#PC BOYCOTT
24 messages in this thread
3DO's M2 was recently unveiled through press releases and the whole shabang.
It so happens that the M2 will be equipped with RISC processing power, 64bit
video and 8 MBs of RAM. The machine shoold run you just under 500$.
I believe I speak for all PC consumers when I sound the following barbaric
yawp:
" PC BOYCOTT!!!! "
It is time that we stood for our rights as consumers. Prices are out of
control on PC equipment. We're dishing out thousands of buckaroos for
entry-level equipment when it should be hundreds or less. We fail to notice
that if printing Pentium processors costs 25c a pop, we shouldn't be paying
over 500$ for 'em!! Who ever heard of 200 000% profit margins without them
being illegal?!?
You're probably thinking to yourselves " What is there to do against
corporations like Big Blue? Picketing alone in front of their headquarters
proudly chanting " RAM for the price of HAM! " won't get you anywhere. "
Well, you're right. There isn't anything you can do about it. Look at
me: All I can do is post a message in a Cserve forum and hope that, through an
odd turn of events, 2.32 million people will pick it up and simlutaneously
launch the greatest boycott any worlwide market has ever witnessed in the
history of man/womankind.
So I have only this to say:
Bill Gates 1, Five Billion Suckers 0
Phillippe,
I never thought I would wind up supporting something someone considered price
gouging, but………………
I don't know what you do for a living, but from the tone of your message, you
do not supply a service or a product. I'm an architect by training, inclination
and practice. By your reasoning, I should only be charging for the paper that
my designs are printed upon, as that is the only thing that the client receives
(as well as my invoice). I couldn't stay in business very long only charging
for the paper that the plans and designs are printed upon, could I ???
It may in fact only cost Intel $25 to produce each pentium chip. But how are
they supposed to recoop the billions (yes…billions) in research, design and
setup costs they spent to be able to produce that $25 chip. And that is true
for each and every piece in one of these machines. And as the pieces get more
sophisticated and more complex, the price of development only gets larger.
BTW. I've moved your original message to section 12 as it didn't have anything
to do with 3DS or any other program that Autodesk manufacturers.
Speaking of that, I wonder if Autodesk would be willing to market any of it's
products for the cost of the disks and the duplication……….NOT !!!!!
I think you desperately need a refresher course in economics for the real
world.
Hi Joe,
Haven't seen you in awhile, so just wanted to say hello… nothing on the
topic… heck you're doing fine anyway. <BG>
John
Hey John,
How ya'all doin' ??? Though I ain't talked to you in awhile, I've been here,
just ain't been so vocal. Keeping the velvet glove on the mailed fist so to
speak….<g>. 'Sides, Anne has a good handle on the forum, and she be the
official WIZ so it is her's now.
But every once in awhile, something comes up that makes me want to rattle the
chains……………….<heeheeheehee>.
>> How ya'all doin' ??? <<
Doin' just fine, just re-orienting priorities mostly.
>> Keeping the velvet glove on the mailed fist… <<
I knew I recongnised that glow on the horizon, it was the sun reflecting off
the Knight Joe MacCrae's shining armor. 🙂
>> makes me want to rattle the chains…. <<
nothing quite like the sparks that fly from that mailed fist wielding a mace…
<G>
I prefer Laser guided Sidewinders myself, being an ex-Air Force jock… <g>
John
Joe,
Excellent reply. Nice to see a clear mind at work.
Alec Jason
Why thank you Alec. Nice to see that some one actually reads the drivel that I
occasionally post………..<g>.
You know, He may not know everything about cost recoup, but he does have a
point. I'm certain that IBM has more than covered their costs of research.
They're swimming in it. I think this man's complaint is that IBM is pinching
the end users in the PC market. It's obviously affordable to sell these
processors at a reduced rate to the game makers so why not PC users? Must we
carry all the burden of helping them cover research costs. It's purely an
example of let's do it because we can not because we must! I have a BA in
economics and I know price gouging when I see it.
Terry,
I didn't see anything about IBM in the original message. Where did you get this
impression ??? From the thread title ???
Philippe was initially gripping about the 3DO interactive learning machine, and
then he got on to the pentium chips. I don't really know anything about the 3DO
machines, but I do know something about the pentiums. And one of the things I
do know about them is that Intel spent a coupla' billion dollars in research,
design and development for both the chip and the cells in which to manufacture
it.
