on. Hans -- Hans Zuidam E-Mail: hans@pcg.philips.nl Philips Telecommunications and Data Systems, Tel: +31 40 892288 Project Centre Geldrop, Building XR Willem Alexanderlaan 7B, 5664 AN Geldrop The Netherlands
hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) (02/12/89)
<MXwliIy00V45JUKFBg@andrew.cmu.edu> js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes: # In article <4602@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> jackg@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Jack Gjovaag) # writes: # >The ethics of adding "crippling" circuitry to an otherwise high # >performance machine to fill a gap in a product line is not at all # >clear to me. > # One must realize that a company has every right to do whatever they wish to do #with thier stuff. If they believe they can reap better profits by 'crippling' a #machine and selling it as low-end with lots-o-sales, then they have every right # to. # If someone makes something, they can do what they wish with it. # Sincerely, # Jon Slenk / js9b CMU. As well we must realize that there should never be any restrictions on the customer in "removing added slowdowns". As some micro people may know, Apple had to put slow memory into the GS in order to keep some older "safe" boards compaitible. That was the downside and there was little to do about it. But then it was not to make a new "niche". Other things can happen too. I know a friend of mine who recieved a PCjr <egad, I know> and is STILL finding hard-hacks that have upgraded its graphics to that of a Tandy 2000! There are BILLIONS of programs he's downloaded that fix BILLIONS of IBM stupidity marks. MS-DOS also has quite a few fix-em-up possibilities. Whether these were for "upgradibility" or just from dumbness (in my knowlege of Apple //'s I can definately say they squeezed about all they could out of it. I was rather shocked at all that could be fixed on an IBM). Wellll. SUUUUUUUMMMMMMDDAAAAYYYYYYYY there jus' MIGHT be better analysis techniques (computerized ones) that can find these blinking holes because the manufacturer's spex aren't just-a-pile-of-paper-to-look-at-when-you-need- -to. <understandible spex? Yeah I know that's unlikely.> THAT will be nice. ### C>H> ###
friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) (02/12/89)
> As well we must realize that there should never be any restrictions on the > customer in "removing added slowdowns". This is likely to "break your warranty" if you do this... Steve -- Stephen J. Friedl 3B2-kind-of-guy friedl@vsi.com V-Systems, Inc. I speak for you only attmail!vsi!friedl Santa Ana, CA USA +1 714 545 6442 {backbones}!vsi!friedl --------Barbara Bush on... on... No, I just can't do it...--------
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/13/89)
In article <6322@saturn.ucsc.edu>, haynes@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) writes: > There's also a legal doctrine of first sale I read about recently. Once > something is sold the seller can't restrain the buyer from doing as he > pleases with it, so long as what he does is not illegal. Yes, but what about warrantees? That's the stick they generally use here. There's nothing to keep them from discontinuing warranty support after you perform such unauthorised repairs. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
kebera@alzabo.UUCP (Krishna Bera) (02/13/89)
In article <36320@think.UUCP> (Barry Margolin) writes: >What about a related issue: OS licenses that restrict the number of >users. You purchase a computer and an OS, but pay different amounts >depending on the number of users you want to allow to use it This situation also applies to all the new network software, or to such things as site licences. >simultaneously, although there are no software changes other than >changing a parameter to the routine that enforces the restriction. > A good piece of software may use different algorithms for dealing with different numbers of users. These must be developed and tested. >My feeling is that you purchase a certain amount of performance, and >how you want to allocate it should be up to you. If you put lots of >users on a small machine, they'll get poor performance, so why should >you also get charged extra? > I believe someone mentioned that the amount of (usually free) maintenance required depends on the number of users. The solution would then be to charge for each maintenance call. It seems to me that users would be more likely to buy a system with stated performance and free maintenance. While economies of scale do apply to large networks/machines, a piece of software is still worth a certain amount to every user of it, and they should pay that amount. The number of users (one criterion) establishes the worth of someone's software, I believe. -- Programmer on the loose kebera@alzabo.UUCP uunet!mitel!sce!scs!alzabo!kebera
desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) (02/14/89)
In article <MXwliIy00V45JUKFBg@andrew.cmu.edu> js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes: > >In article <4602@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> jackg@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Jack Gjovaag) >writes: > >The ethics of adding "crippling" circuitry to an otherwise high > >performance machine to fill a gap in a product line is not at all > >clear to me. > >One must realize that a company has every right to do whatever they wish to do >with thier stuff. If they believe they can reap better profits by 'crippling' a >machine and selling it as low-end with lots-o-sales, then they have every right >to. > >If someone makes something, they can do what they wish with it. > >Sincerely, >Jon Slenk / js9b CMU. This is a dangerous ethic to have in any industry - that it is o.k. to withold any and all information from a customer in the name of profit. The customer is going to feel cheated if they find out that their $10k upgrade consists of removing a wire. Solution - don't tell them. The customer is going to feel cheated if they find out that your product isn't as reliable as they want - solution, don't tell them. Etc. Crippler circuitry is not illegal; I would hesitate to call it immoral. However, I ask how anyone can feel that they have acted professionally when they design such a piece of equipment. There are other solutions - one company I know of (not my current employer) had a problem with its new low-end product being too fast. They solved it by publishing _very_ conservative performance specs. (it wasn't a computer, so it wasn't easy to benchmark yourself.) The customers never complained when it worked a bit better than they were told it would. Peter Desnoyers
