Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[OT]:HP 6000 scopes with crippleware...'
|This isn't a value judgment but it is entirely possible that James first description
has an economic advantage to everyone even when accounting for the apparent
economic loss from the second group.
Take all the features that everyone wants and build a device that supports them
charge each customer for the features they want. Integrate the costs and the
revenue generated and compare the integration of costs and revenue generated
from several different products for several different customer types. Reliably
should be up and and customer costs costs should be down. Nash won a
Nobel prize for just this type of economic thinking.
The economics of the second group are even more interesting. There is the
time cost of cracking the product. What is the value of time? If you are a
consultant and your already working long hours (as determined by your
significant other) and it is crack the scope (maybe literally) or do bill able work
there is a cost or maybe your time is free. The scope provider has gained
because they no longer are responsible for product support.
Points to ponder.
"James Newton, Host" wrote:
At 05:39 PM 6/14/2005, Walter Banks wrote:
>This isn't a value judgment but it is entirely possible that James
>has an economic advantage to everyone even when accounting for the apparent
>economic loss from the second group.
>Take all the features that everyone wants and build a device that
>charge each customer for the features they want. Integrate the costs and the
>revenue generated and compare the integration of costs and revenue generated
>from several different products for several different customer types. Reliably
>should be up and and customer costs costs should be down. Nash won a
>Nobel prize for just this type of economic thinking.
I've seen and read beautiful mind, but I would like to know more
about nash's work.
Also, my wife has the same problem, though not usually to that degree.
Makes life interesting.
Alan B. Pearce
> > Ok, I'll bite. I agree. If you signed an agreement with the
> > bike lessee that you accepted the brakes as is, and that if
> > you wanted to go faster you'd purchase a brake fix upgrade.
> > How is this different from cracking serial numbers for
> > software licenses?
> 1. Should a mfgr sell a device with crippled hardware and upgrade via
> / license / etc... or should they sell only the hardware that is actually
> used and upgrade via a full hardware install?
> 2. Should a consumer who has purchased a crippled device UN-cripple the
> device without paying for the upgrade?
> 3. Should a mfgr rip off it's existing customer base by charging many
> cost for an upgrade?
All right. Let me be a devils advocate as well.
Customer comes along and wants a gee-whiz fancy bit of test equipment. I am
prepared to develop it, and market it at a fee the company is prepared to
pay, and I am prepared to do this because I see a market out there. This
allows me to make a reasonable profit on the product.
But along the way I realise I can sell double the number of units if I can
sell a cut down functionality unit at a lower price. Perhaps some other
customer has come up with a similar, but reduced functional spec from what
the first customer proposed, and I realise that it is so similar to a subset
of the first spec that the one unit will do both jobs. But second customer
will not pay the price of the full instrument, so I disable the relevant
functions in the full instrument and sell at reduced price. Both customers
Is this not what the crippleware discussion is all about? You pay for the
functions you require. If you wanted the full functionality of the
instrument you would probably have paid the price without thinking about how
the lower price one was achieved at that price. The fact that you bought the
power price one and realised that there is only a cable and a software key
to get the full functionality is what is bugging you, but that is how the
world works, and has done for a long time.
> Is this not what the crippleware discussion is all about ?
I think your comments sum it up Alan. The extra functions had
obviously to be developed at some cost and if you want those
functions, you pay for them. Otherwise you take just the basics
OTOH, there is a marketing strategy that involves holding back
technology (although I'm not sure it's totally applicable in HP's
case as above, but then again, printers, cameras ? ......)
A manufacturer may have the capability to make an advanced
product, but instead releases "generations" of the product so
that consumers will graduate. For example (and I don't know if
this is actually the case so please don't anyone from Vodaphone
tar and feather me, just trying to think of an allegory) something
like a cell-phone. Models are released with ever-increasingly
swish functions, but those functions may actually have been
available a year or more before. But "generations" mean sales
andd functions are drip-fed onto the market as "the new thing"
After the movie a lot more of Nash's work is online. It has been a
couple years since I checked but unless he died recently his contact
information was on line a couple years ago.
He did a lot to start identifying economically viable alternatives
to zero sum games.
The scope example here is more issues of presentation by the
manufacturer than good value for money. The alternative is a
higher cost products for both the low end and high end buyer or
even worse a single product that will not meet the needs of either
consumer group. At one end the cost is too high and at the
other end insufficient features.
As I said in other emails this an observation not a judgment.
Dave VanHorn wrote:
> > Nash won a
> >Nobel prize for just this type of economic thinking.
> I've seen and read beautiful mind, but I would like to know more
> about nash's work.
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005
, 2006 only
- New search...