>> And what, you'd prefer that everyone had to pay a kind of mid-range-price 
>> for the top version, when 90% of home users won't care about all the 
>> features in the top version?  Or that MS develop 2 or 3 totally separate 
>> product lines, probably making all prices higher due to far more 
>> development required?
>
> How about they just allow unlimited CPUs on all versions? That would cost 
> them nothing in development terms...

But it would more than likely lose them profit.

Believe me, they will have all sorts of models, data and empirical formulae 
to determine the best pricing structure and sales strategy.  I am 99% sure 
if they implemented your suggestion they would make less money overall.

Why?  Because there is a significant group of people who are willing to pay 
extra for (almost) unlimited CPU support (among other features).  If MS does 
not take advantage of this (as you suggest), then they have immediately lost 
that income.  Will they make it back in extra sales of the single version? 
Unlikely, the people who previously could not afford the cheap version will 
not suddenly want to buy it just because it supports unlimited CPUs now, 
they are at the wrong end of the market.  So they have to up the price of 
the single version.  This certainly will reduce sales though, but will the 
reduced sales be offset by the increased price?  This is what the economics 
of selling a product is all about, and MS probably have quite a lot of good 
people working on it.

Why do adults have to pay more than children at the cinema?  It's the same 
answer.

Post a reply to this message