Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: werefrog who wrote (42651)	4/20/2000 3:57:00 PM
From: Captain Jack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

JH-- I think I'll sue the kid that cuts my grass based on that thinking. Do you think he will head to the poor side of town to work at $20 per lawn or work here at $60?

To: werefrog who wrote (42651)	4/20/2000 4:19:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Respond to of 74651

JH: This is one of Jackson's classic comments:could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 from Windows 95, but instead Microsoft charged $89 because it was the ``revenue-maximizing price. Have you ever heard of a company that doesn't try and charge the price that maximizes revenues. This statement says the following. If they had charged more people would not have bought as many. Why? Because they would have elected an alternative or chosen to stay with their existing O/S. If it were a real monopoly they could have charged 129 and sold fewer than before and thus reduced the market while increasing their revenues. But as it turned out they sold more than ever and thus expanded the market at a price the market dictated would maximize revenues. Of course they could have charged $20 or less and minimized revenues but maximized the market numbers at which point Jackson would have charged them for predatory pricing. I have never heard of a judge making such a stupid comment in all my life. This guy beats the Queen of Hearts. JFD