Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
sci.econ
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Software upgrades: More harm than good
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
djr  
View profile  
 More options Apr 7 2000, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: d...@temple.edu
Date: 2000/04/07
Subject: Re: Software upgrades: More harm than good
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Jimmy wrote:
> Rather than do it through taxes and let the government decide what to
> spend my income on, how about letting me keep the money?  Then, if I
> want to get the linux software, or even the Word upgrade, I can do so.
> If I don't want either one of those things, I can spend the money on the
> things I do want.

The point is that you _must_ buy the Word upgrade, if you want to
communicate with other people.  That's the negative externality that
needs correcting.

Gambit wrote:
> Yes, for sure, but at least it will be public-domain, i.e. owned by
> everybody, not a tentacular corporation.

I have nothing against corporations.  But software production has high
economies of scale (marginal cost ~0) so again government intervention
may be justified on "natural monopoly" grounds.

tonyp wrote:
> I'd vote for laws against _stupidity_ though.

Hear, hear!

SUSUPPLY wrote:
> I hope you're happy Dan, now that you've brought out the planned obsolescence
> quacks.

Oops.  Didn't realize they were out there.

> Anyway, I decided to run the above past my computer consultant, and
> here is what he had to say:
>what he describes as a Microsoft practice is
> common for this industry.

True.  Bill Gates was a convenient personification.

> I do not know if this practice is a cleverly designed and concealed
> marketing planned obsolescence tactic, or just the nature of compiling more
> advanced computing programs

Me neither.  At this point, I suspect the former.

People like your economist

> friend have little obvious appreciation for the magnificence of today's
> products

No, I like what they can do.

> compared even to last year's versions

Correct. I see little useful improvements at this point.

The basic question is:
do the marginal benefits (more bells and whistles) of upgrades outweigh
the marginal social costs ($ spent AND creating incompatibility).

Dan
in Philly


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google