Even at $475 a pop it still takes a lot of units and a long time to recoop a
billion dollars. But since you do have that BA in Economics, let's do this a
little smarter. The retail price of the pentium (in it's various and sundry
incarnations) is about $500. Intel may get $200 of that $500, as the
distributor and the retailer have to get their cuts too. So if we assume that
the actual production cost of the chip is $25 as stated by Philippe, that
leaves them with $175 per unit to cover costs of marketing, overhead, expensive
executive salaries, stock dividends, development rebates and all those other
little nagging things that cost money to run a company.
But let's be generous, all that other stuff only adds $75, so they actually get
a return of $100 per chip to pay back the costs of development and
manufacturing facilities. Gee…according to my calculator, it will take only
10,000,000 chips to recoop a billion dollars at $100 a pop.
And they ain't made a profit yet.
Do you really have a BA in Economics ??? If you had a customer that said he
wanted to purchase 1,000,000 units directly from you, would you sell those
units to that customer for the same price as a single unit from a retail outlet
??? That would be price gouging on a grand scale. Not only would you be making
your normal profits from each unit, but you would also be raking in the costs
and profits of the wholesaler and the retailer……not bad.
And if the research costs aren't paid by someone, who's going to research and
design the next generation of chips ??? Are you going to do it ??? Do you have
a coupla billion to throw away on the next generation ??? If you did, would you
not want it back, and with a very good INTEREST ????
These companies aren't altruistic, liberal entities. The government isn't going
to spread it's largess over them in the form of free dollars. They are in
business to make a profit, which makes them capitalistic in the true sense of
the word. And the profit they make has to be better than interest paid on a
savings account, or there is no sense in gambling all that money.
And do you really think that Hertz pays General Motors the same price per unit
you do when you purchase a car from your local dealer ???
Get real !!!!! Use the knowledge that degree is supposed to represent. Don't
just wave the piece of paper around. And don't think for one minute that the
pro rated cost of development isn't included in the price of each and every
single chip they sell whether it's in units of one or a million.
Joe:
Well put! And welcome back!
Greg Pyros
Joe,
Do you think you could throw a little more of that attitude and
arrogance around, I think that's what prompted my statement in the beginning.
Back to the point, While you're right about many things you said, I still
concur that there's a little more than a little profit margin here. You think
that's OK,…fine but not everyone accepts getting ripped off as easily as you
do. I know, I know, capitalism..yyyeeess.
Capitalism is great but these companies have actually turned into small
governments of their own. They use lobbying power to get what they want; zoning
changes, research regulations bent, kickbacks from government agencies for
special BETA dup's. Ahh lobbying That's another cost that these unselfish,
poor guys are trying to cover. No I'm not giving a sermon on the next coming or
anything but you can't be serious with your attitude about these major
corporations and your figures. And I'd be willing to bet that you paid more in
Federal Income Tax this year than they did in corporate taxes. Intel, IBM, it
doesn't matter who, they do cover their costs quite well. Well enough to pay
their CEO's 10 million plus salaries. Hmmm, I wonder what poor old John Q.
Technician makes. You know, the guys doing all that research. Perhaps you can
explain why SGI charges $8,000.00 more for a workstation that a risc based NT
station with even more processing power? Are they just good guys too, Joe, just
trying to make a few pennies? Why don't you get real, Joe!!!!! . And Joe, just
so you can sleep well tonight, yes I do have a BA.
It's been very pleasant speaking with you, Joe. Read a book.
There isn't anything wrong with my attitude and/or arrogance. If
anything there is no arrogance as I've taken the time to explain each
and every point I took or made. I didn't just throw out *wild*
statements without any backup. Granted I was talking in the
hypothetical, but I'm not privy to Intel's financial statements. All
I can do is use the economics I learned in school.
You're automatically assuming that I and everyone else that chose to
purchase a PENTIUM is getting ripped off. What information do you
have to support that statement ???
You also stated that they need to rip us off so they can pay those 10
million dollar CEO salaries. I don't know of one CEO anywhere in the
electronics business that makes that kind of salary. There are a
couple that make over a million. I think the CEO of IBM makes the
most at a little over two million. Sounds like a lot, but just like
John Q. Technician gets paid for doing his job and accepting the
responsibilities of it, the CEO's also get paid accordingly. If
you're responsible for many billions of dollars, you should get paid
accordingly. And you can thank the MBA's, with their emphasis on
today's dollars, for the changes in worker and executive salaries.