bga@raspail.UUCP (Bruce Albrecht) (02/14/89)
In article <4602@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> jackg@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Jack Gjovaag) writes: >The ethics of adding "crippling" circuitry to an otherwise high >performance machine to fill a gap in a product line is not at all >clear to me. It certainly seems absurd if we expect that the >price of a machine is directly related to its manufacturing cost >but if we assume that what a customer is purchasing is functionality >with no regard to how it is obtained, then cripplers make some >sense. It's not absurd when you view the cost of the "crippled" machine to be manufacturing costs + the incremental design cost to "cripple" the high performance machine, and the cost of the high performance machine to be the manufacturing costs + the design cost for the high performance machine. Several other business factors come into play here, also. If a computer manufacturer has a gap in a product line, the loss of a potential customer because of that gap, tends to lose that customer for all time, since the customers tend to be locked into whichever system they buy (except, of course, plug-compatibles, and IBM is just about the only company that has plug- compatible competitors). Therefore, most companies are willing to accept a smaller profit now so they can get additional revenues (and profits) later. I think most business customers are buying functionality without regard to how it is obtained. When a customers know they need a performance level of X, and that it costs around $Y, they don't want to buy performance level of X+x' for $Y+y', even though they may need X+x' later. That's why IBM (or maybe it is Amdahl) leases CPUs that run at a certain MIPS rating, and when the customer needs a faster machine for a short time, they change the microcode to speed it up, charge the customer more, and resets it to the slower machine when the customer no longer needs the higher performance.
bnick@aucis.UUCP (Bill Nickless) (02/14/89)
In article <1257@raspail.UUCP>, bga@raspail.UUCP (Bruce Albrecht) writes: > I think most business customers are buying functionality without regard to > how it is obtained. When a customers know they need a performance level of X, > and that it costs around $Y, they don't want to buy performance level of X+x' > for $Y+y', even though they may need X+x' later. That's why IBM (or maybe it > is Amdahl) leases CPUs that run at a certain MIPS rating; when the customer > needs a faster machine for a short time, they change the microcode to speed it > up, charge the customer more, and resets it to the slower machine when the > customer no longer needs the higher performance. What do the companies (Amdahl, IBM, et. al.) do about the "sneaky" computer operator who figures out that you remove board X and get Y*1.5 performance? Or if you flip this switch or comment out this code or patch the OS to allow more than the licensed number of users on? How does that concept of "I've bought it, it's mine" apply here? Is it unethical to get the best performance possible out of a machine you've paid for, even if the manufacturer didn't intend for that performance to be avail- able? If a vendor is going to sell me a computer, I would use it to its best performance--regardless of what the vendor intends! -- Bill Nickless Andrews University Computer Science Department ...!sharkey!aucis!bnick or bnick@aucis.UUCP Unix Support Group "Help! I'm locked up in this .signature factory!"
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (02/14/89)
1. What are the ethics of creating a service monopoly?
Apple seems to do this. Apple's only repair is "replace the logic
card" ($300-$600). Hence, for many simple problems (e.g. custom chip
burnout) it's $300-$600.
If a non apple-qualified technician repairs your machine (e.g.
replaces a 10 cent fuse), the next time you consult an Apple
Technician he has the right to charge $50 or more for "board
reinspection" before working on your machine. This sucks.
Apple heavily pressures its customers into obtaining service from
Apple dealers.
2. I think intentionally "crippled" machines are mostly a thing of
the past. IBM probably did it to avoid competing with themselves ("we
can't sell this super-fast machine cheap, because we'll hurt our own
business").
3. Have people considered the cost of swapping a 1960's mainframe for
a newer model? It's like moving a TANK! Long ago there were also
installation benefits in selling a crippled machine. jborza%burgundy@Sun.COM (Jim_Borza) (02/15/89)
In article <132@aucis.UUCP>, bnick@aucis.UUCP (Bill Nickless) writes: > What do the companies (Amdahl, IBM, et. al.) do about the "sneaky" computer > operator who figures out that you remove board X and get Y*1.5 performance? > Or if you flip this switch or comment out this code or patch the OS to allow > more than the licensed number of users on? > > How does that concept of "I've bought it, it's mine" apply here? Is it > unethical to get the best performance possible out of a machine you've paid > for, even if the manufacturer didn't intend for that performance to be avail- > able? > > If a vendor is going to sell me a computer, I would use it to its best > performance--regardless of what the vendor intends! > -- > Bill Nickless Andrews University Computer Science Department > ...!sharkey!aucis!bnick or bnick@aucis.UUCP Unix Support Group If you bought on performance specs, the manufacturer has no absolute obli- gation to support the machine's performance beyond the specs you purchased. In the case of the 'license' mentioned above: that implies a contract be- tween the purchaser and manufacturer (or seller). There's some sticky ground here which I'm sure you'll appreciate. As to the "I've bought it....etc" argument: If *YOU* bought it, you'll have to decide how to apply your ethics but if you're acting as an employee or agent of the person or corporation who really bought it, your obligation is to protect their interests, even if it means leaving the machine "crippled". The "sneaky" operator who boosts the speed beyond what was intended would risk the manufacturer saying: "We won't repair/support this gear any more since unauthorized modifications have been made...". They'd then charge either for the increased specs or for "crippling" it again. All in all, in our society, contracts rule the game (implied and written). Ethics, unfortunately, have very little to do with behavior any more. Jim Borza - Sun Microsystems Disclaimer? Sure, why not?
