On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:04:07AM -0400, Mark Komarinski wrote:
> Derek Martin wrote:
> > [An example that's similar, which I think illustrates how this is
> > sleazy, is when a vendor sells, say, two different models of the same
> > stereo receiver which are identical in every way, but one has its
> > remote control sensor (present but) physically disabled, and sells the
> > disabled one at a lower price than the enabled one.  It's dishonest.]
>    
> I'm not sure why it's dishonest - you weren't lied to, and you received 
> a discount for purchasing a product with lower capabilities.

If they are the same exact hardware, then clearly the company can
afford to sell the thing at the lower price, and simply skip the
cheaper version... if they were available at the same price, people
would naturally choose the one with the extra feature.   It's not a
discount that the purchasers of the disabled device are receiving,
it's that the folks who want the extra feature are getting soaked.

This practice is dishonest because the typical consumer will naturally
assume that one is more expensive than the other because the two
models require a different manufacturing process and/or different
materials (and often this is true, but as we have seen, sometimes it
is not).  The manufacturers do nothing to discurage this assumption.
It is a lie of omission, aimed at bilking the public.  It's dishonest.

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.