Now, I'm not afraid to state than I'm jealous of anyone making that
kind of money…..wish I was. But just because they are making that,
I'm not going to say that it's unfair. I'm also not going to insist
that they share their good fortune with the rest of the world. I also
don't think that because they are making so much that it limits what
I can make. The money supply isn't static, so there is enough to go
around if someone is willing to make the effort to get what they
want.
But since you seem to take exception to my point of view, lets take a
look at the P6. In your view, Intel should not be allowed to recoop
the billions of dollars they spent developing the P5. So let's say
that they are not allowed to do so. What happens to the P6 ??? Ain't
going to be one is there ??? So no P6. That means no new cells to
build the chip. So no new investment in their manufacturing
facilities, and no jobs for the people that build the cells. Since
there will be no P6, we don't need the people to actually manufacture
the chip….the people that no longer work in the cells that aren't
being built. We don't need the marketing people to hype the new chip
either, or the people that work in the advertising agencies that
actually put the materials together. We don't need the packaging
people that make the shipping materials for the new chips, or the
warehouse people to stock it, or the shipping people to get it on the
trucks, or the drivers of the trucks. We also don't need the
wholesalers and retailers as there ain't no chips to distribute or
sell. We don't even need the people that supply the raw materials for
the chips as we don't need those materials now.
Wow…we just saved lots of money didn't we ??? But we might have
angered those little people that bought Intel stock expecting their
dividend, but that's OK. Anyone that can afford to buy stock must be
rich…..right ?? We also put a lot of people on unemployment too.
Guess maybe trickle down really does works………<g>.
Why does SGI charge more for their workstation ??? I don't know, I'm
not the economist. Why do plums cost more than apples ??? Why are
bananas so expensive ??? I can hazard a guess however. SGI don't
build anywhere near the number of workstations that a place like
GATEWAy does, nor purchase the number of chips that Intel makes and
sells annually. The cost per unit is going to be greater when you
build 1000 of something, than it is going to be if your are building
100,000 of something. The only thing in common between the SGI station
and a pentium based PC in your example, is that they are both
computers, and they are both capable of running under NT.
But your question is more like asking me why a Cadillac costs more at
the dealer's place of business than a Chevrolet does ???
Ohhh…Ohhh….I know, I know !!!! Cause they can *force* us to pay
more for the Cadillac….<grin>.
No one is dumb enough to overprice their products, if there is
competition in the market place. Those that have done so, have paid
the price at the sales counter. Look at what has happened to baseball
this year. The only one's that I know of that have been able to avoid
this consequence are the Japanese car manufacturers when they first
entered our markets, but this is more of a critique of the attitude
of the US manufacturers that opened the door for this experience, and
the oil companies in the middle 70's with their artificial oil crisis
that was used to boost the price of gasoline above a dollar.
Joe,
I can see that you're an intelligent person and honestly, many
of your statements can't be argued. In theory that is. You see, many
of the things you say are true on a certain scale but I think you've
lost track of the big picture. Sure the theory of capitalism embraces
the wonderful idea of why you and I are in business at all. But, It
can be and is abused!
I'm not going to try to take this conversation astray but let
me speak of the business that I'm familiar with, computer animation.
We go through struggles everyday with prices of software and hardware
alike. We try to reason with the fact of prices in the industry and
we assume that these prices are justified due to research and
development. Then along comes Mr. Gates and takes a software package
that retails for 17,000.00 and chops it to 7,995.00. Sure, many
people are happy but what about the guy who took out a 4 year lease
two years ago. He still owes a good 9,000.00 on a package that sells
new for 8,000.00. It makes you ask the question, Did they really need
to charge 17,000.00 all those years to cover costs? Bill doesn't
think so. Don't forget they haven't exactly gone out of business.
They've still got to consider the price of future research and
development but, Bill can do it at half the cost. I'm sure it's not
out of the kindness of his heart, he sees that there's money to be
made in volume. Some might say he's ruining the industry but those
who are truly talented shouldn't be threatened. Anyway, it just goes
to show that it's not necessary to charge the outrageous prices for
"technology" because the truth is that, relatively, it really doesn't
cost that much to design and implement. Some people like yourself are
overwhelmed by these words "research & development, marketing,
payroll", etc. The truth is that they represent much less of the
costs than you give them credit for.
