, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Because it means that the customer then gets better products in future at less cost.

Like Windows 8 and draconian licensed Office 2013!

, evildictait​or wrote

Or the inherent cost of making Windows has gone up, and that removing expensive components has meant that Microsoft didn't have to pass that cost onto consumers.

This is beyond fanboi. Somehow they were able to still make the pricing EXACTLY the same as the previous version, and ONLY the loss of DVD codec allowed them this? Sure thing.

, evildictait​or wrote

Or maybe the reduction in price allowed Microsoft to subsidize Windows to $40 for six months for millions of customers.

Six months?

By the way, W7 had reduced pricing on debut as well. And let's lot fool anyone. That pricing was there to up W8's marketshare at all costs, to promote the store and metro (like pretty much all UI additions to W8 do, too). They would have probably done it even with DVD codecs this time.

, evildictait​or wrote

Money is a zero-sum asset. If Microsoft makes Windows more expensive by bundling expensive components, at the end of the day it's the customers who are going to have to pay for it.

You know fully well that the customers gained NOTHING by the loss of the DVD codecs. The only net gain was for MS. Nice: Pricing of the codec-less version is the same as for the previous version with codec, and they get now additional sweet bucks for the media pack to boot.

Your poor defense of MS here is weak and more holey than Swiss cheese. Actually it's clear now that discussing with you is a waste of time. It's obvious that you would claim any kind of B.S. to make Microsoft's decisions look good.