3 ms·

Windows 95 had a suggested retail price of $209.95 https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19950607&slug=2125167 https://archive.seattletimes.com/archiv

Windows 95 had a suggested retail price of $209.95 https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19950607&slug=2125167 https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19950607&slug... This magazine from 1995 had a CD full of stock images for sale for $18.98 https://the-avocado.org/2018/03/16/lets-read-pc-magazine-july-1995/ https://the-avocado.org/2018/03/16/lets-read-pc-magazine-jul... So I don't think the physical distribution was a large percent of the price.

metaphor 5y ago
> This magazine from 1995 had a CD full of stock images for sale for $18.98 ..."for 100 stunning photos on each CD-ROM. $18.98 each" [1], just in case anyone else wanted to square the comparison in proper context. [1] https://i0.wp.com/the-avocado.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/img_3196.jpg https://i0.wp.com/the-avocado.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03...
privacythrow1 5y ago
Maybe I attribute too much value to the costs of physical distribution. Either way, my point is that I don't think in-app advertising is the sole driver of the price point we see for Windows today compared to the price point we saw in the 90s. I find it hard to accept the explanation that in-app advertising is the tradeoff I get when buying a tech product at a given price. Either it's free and it serves me ads, or I pay for it and I get to opt-in to ads if I choose. It's the same argument for Smart TVs. These companies know they can have their cake and eat it too.