Re:Intel wants to charge $50 to unlock stuff your CPU can al...
by mseebach on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @12:43PM
(#5820511)
I define "primary" by observing that practically nobody (save for a very few enthusiasts) ever get on a train or a plane except because they want to arrive at the destination. Riding on a train or a plane to enjoy the journey itself is very rare.
Subsidising:
Though first class represents less than 5 percent of all seats flown on long-haul routes, and business class accounts for 15 percent, those seats combined to generate 40 to 50 percent of airlines’ revenue
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/business/taking-first-clas...
Re:Intel wants to charge $50 to unlock stuff your CPU can al...
by corin_ on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @01:16PM
(#5820747)
If I buy a beer for $3 on a train, is the primary purpose of that $3 "transport", because practically nobody gets on a train just to drink beer? What if that $3 is merged into the total cost of your ticket and you get the beer included?
The fact that it seems airlines do underchage for cheap seats and overcharge for expensive ones is irrelevant - I already pointed out that ticket sellers can go in either direction on this. The point I am making is that you are getting a tangible thing that is more expensive (e.g. a nicer seat) - whether you are being ripped off or not is another matter.
Re:Intel wants to charge $50 to unlock stuff your CPU can al...
by tracker1 on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @12:55PM
(#5820608)
Or, in reality, they are NOT subsidizing the cheaper seats... they simply mean that the cheap seats generate 10% profit, and the more expensive seats generate 110% profit. No subsidizing necessary. There's a big difference between subsidies, and product classification. In subsidizing, something is being sold at less than actual cost, in classification, some products make more money.
Depends how you define "primary", and also depends on how tickets are priced.
I don't know enough (or, indeed, anything) about public transport costs/margins/etc. but let's say second class costs $5, first class $10, a nicer seat costs $100 more than a cheap seat, and seats last for 20 journeys before needing to be replaced. In that scenario, the extra cost for first class seat is purely spent on the actual upgrade cost, nothing to do with the fact that you are traveling somewhere.
Of course, in my random price list, the upgrade price (i.e. difference between the two options) covers 100% of the actual cost - in real life, maybe it covers 200% and is therefore subsidising cheaper tickets, or maybe it covers 1% and is being subsidised by cheaper tickets. But wherever it falls there, at least some of the cost is going towards the actual, physical cost.