I'm a president of a company. I'm dedicated to doing things a
little different. I spent years as a union representative at AT&T. I
witnessed the irony of it all in the corporate world. What I learned
was that you don't have to screw people to make a buck. You can
spread the wealth a little and still have enough to make yourself
happy. If you're not a greedy bastard, that is. You don't have a
problem with people making 2 or 3 million a year??? There is no man
alive that's efforts alone are worth that. Be it a CEO or
professional football player. Would he have generated the capital
without the people underneath him? Would the great quaterback have
made the unbelievable pass without a great receiver? and what about
the linemanwho blocked for him and let him get open to make the
catch? NO. And who deserves credit for these things? The CEO?? The
quarterback?? No. Again, other people under him, along with him I
should say. All part of a team, Except there is no team anymore. There
is no team effort. Only greedy bastards who steal the glory and
wealth from the people who actually make the company a success.
Continue on with your beliefs Joe, but I and my company see things a
different way I'm happy to say and I believe that this will continue
to make our company a success. When I go to sleep at night, I know
that the people working for me are thinking of ways to make our
products better and our company more successful because they're
treated and paid well for what they do. And believe it or not, I don't
have to pass all of the costs along to our clients. I can wait for
wealth. I'm not going to try to milk my market dry the first day.
That's the point I'm trying to make. While you're right in
saying that these corporations have a right to cover costs and make a
profit. Take a long hard look at the profits they're making along
with the executive's salaries and tell me that they couldn't have
given just a little more to their faithful consumers who are not
quite as big and successful as they. Capitalism??? No. Just greedy
bastards, Joe. You've been sucked in, Joe, to the theory of it all
but you overlooked the reality and the real numbers. You label it
capitalism but it's really an insult to capitalism.
>> … Then along comes Mr. Gates and takes a software package that retails
>> for 17,000.00 and chops it to 7,995.00….
That's called economy of scale…
>> … truth is that, relatively, it really doesn't cost that much to design
>> and implement. Some people like yourself are overwhelmed by these words
>> "research & development, marketing, payroll", etc. The truth is that they
>> represent much less of the costs than you give them credit for.
Dude, you have no clue what you're talking about…
>> … I spent years as a union representative at AT&T.
Ok, that explains…
>> You don't have a problem with people making 2 or 3 million a year???
>> There is no man alive that's efforts alone are worth that…
This sounds more like whining from someone who doesn't make that. I
wonder what you would say about this were you making 3 mil a year.
Why is it that people have so much problem with those who made it?
People in general have one thing in mind, make a buck. It's ok to
make it as long as it is themselves. If someone else makes it, he or
she is a greedy bastard. Go figure…
Yo, whenever I read a story about someone who made a ton of money,
instead of envy, I try to understand how they did it and I'm usually
amazed by the very simple things these people did that nobody else
had thought before. Of course you have the "greedy bastards" every
where but the majority is well earned hard work. Try looking at the
world with different eyes and you will be much happier.
Hi Gus:
>>Why is it that people have so much problem with those who made it?
It's because these people are essentially communists in their
philosophy. And we all know that communists are really capitalistic
wannabees. Living with constant conflict like this is why all
communists are miserable to be around.
When I see someone that I know that's made a lot of money, it always upsets me
if I knew that I disagree with their means – for example, if I know they've
screwed their employees in nasty ways, or lie, cheated, steal, etc. I'm much
more content to make what I make knowing that I can sleep soundly at night,
that I can look myself in the mirror and say I haven't done those things…
Taking out a four year loan to pay for a piece of software that will
obviously be antiquated in under a year isn't a very prudent business
decision. Quite obviously the software market, especially 3D
animation software is phenomenally shaky and it's possible to spend
$100,000 on a package one morning only to find that it sells for half
that the next day. This is nothing new. It's been that way for many
years.
Also pricing strategies are very intricate and aren't necessarily
designed to "screw" the end user. If I put a quarter mil into
development and have no desire other than to recoup my outlays, then
I have to come up with a good figure of what I think my customer base
will be in volume.If I decide only 500 people will buy the product
then, obviously I'll price the product in the $500 range. But low and
behold 2,000 people buy the product and I've made a million dollars
3/4 mil profit. What do I do? Give some of the money back? What about
the 2001 customer, do I charge him the same $500, knowing that it's
pure profit for me? Let's say it's now two years down the road and I
have substantial competition to contend with. I'm not selling any
units at $500 because my competition is getting all my potential new
customers at $300 a pop. Should I not lower my price to stay in the
market? Obviously if I lower the price they'll be someone whining
about not waiting for the two years so that they could've saved $200
dollars.