rjd@occrsh.ATT.COM (Randy_Davis) (02/15/89)
In article <132@aucis.UUCP> bnick@aucis.UUCP (Bill Nickless) writes: |What do the companies (Amdahl, IBM, et. al.) do about the "sneaky" computer |operator who figures out that you remove board X and get Y*1.5 performance? |Or if you flip this switch or comment out this code or patch the OS to allow |more than the licensed number of users on? [ The following is the relating of a *personal* incident and in no way ] [ am I an official representative of AT&T or their policies. The following ] [ is completely personal opinion.] On the 3B2 mailing list last year, one of the more verbose contributors wrote a quick message saying that, if you had a brass plate on top of your processor chip set on the system board, you could just switch out the clock with a faster one and have a faster machine. As I work on 3B2's and supervise portions of the testing at the factory, I was aware that the brass plates were not related to the rated clock speed of the system boards and said as much (the maximum rated speed of the processor chips is set through actual testing of the chips in question, the brass plated ones were just different production runs for other reasons). I went ahead to say that it was *possible* that the machine would work at the higher speed (the speeds in question were 10MHz stock vs the 14MHz "upgrade"), yet a complete suite of tests would be necessary to have any confidence in this. I also went on to mention that it is not something you do without testing it completely first. All I got was written abuse for taking the time to warn him (when my sole purpose was to prevent people from taking his uninformed word and to warn him and others of the possible problems). My point *is* valid too, as, since the board in question is one of the ones under my supervision, I have seen many types of strange hardware-caused errors to do with system speed. Many of which it is possible might not manifest themself unless the user does a certain combination of commands (I recall one board who liked to dump core on *one* certain Unix System V operating system command which turned out to be caused by a bad MMU). It was this danger that other 3B2-owners might take his erroneous advice and end up with screwed up machines that I was worried about. It is also probably the reason that the upgrade kit for the machine contains a new processor chip set rated for the higher speed. It is really funny in some ways: since the email and mailing list war ended, the person in question posted a few remarks about his "upgraded" system and its (new and higher) benchmark numbers, etc... One of which was ended with the line "I am posting this just to make a point" that I can only assume was aimed at me. Hilarious!!! As if a faster clocked machine is *not* going to post better benchmark numbers??? I was not concerned with its bench-marks (I knew they had better be higher if it worked at all), just with its complete functionality. I was personally very happy that it *did* work at the faster speed, as perhaps it is proof that the team I am on is doing a good job of stress testing the machine before they leave the factory. But, sure enough as his *does* work at the higher than intended speed, probably the next 100 won't. All this uninformed "upgrading" from a (claimed) electrical engineer who should know better, or should at least admit the fact that you should not operate a piece of equipment outside its specifications without knowing WHY the specifications were set or how to test the new COMPLETE functionality of the machine. |How does that concept of "I've bought it, it's mine" apply here? Is it |unethical to get the best performance possible out of a machine you've paid |for, even if the manufacturer didn't intend for that performance to be avail- |able? | |If a vendor is going to sell me a computer, I would use it to its best |performance--regardless of what the vendor intends! I personally really do believe that Bill is correct here. If you bought it, you should be able to do what you want to it. ***BUT**!!!! Do not assume that the manufacturer is unaware of the possible "upgrades" you might attempt. First, you might ask yourself (or others that might be in the know) for what reason the manufacturer might want to hold the higher ability of the machine away from the customer. One way to do this, as has been cited before, is to investigate what the *manufacturer* does to upgrade the machine. If, as in the above-cited case, the upgrade *does* involve a hardware limitation, PROCEED WITH CAUTION, not with the blind enthusiasm of a child with a new toy (as my 14MHz-happy friend was sounding). If the upgrade is simply switching a switch or trading out a known lower spec part that is holding everything else down, *AND* you are sure that that is all that is needed and that that is the way the manufacturer does it, I would personally say DO IT!! And DO IT the cheapest way you can.... The whole problem is that the uninformed often think that the BIG BAD companies are just wanting their money. Well, sometimes it may be true, but it is a dangerous generalization to make all the time. Randy Davis UUCP: ...(att!)ocrjd!randy ...(att!)occrsh!rjd
