Realist, first of all the profit margin on Windows for the last quarter was 85% not 89%. It isn't a big difference, but it is a difference. Secondly, and I've been looking unsuccessfully to find the link, many software companies have margins as high as 70% or 80% on their products.
Third, what's with the "overcharging" bit? You'll have to tell me what wouldn't be considered overcharging, because I for one don't feel myself qualified to dictate to a company what they should charge for a product. It's interesting that you attack Microsoft for "overcharging" presumably for Windows, yet its closest competitor (Apple) has charged three times for three versions of its latest OS in little more than a year. That means the cumulative cost of OS X for an early adobpter is greater than the cost of Windows XP for an early adopter. Who is overcharging?
I seem to hear migration stories all the time and people claiming they are switching from Windows to Linux or MacOS or Solaris or something else out there. If Microsoft as overbearing as you make them out to be, why haven't even a moderate number (say, 10%) dropped Windows and fled to a better deal? Just perhaps, Windows is a significanly better value proposition than you give it credit for. Just perhaps, Windows' TCO is less than the TCO of its competitors. Just perhaps Windows really is worth the money. If Windows isn't worth the money, then every CTO on the planet that buys it should be fired.
|