The fact of the matter is that I'll obviously lower the price to stay
in the market and there's nothing wrong with making a profit.
No-one's out to screw the buyer. Goods are priced at what the market
will bear, and the vast majority of people who spend $X on a software
package are possitive that they will get at least $X worth of use out
of the program in the short run. Most graphic companies make sure
they'll recover their investment in software in under a year.
Purchasing decisions need to be based primarily on what value one
places on the product not what the market will do a year down the
road.
Obviously if you're trying to make some parallel regarding the MS/SI
merger, in addition to many other factors, there are phenomenal
economies of scale associated with MS control of that product line.
The industry as a whole will probably follow suit and lower their
prices but not without some harm coming to R&D. Look at what the Yost
Group did to AT&T's Topas, DGS and the rest of the PC based market.
At $10,000 a copy these companies made enough money to compete and
fund R&D, but when they were faced with a market that suddenly
shifted towards products priced at $3000, they were put under
phenomenal strain and ended up cancelling their product line. This
wasn't due to the fact that they weren't making the profit margin
they desired, it was because they were going in the red trying to put
a product of equal quality out for that price point.
Didn't someone mention an economics degree earlier in this thread?
This is Econ101.
Most of us involved in this thread are capitalists of one sort or
another, and though my main use of software is CAD rather than
computer animation, I've seen similar occurances with the CAD
software. Autodesk purchased a company that made modeling software
for the mechanical engineering field. The software sold for over 5
grand, and had many sales. Autodesk rewrote it to integrate with
AutoCAD and held the price. Suddenly the package is available as an
integrated add on for AutoCAD and they are calling it AME, and though
there is not as much power in the package, it's selling for a tenth
of the original price….<grin>. Autodesk's move with AME was based
on market projections, I'm sure. By including it in the basic package
they would be selling many more units than would be possible as a
stand alone package. On the other hand, they also anticipated selling
at least 10 times as many units that way too.
We also saw almost the same thing from a competitor of Autodesk's in
the CAD marketplace. They took two CAD programs that retailed in the
three grand range and knocked the pricing down to a hundred and fifty
bucks. According to most of the industry sources, this move wasn't
made to sell 20 times the volume however. It was made as a grab for
market share, and to secure a direct infusion of cash into the
company in order to fund an upgrade to each of the programs.
Why the two examples ??? Only in order to point out that price
reductions result from many and varied decisions on the part of a
company. A price reduction doesn't necessarily mean that the product
is overpriced. It certainly doesn't mean that the purchasers of that
product were gouged if they purchased before the reduction. The only
thing it says is that a particular company is willing to gamble
present and future profits to increase the number of units sold,
increase market share, or to get some instant cash.
I too struggle with the price of software and hardware, maybe even
more than most. You're talking to the entire corporation here….<g>.
But I've had the priviledge (?) of being an employer and an employee
of both large and small companies during my working years. I've also
had the privledge (?) of working for our federal government and
monopolistic utilities at times. The one thing that stands out in my
experience is the different corporate or management mindsets of these
various entities. The smaller the organization, the closer they are
to their employees, and the closer they are to the requirements of
satisfying their customer base. I would guess that this is only
normal, because the smaller your business, the more of an impact on
that business is exerted by each and every employee. But I
digress……have a habit of doing that unfortunately….<g>.
Yes !! There are instances of companies or corporations abusing the
system and gouging their customers. A classic is when CECO here in
Illinois worked out a deal with the utility board to have us pay
twice for their nuclear reactors. Not a bad deal if you owned stock
in the utility. Not such a good deal if you were a user of
electricity. Automobile rebates are another example of this in a
form. If they can afford to give you a rebate of $1500, why not just
lower the cost of the product ??? OTOH, maybe it's just a deal to
increase market share to be able to realize some additional savings
by building additional units. Same reason you can usually purchase a
standard package more cheaply than ordering the same items
individually.