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/15/89)
Crippler circuitry in cars. Warning, rumor time. At one point the top-end engine in the Chevy Camaro was just a bit too powerful... it put the car in a very expensive bracket for most of the major insurance companies. I don't recall the details, but apparently they had categories for sports cars, muscle cars, and racing cars... and with this particular engine it was a racing car by their definition. So Chevy simply published lower specs on the engine and let the word leak out what a sleeper it was... -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
tat@pccuts.pcc.amdahl.com (Tom Thackrey) (02/15/89)
In article <132@aucis.UUCP> bnick@aucis.UUCP (Bill Nickless) writes: >What do the companies (Amdahl, IBM, et. al.) do about the "sneaky" computer >operator who figures out that you remove board X and get Y*1.5 performance? >Or if you flip this switch or comment out this code or patch the OS to allow >more than the licensed number of users on? First, the upgrade is seldom that simple. Second, it's a trade secret, so if you find out how you've probably found out from someone who will end up in court with you when the manufacturer finds out. Third, there is usually some microcode which you can't get unless you have an official upgrade. Fourth, in the case of mainframes, you'd have trouble making the change without the field engineers finding out. So, all you have to do is examine the custom-chip multi-layer printed circut boards to devine the change, fabricate new chips/boards. Add the secret wire(s). Re-write the microcode and console operating system (or patch it with no source code). Shoudn't be too hard for the average operator. -- Tom Thackrey sun!amdahl!tat00 [ The opinions expressed herin are mine alone. ]
andy@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) (02/16/89)
In article <3088@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >At one point the top-end engine in the Chevy Camaro was just a bit too >powerful... it put the car in a very expensive bracket for most of the >major insurance companies. >So Chevy simply published lower specs on the engine and let the word leak >out what a sleeper it was... I love urban myths. Insurance companies hear everything that the enthusiast hears. If the engine made a significant difference, or the IC even thought it did, the IC will charge more, no matter what the specs say. If you're lucky, they'd test it first. On the other hand, this is the kind of publicity that sells cars. Other myths have similar motivations, and they aren't always to sell something; often they're intended to hurt a company. -andy UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@polya.stanford.edu (415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle
stox@ttrde.UUCP (Kenneth P. Stox) (02/16/89)
In article <3088@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Crippler circuitry in cars. Warning, rumor time. > > At one point the top-end engine in the Chevy Camaro was just a bit too > powerful... it put the car in a very expensive bracket for most of the > major insurance companies. I don't recall the details, but apparently > they had categories for sports cars, muscle cars, and racing cars... and > with this particular engine it was a racing car by their definition. On a related note, the 1984 Mustang SVO and Thunderbird Turbo Coupe shared the same engine, but the SVO had a 3 pound greater boost on the turbo. To get the same out of the Thunderbird, all one had to do was turn a lever on the side of the turbo housing. Presto !!!! 25 more horses !! #include <std_disclaimer.h> Ken Stox AT&T Bell Laboratories att!ttrde!stox
markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) (02/16/89)
In article <132@aucis.UUCP>, bnick@aucis.UUCP (Bill Nickless) writes: > ... > How does that concept of "I've bought it, it's mine" apply here? Is it > unethical to get the best performance possible out of a machine you've paid > for, even if the manufacturer didn't intend for that performance to be avail- > able? > > If a vendor is going to sell me a computer, I would use it to its best > performance--regardless of what the vendor intends! During the era when crippler circuitry was popular, equipment was leased, not sold. When the CE came around for preventative maintence and found some upgraded equipment, they would either downgrade it or get you billed for what you were using. And you thought PM was to keep things working *-). Mark Zenier uunet!nwnexus!pilchuck!ssc!markz markz@ssc.uucp uunet!amc! uw-beaver!tikal!
