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.

w..





"James Newton, Host" wrote:

> > 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 jumper
> / 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 times
> cost for an upgrade?
>
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist