Is it anti-competitive to use the revenues from one business area to give away products in another business area? Everyone here seems to be saying it is fine to do. To me it is not as clear. If Google did not make a ton of money in ad revenues there is no way they could support Android OS for free. The only reason Google gives away Android is to increase those ad revenues. It is hard to compete with free especially when the free product is produced by a competitive company. It may be there are valid reasons this business model is "fair". But no one is addressing the root issue.
Business customers are paying the $400 to get Outlook not Word. Outlook's calendar is used to schedule most activities in large organizations. So really it is the integration provided by Exchange that people are paying for. If you don't use/need that integration then you are wasting $400.
The low gas prices in the US have fueled the SUV craze. Vehicle gas mileage is barely considered for many people when purchasing vehicles since gasoline costs are insignificant. I see many people bashing the US because we love big cars. There's no reason not to love big cars here. There is no penalty for excessive fuel consumption.
In other news, the Fox said farmers have unrealistic expectations for the safety of henhouses. "Guarding a henhouse takes a lot more than just closing and locking the door", said the Fox. "Why would you expect the door on a henhouse to work? Only an expert like myself has the capability to guard the hens."
>
I am not sure this is the best technique to determine if something is true. In Bowling, Moore uses creative editing to create speeches that were never spoken. I am not sure you can sue someone for taking things out of context. Regardless, I would prefer not to put my trust in the hands of lawyers.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it anti-competitive to use the revenues from one business area to give away products in another business area? Everyone here seems to be saying it is fine to do. To me it is not as clear. If Google did not make a ton of money in ad revenues there is no way they could support Android OS for free. The only reason Google gives away Android is to increase those ad revenues. It is hard to compete with free especially when the free product is produced by a competitive company. It may be there are valid reasons this business model is "fair". But no one is addressing the root issue.
Business customers are paying the $400 to get Outlook not Word. Outlook's calendar is used to schedule most activities in large organizations. So really it is the integration provided by Exchange that people are paying for. If you don't use/need that integration then you are wasting $400.
The low gas prices in the US have fueled the SUV craze. Vehicle gas mileage is barely considered for many people when purchasing vehicles since gasoline costs are insignificant. I see many people bashing the US because we love big cars. There's no reason not to love big cars here. There is no penalty for excessive fuel consumption.
In other news, the Fox said farmers have unrealistic expectations for the safety of henhouses. "Guarding a henhouse takes a lot more than just closing and locking the door", said the Fox. "Why would you expect the door on a henhouse to work? Only an expert like myself has the capability to guard the hens."
> I am not sure this is the best technique to determine if something is true. In Bowling, Moore uses creative editing to create speeches that were never spoken. I am not sure you can sue someone for taking things out of context. Regardless, I would prefer not to put my trust in the hands of lawyers.