bobd@ihf1.UUCP (Bob Dietrich) (02/17/89)
A mainframe computer I worked on at one time had a switch to change it from a slower to a faster model (at least 20%). Customers weren't supposed to know about it, but word leaked out and the machine was run in the faster mode. That is, until the mainframe company's CE came out to do maintenance, noticed that the diagnostics were running faster than normal, and refused to work on the machine since we weren't licensed for the upgrade. The machine went back to the slower speed. BTW, this was not at Intel. usenet: uunet!littlei!intelhf!ihf1!bobd Bob Dietrich or tektronix!ogccse!omepd!ihf1!bobd Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon or tektronix!psu-cs!omepd!ihf1!bobd (503) 696-2092
rwl@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ray Lubinsky) (02/18/89)
In article <205@nlgvax.UUCP>, hans@nlgvax.UUCP (Hans Zuidam) writes: > IBM and the computer industry at large are not the only ones using this > pricing strategy. You see the same effect in pricing of audio equipement > (CD players!), pocket calculators, and so on. Funny you should mention that. In the late 70's, I bought a four-function LED calculator from Sears. While fooling around with it, I discoverd that pressing [X] followed by [/] would produce the square root of the number! -- | Ray Lubinsky rwl@trinity.cs.virginia.edu (Internet) | | rwl@virginia (BITnet) | | Department of Computer Science, ...!uunet!virginia!uvacs!rwl (UUCP) | | University of Virginia (804) 979-6188 (voice) |
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (02/19/89)
In article <205@nlgvax.UUCP>, hans@nlgvax.UUCP (Hans Zuidam) writes: > IBM and the computer industry at large are not the only ones using this > pricing strategy. You see the same effect in pricing of audio equipement > (CD players!), pocket calculators, and so on. I own a Toshiba VCR, M5800 I believe, that has all of the "neat" functions on the remote *only*. Recently, on a home shopping channel, I saw a Toshiba that looked *exactly* like mine, down to trim placement around the LED panel. However, it did 4 or 6 more things than my VCR. How? Via the remote, of course. Any Toshiba owners want to compare remotes, serial numbers, etc? -- J. Eric Townsend | "This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. This uunet!sugar!flatline!erict | is your brain on drugs with spam and toast." bellcore!texbell!/ 511 Parker #2 |EastEnders Mailing List: BITNET: cosc5fa@uhnix1.BITNET Houston,Tx,77007 |eastender@flatline.UUCP
bradb@ai.toronto.edu (Brad Brown) (02/19/89)
In article <79700020@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >1. What are the ethics of creating a service monopoly? > >Apple seems to do this. Apple's only repair is "replace the logic >card" ($300-$600). Hence, for many simple problems (e.g. custom chip >burnout) it's $300-$600. Right. IBM sure does this on their PCs. They claim it's not worth it to repair a board, and in the case of one of those fancy surface-mount PC boards they *might* be right. Guess one of the reasons why I will never buy an IBM PC -- I'm typing this on a nice 12MHz AT clone with socketed chips... (-: Brad Brown :-) bradb@ai.toronto.edu
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (02/20/89)
In article <79700020@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >2. I think intentionally "crippled" machines are mostly a thing of >the past. IBM probably did it to avoid competing with themselves ("we >can't sell this super-fast machine cheap, because we'll hurt our own >business"). This is not really true. The only difference is that now more people are buying machines with microprocessors, which have widely announced and published timings (i.e., if you bought a Framistans, Inc. Model G, with a 25MHz 68020 and 68881, you would be really surprised if it could only do 3 MIPS, right?). People who buy mainframes (and some brands of minis) still have to put up with this. For example: CDC's newer machines have a field upgrade which essentially consists of replacing the boot up microcode. Crays also have a nice little field upgrade, but, considering what the Cray CE's carry around in their vans, that's not saying much 8-). -- Sean Eric Fagan | "What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, seanf@sco.UUCP | the master calls a butterfly." -- Richard Bach (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (02/20/89)
In article <751@pccuts.pcc.amdahl.com> tat@pccuts.pcc.amdahl.com (Tom Thackrey) writes: >First, the upgrade is seldom that simple. Second, it's a trade secret, >so if you find out how you've probably found out from someone who will >end up in court with you when the manufacturer finds out. Third, there >is usually some microcode which you can't get unless you have an official >upgrade. Fourth, in the case of mainframes, you'd have trouble making the >change without the field engineers finding out. 1. Sometimes it is. See a previous article about CDC's and upgrading. 2. Not necessarily. In the case of (1) above, it was discovered when they upgraded one of their machines and looked at the differences. They owned, of course, both machines. 3. Not all machines have microcode, which is why the Cybers mentioned above could be upgraded by the removal of a wire or two. Crays also don't have microcode ("Real(tm) Computers don't have Microcode"). 4. If it's easy, what you do is deliberately slow the machine down for when the ce's come by. If it's microcode, all you have to do is have two boot tapes. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, seanf@sco.UUCP | the master calls a butterfly." -- Richard Bach (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
B.Witts@ucl-cs.UUCP (02/24/89)
From: Bill Witts <B.Witts@uk.ac.ucl.cs>
I get the feeling that there is an unnecessary degree of
abstraction in this debate. The cost of buying the machine or
buying an upgrade from somebody is *entirely* based upon their
calculation of what can best further their company's interests,
probably by maximizing profit. They don't have any obligation
to make an upgrade any more complex than they have to, and if
you were happy with the original machine at the price you paid
and you were happy to pay the quoted amount for the upgrade,
then you have no grounds for complaint when the techy just
rips out a jump-lead. You are paying for the upgrade, they are
simply trying to deprive you of your assets. Normal business.
Do ethics really enter into this? Nobody actually gets stung,
and the only reason people feel dissatisfied seems to be some
kind of resentment because "I could have done that". But it
isn't the vendor's problem that you feel this way: you knew the
cost and were willing to pay. I personally would feel far
happier to have my machine upgraded like this - I would feel
that the upgrade was designed in from the start - than to have
some guy spend a week hacksawing the circuit boards, installing
new fans, cutting tracks and soldering obscure transistors
across them, desoldering processors, adding smoke alarms,
fire-escapes ... Is this the sort of upgrade people would feel
was "worth the money"?
... Bill - "We ain't runnin' no charity here boy"
************************************************************************
Bill Witts, CS Dept. * Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
UCL, London, Errrp * mi ritrovai per una selva oscura
william@cs.ucl.ac.uk * che la diritta via era smarrita.
