>that artificial market segmentation for software should be analyzed separately from artificial market segmentation for physical goods This is akin to economic

>that artificial market segmentation for software should be analyzed separately from artificial market segmentation for physical goods This is akin to economic voodoo. There is no reason to do anything different for either one - they are products, customers buy them. Once you want this artificial split, I guess based on your (incorrect) claim that there is no marginal cost (original claim) or lack of any real marginal cost (backpedaled claim) as the deciding factor, then when do you start to add a continuum of how you analyze based on a continuum of costs? If there is a marginal cost 3/4 between your two cases, do we now need to interpolate your forms of analysis? All because you personally don't like how markets work? Or why not simply use the same method, standard economics, to analyze them? And realize all these products have the same benefits to consumers via varied pricing? >The software stuff you brought up is a red herring. No, it shows how markets work. That you move your goalposts in the middle of a thread is the fallacious reasoning. And you've failed to address that segmentation like this allows people to buy that could not have otherwise. Do you dispute that segmentation allows cheaper pricing for some consumers, and in some products, all consumers? Are you arguing for higher prices or just ignoring this empirical fact?