Guess what I'm getting at here is that you can't make rash or brash
statements about why pricing is increased or reduced without having
the luxury of seeing all the numbers, and being privy to all the
discussions and decisions. And all of this has nothing to do with why
the Intel chips still cost in the half grand range, and machines
aren't available for $500…<g>.
I have to say I agree with ther example you show here. There
are many reasons for the high price of technology. I just really get
upset at a select few who do have a major portion of the market share
and price their products as if they were starting from scratch.
You're obviously an intelligent man who's done his homework. Although
I disagree with some of your beliefs, it's true that each is an
individual case in point.
<Philippe was initially gripping about the 3DO interactive learning
machine, and then he got on to the pentium chips. I don't really know
anything about the 3DO machines, but I do know something about the
pentiums. And one of the things I do know about them is that Intel
spent a coupla' billion dollars in research, design and development
for both the chip and the cells in which to manufacture it.>
I am perfectly aware of that fact, Mr MacRae. But my concern
is this one: The gaming community is most obviously getting
breakthrough prices for components like RISC processors and RAM. I
believe the only reason why WE ain't pulling it off as easily is that
companies EXPECT us to be willing to pay such a high price for
equipment, because we're supposed to be PROFESSIONALS, NOT KIDS!! We
take our work seriously, and invest heavily in it. The 3DO machine
has modified components so that you can't rip it apart and sell the
pieces on the PC market, where you would reach a 500% profit margin!
<Even at $475 a pop it still takes a lot of units and a long time to
recoop a billion dollars.>
Yes. But how do you explain the fact that game consoles are
being built for so little. Is it by IBM's compassion for youthful
gaming? ( I don't think soooo)
<But let's be generous, all that other stuff only adds $75, so they
actually get a return of $100 per chip to pay back the costs of
development and manufacturing facilities. Gee…according to my
calculator, it will take only 10,000,000 chips to recoop a billion
dollars at $100 a pop.>
All in all, we shouldn't complain so much. Think about all them
Europeans who quietly pay double for all electronic merchandise!! <GG>
Philippe,
You're still trying to compare apples and oranges. There's a big
difference between a basic computer that can be configured to do most
anything, and a commercial game machine. On that same stroke, it's
still possible to purchase brand new 386 machines for the $500 figure
that you're using for the 3DO machine, and you can get 486 machines
for less than a grand. So without knowing where in the generation
string this RISC chip is that is contained in the 3DO machine, it's
almost impossible to make the comparisons you are attempting to make,
and do it reasonably. And if this RISC chip is only 16 bit instead of
32 bit, I can get you some AT machines (80286) for about $300 each.
And they will only lack monitors.
Also when you are comparing the 3DO machines to the IBM products, you are
neglecting the economics of scale. Certainly the production lines for
generating the 3DO machines are geared to building a quantity of units of a
magnitude greater than IBM's line for building one of their PC's. And IBM ain't
never been known for the use of economics in their production lines
either………..<g>. IBM is probably paying more for labor too.
Now to further confuse the issue, you're dragging in European pricing on
computer hardware and software. But in doing so, you completely ignore any and
all import taxes or levies that may be imposed on those products. Why do you do
this ??? If you are complaining about the pricing of the latest and greatest in
computer and animation hardware, that's one thing. And I will agree with you on
it. I don't like to pay those prices any more than you do. But to compare this
to the 3DO machine or import levies doesn't do any more than to dilute your
arguments, and in effect makes all your arguments specious. They have nothing
to do with one another.
Phillipe,
The price of a true workstation includes so much stuff above and beyond what is
in a normal PC that the actual cost of the processor component has an amazingly
small part to play. If you really want to break it down, the cost of real
workstations is most closely related to memory chip prices. We're talking 64 –
256M RAM plus massive static RAM caches operating at zero wait state speeds
(unlike most PC RAM caches) plus video RAM in the 16 – 48M range, plus some
rather interesting specialty memory. (not to mention disk caching.)
Take a good hard look at the difference between an Intergraph TDZ60 at $20
-$100,000 and a $3,000 Gateway or Dell machine -both Intel-based machines and
you'll begin to see what I mean.
–Brad Holtz
74777,3073
Sysop, LEAP and CADDVEN
Author, "The CAD Rating Guide"
Founder and Principal Consultant, WBH ASSOCIATES
Hi Philippe,
"RAM for the price of SPAM" would be an even better deal. 🙂
Tom
Do you have proof of this kind of mark-up? If so I'd like to take a look.