************************************************************************msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) (03/03/89)
> Do ethics really enter into this? Nobody actually gets stung, > and the only reason people feel dissatisfied seems to be some > kind of resentment because "I could have done that". If the fast version of the machine sells for $B (B for Big Number), and the crippled version sells for $S, and the crippling really is done simply by adding something (something non-functional and of negligible cost) to the fast version, then the manufacturer must be making $(B-X) profit on each fast machine and $(S-X) on each crippled one, for some $X. Unless they're engaging on "loss leader" or similar strategies, both numbers are positive. This means that the vendor could have chosen to sell the fast machines at price $S and still made a profit. Instead they elected to receive a profit larger by a substantial amount, namely $(B-S). Now posit a second company selling a virtually identical machine but selling the fast version for $S, with comparable marketing and the like. Result: they get all the business. But what if the second company also decides to take the crippler approach? Then each company, maybe, gets half the business and greater total profit. The ethical issue arises in two ways: if several companies are in the same market and many or all of them are using cripplers, there is an appearance of price-fixing. And if only one company is in a market and is using a crippler, they appear to be taking advantage of a type of monopoly. But for these purposes "a market" may mean one segment of a highly segmented market; computers of different brands sometimes don't really compete against each other; so these situations do happen. Now, is price-fixing ethical? Is this price-fixing? There's your ethical question. The resentment arises from the perception that this may be happening. It also arises from the fact that the existence of the crippler circuit makes the buyer feel that the profit increase of $(B-S) is *unreasonable*; after all, the vendor is earning that increase for nothing. So the buyer feels taken advantage of. Probably if the vendor sold the fast machine only, the price would be between $B and $S; but the buyer sees only that the vendor could have sold for $S and still made a profit, and resents that. I have tried to present this neutrally, but my emotion is with the buyer. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto It's all Henry's fault. utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Geoff Collyer
haynes@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) (03/03/89)
In article <1989Mar2.193443.17196@sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > >If the fast version of the machine sells for $B (B for Big Number), and >the crippled version sells for $S, and the crippling really is done >simply by adding something (something non-functional and of negligible >cost) to the fast version, then the manufacturer must be making $(B-X) >profit on each fast machine and $(S-X) on each crippled one, for some $X. But the problem is that X is not a constant with time. Typically the fast version comes on the market first, when $B is big but $X is also big. In fact for the first machine produced $X is a lot bigger than $B if you divide the total development cost by the number produced to-date. The vendor makes a guess as to the number that will sell, or that will sell in the first year, and uses that to compute $X. So $(B-X) may not be inordinate for the original value of X. Also the initial $B is constrained by what is already in the marketplace; unless you're IBM you can't set $B higher than the price of machines of similar performance already on the market. In fact for a new machine you'll have to set it lower to attract any business. If your sales estimate is overly optimistic then $X is higher than you expected and $(B-X) may indeed be negative. Think how many companies entered the computer business over the years, and how many of them exited without ever showing a profit. After your machine has been on the market for a while a couple of things happen. If sales hold up then $X per unit will go down, both because you recover the startup cost and because the cost to manufacture goes down with experience. Secondly, newer machines are introduced or rumored which because of advancing technology promise higher performance at the same or lower cost. So your machines become less attractive at the price $B. But because $X has declined you can afford to sell at some lower price $S and still make money, which would not have been possible at time of first introduction. Here's where the mathematics get tricky, because you want to maximize total profit. So you want to sell as many as you think you can at the original price $B, and sell as many more as you think you can at some lower price $S that will attract those unwilling to pay $B. It's also complicated by asset value of the machines that are out there. This was probably more true in the past when leasing was much more a normal way to obtain a computer. (Remember when you couldn't buy an IBM machine at all, you could only lease?) I don't pretend to know anything about accounting, but if you put machines out at an initial price of $B then the owners (you, or the buyer, or a third-party leasing company) expect to depreciate that figure over a certain length of time and this is used to set the lease price at something sufficient to pay back the money you or the buyer or the third-party company borrowed to build the machines with in the first place. Now if after a year you simply reduce the price of the machine from $B to $S things get messy fast. Like your lease customers might find it advantageous to return the machines, terminate the lease, and then lease newer copies of the same machines for a lower rate based on $S. By introducing a crippled version of the machine you hope to destroy the incentive to turn back leased machines; and also you hope to keep the original depreciation schedule intact. Remember when IBM killed Itel by introducing new models well before the older ones were depreciated? haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu haynes@ucscc.bitnet ..ucbvax!ucscc!haynes "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
mike@apollo.COM (Michael Schloss) (03/04/89)
