Hi Charlie,

>>>The more competition there is, the better off consumers will be.
>
>Competition is good, it motivates companies to operate more efficiently. I'm all for that! However, when a company reaches a level of specialization where its unit costs begin to fall as production rises, they can sell cheaper and cheaper. Once they capture the market, it is the job of regulators to make sure they don't start exercising monopoly power by cutting back production to raise prices. MS is not doing this! If MS can produce software more efficiently then anyone else, let them do so and everyone is better off.
>
Well I've wondered for a while now if MS isn't doing exactly this in a way! I look at the Office suite, which to my mind hasn't changed significantly since Office95, and I really have to ask myself why its current incarnation costs as much as it does. I understand pricing with, for instance, car models which change only slightly from year to year because they actually deliver a whole new fresh tangible product. But with Office I see basically the same thing with a few baubles added and all in electronic form in a very cheap medium. Sure, we (the consumer) pay for the upgraded product (I know I will someday) despite the price, but it's gotta be one great BIG cash cow!!! Seems to me that by now their costs are next to nothing compared to the profits being collected.

Just a pont of view

Jim N


>Keep in mind consumers vote with their pocket books. MS would not have risen to the top of the software market by not making people happy!
>
>Charlie