In article <1989Mar2.193443.17196@sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >> Do ethics really enter into this? Nobody actually gets stung, >> and the only reason people feel dissatisfied seems to be some >> kind of resentment because "I could have done that". > >If the fast version of the machine sells for $B (B for Big Number), and >the crippled version sells for $S, and the crippling really is done >simply by adding something (something non-functional and of negligible >cost) to the fast version, then the manufacturer must be making $(B-X) >profit on each fast machine and $(S-X) on each crippled one, for some $X. >Unless they're engaging on "loss leader" or similar strategies, both numbers >are positive. > >This means that the vendor could have chosen to sell the fast machines >at price $S and still made a profit. Instead they elected to receive >a profit larger by a substantial amount, namely $(B-S). Now posit a >second company selling a virtually identical machine but selling the >fast version for $S, with comparable marketing and the like. Result: >they get all the business. But what if the second company also decides >to take the crippler approach? Then each company, maybe, gets half the >business and greater total profit. > >The ethical issue arises in two ways: if several companies are in >the same market and many or all of them are using cripplers, there is >an appearance of price-fixing. And if only one company is in a market >and is using a crippler, they appear to be taking advantage of a type >of monopoly. But for these purposes "a market" may mean one segment of a >highly segmented market; computers of different brands sometimes don't >really compete against each other; so these situations do happen. Now, is >price-fixing ethical? Is this price-fixing? There's your ethical question. > >The resentment arises from the perception that this may be happening. >It also arises from the fact that the existence of the crippler circuit >makes the buyer feel that the profit increase of $(B-S) is *unreasonable*; >after all, the vendor is earning that increase for nothing. So the buyer >feels taken advantage of. Probably if the vendor sold the fast machine >only, the price would be between $B and $S; but the buyer sees only that the >vendor could have sold for $S and still made a profit, and resents that. > >I have tried to present this neutrally, but my emotion is with the buyer. > >Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto It's all Henry's fault. >utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Geoff Collyer You may be missing a point here. Let's say that each incremental machine costs $X. Let's also say that R&D costs for the machine are 10000 * $X. The company wants to sell as many of these as possible to recoup their R&D costs and make a profit. They sell the machines for $Y where Y >> X. In the course of their sales and marketing research they have found that there are a lot of people out there who would like to buy the machine but can't afford $Y. If the market is isolated enough they may sell some at a cost of $(X+Z) where Z is a relatively small markup. An example of this is a manufacturer giving a big discount to universities. As long as it doesn't affect sales for $Y there is no harm done. If the market isn't isolated enough then they may resort to one or more "crippled" versions. They aren't trying to cheat the customer, they are just trying to sell more machines without hurting their regular ($X) sales. Other businesses do this too. Ever seen a bookstore selling paperbacks with the cover torn off? Or record stores selling "cut-outs", albums with one corner cut off of the jacket. A better example would be the clothing stores that buy from manufactures that have stamped "IRREGULAR" on the inside of a pair of pants, or slash the label, or cut the little gator off. Hope this clears things up. Mike Schloss mike@apollo.com {decvax,mit-erl,yale}!apollo!mike
bga@raspail.cdcnet.cdc.com (Bruce Albrecht) (03/04/89)
In article <1989Mar2.193443.17196@sq.com>, msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > > Do ethics really enter into this? Nobody actually gets stung, > > and the only reason people feel dissatisfied seems to be some > > kind of resentment because "I could have done that". > > If the fast version of the machine sells for $B (B for Big Number), and > the crippled version sells for $S, and the crippling really is done > simply by adding something (something non-functional and of negligible > cost) to the fast version, then the manufacturer must be making $(B-X) > profit on each fast machine and $(S-X) on each crippled one, for some $X. > Unless they're engaging on "loss leader" or similar strategies, both numbers > are positive. Suppose the situation is this: the company expects to sell N fast machines for $B, and the R&D for developing the fast machine is $R, or $R/N per machine. X is the cost to manufacture and sell the machine. The profit for the big machine is therefore $(B-X-R/N). If, in addition to the fast machine, there is a market for M "cripplied" machines, and it would cost .1 R to design cripple circuitry, but .8 R to design a separate, slower machine. Therefore, if it costs roughly the same to build the fast machine or the slow machine, the profit for the slow machine is either $(S-X-.1R/M) or $(S-X-.8R/M). As you can see, it is far more profitable for a company to build a system that is as fast as it can build, and slow it down, than it is to design two separate systems. So the company is better off selling a cheap "crippled" system, even though the manufacturing costs aren't cheaper, if the R&D costs are high. When the computer system has proprietary OS and applications, the buyer is mostly buying the applications, but also buying price performance. Even if the customer buys the original system for price-performance reasons, any subsequent purchases are probably for the applications. It makes a lot of business sense, especially when you're selling proprietary software, to sell wimpy machines to capture new customers that are on a low budget and buying applications for the first time, because repeat sales are easier than finding new customers. After all, there are a lot of businesses out there that buy a cheap system, wait until they are exceeding their computing resources, and then upgrade to a larger system, rather than spending the big bucks to buy the more powerful system in the first place. > The ethical issue arises in two ways: if several companies are in > the same market and many or all of them are using cripplers, there is > an appearance of price-fixing. And if only one company is in a market > and is using a crippler, they appear to be taking advantage of a type > of monopoly. But for these purposes "a market" may mean one segment of a > highly segmented market; computers of different brands sometimes don't > really compete against each other; so these situations do happen. Now, is > price-fixing ethical? Is this price-fixing? There's your ethical question. It's not price fixing unless the companies agree to set prices together. In reality, the computer companies set their prices based on their older equipment, other companies current prices, manufacturing costs, R&D costs, etc. It's no more price fixing than when your local gas stations all sell gas at the same price, or within 2-3 cents. > The resentment arises from the perception that this may be happening. > It also arises from the fact that the existence of the crippler circuit > makes the buyer feel that the profit increase of $(B-S) is *unreasonable*; > after all, the vendor is earning that increase for nothing. So the buyer > feels taken advantage of. Probably if the vendor sold the fast machine > only, the price would be between $B and $S; but the buyer sees only that the > vendor could have sold for $S and still made a profit, and resents that. I doubt that most corporate buyers feel cheated. They are, after all, buying a product with a certain performance. How it obtains that performance is irrelevant. I suspect that the people that are the most outraged at "crippled" machines don't even have any financial stake in it, don't understand the basis for pricing, and are mostly upset because they really want a supercomputer for the price of a PC, and they think that building a "crippled" machine is preventing them from getting one. > I have tried to present this neutrally, but my emotion is with the buyer. It shows.
wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) (03/06/89)
In article <1989Mar2.193443.17196@sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: [ Discussion of slow-down circuits to create price differentials ] > > Do ethics really enter into this? Nobody actually gets stung, > Now, is price-fixing ethical? Is this price-fixing? > There's your ethical question. As long as there's no coercion involved, charging any price you want is ethical. In poor taste, maybe. A bad marketing move, maybe. A clear sign to your customers that they might get better service from another company, maybe. But as long as the wimped-down version of the machine delivers the performance you told them it would, it's ethical. Unethical is when you ask the US Government to keep the competition from selling their products without crippler circuits for the same prices as your selling your crippled versions. That's using force to extract money from your customers, merely a friendly version of theft. After all, if the Government says they're here to help you, might as well help yourselves... But if you can get your customers to buy the artificially-slow machine for an artifically high price, and your competitors do the same, maybe the customers will believe they're getting better services from the people with the impressive brand names than from Clonesville Computers. And if not, Clonesville will kick your butts. Which will also be perfectly ethical. -- # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs # Synchronicity is when the paper has an article about Moonie ties to # Right Wing Politicians, and they're dropping the charges against Ollie North, # and you finally find that copy of "Illuminatus!"
chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (03/06/89)
In article <491@skep2.ATT.COM> wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) writes: >As long as there's no coercion involved, charging any price you want is >ethical. In poor taste, maybe. A bad marketing move, maybe. A clear >sign to your customers that they might get better service from another >company, maybe. But as long as the wimped-down version of the machine >delivers the performance you told them it would, it's ethical. The definition of `ethic' is a bit slippery%, but if you rephrase this as `will I stop you, and do I think other people should stop you?', my answer is `no'. I *do* think `crippler' circuits are stupid, and I would recommend that people not buy the machine, but I happen to like free markets. >Unethical is when you ask the US Government to keep the competition >from selling their products without crippler circuits for the same >prices as your selling your crippled versions. And many people seem to agree with this, until . . . >maybe the customers will believe they're getting better services from >the people with the impressive brand names than from Clonesville Computers. >And if not, Clonesville will kick your butts. . . . they find out that Clonesville is a (Korean|Japanese|insert your favourite rival country) manufacturer and start crying for tariffs. Hmm. ----- % Webster defines `ethical' as ... 2: conforming to accepted esp. professional standards of conduct ... so one could claim that `if everyone does it' it must be `ethical'. `Ethical' also carries a fair connotative weight. Best to avoid the word outside of rhetoric. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) (03/07/89)
Quoting one of three rather similar followups to my item: > You may be missing a point here. Let's say that each incremental machine > costs $X. Let's also say that R&D costs for the machine are 10000 * $X. > ... In the course of their sales and marketing research they have found > that there are a lot of people out there who would like to buy the > machine but can't afford $Y. No, I didn't miss this. The question I was discussing was not whether the manufacturer has a motivation to engage in this behavior -- clearly they do -- but whether one can legitimately question their ethics when they do. It may be argued that the ethical manufacturer, in the above situation, would simply reduce the price of the machine after selling some number of them at the initial price. It may also be argued that there is no ethical obligation for them to do so. Mark Brader "Alas, there is NO SUCH THING as SoftQuad Inc., Toronto 'NO SUCH THING as privileged access.'" utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Alan Silverstein
B.Witts@ucl-cs.UUCP (03/17/89)
From: Bill Witts <B.Witts@uk.ac.ucl.cs> >% Webster defines `ethical' as > ... 2: conforming to accepted esp. professional standards of conduct ... > so one could claim that `if everyone does it' it must be `ethical'. > `Ethical' also carries a fair connotative weight. Best to avoid the > word outside of rhetoric. Interesting point - if a whole industry is wrapped up as a cartel, then this presumably becomes the professional code of conduct .....? ... Bill