Chris Gehlker said:
> On Feb 2, 2004, at 9:29 AM, Derek Neighbors wrote:
>
>> If they instead make Red Hat Advanced
>> Server have a license that requires money but includes the support.
>> Yes
>> you can argue they are selling "support".  I would argue they are
>> "locking
>> you in" to their support.  Subtle difference perhaps, but I do believe
>>  it
>> to be real.
>
> Hmm... It seems like I can get the Red Hat products with their
> trademarks removed very cheaply with minimal Googling. Branding is
> important. There have been studies recently showing that auto dealers
> make most of their money from their service departments. Now most
> people know that there are better and cheaper mechanics outside the
> dealers but there are also crooks and incompetent mechanics out there,
> so a lot of people stick with the 'official' service.
>
> It seems to me that one interpretation of Red Hat's actions is that
> they are just trying to set themselves up as the 'factory authorized'
> service provider.

I can buy that to a degree.  However, I would have a real problem if I
went to go buy that 350Z I want from my local Nissan dealer.  Then find
out they tacked on $2800 for "service".

When questioning them, they tell me how great their service is and as
favor to me they are forcing me to use their "authorized mechanics".  They
have 3 years worth of oil changes, and other preventitive maintenance
included.  As well as a discount on other repair work.

To me this is more a kin to what Red Hat is doing by attaching the service
fee to the license.  If they want to sell the "authorized dealer" aspect
great, it gives them a decided advantage.  All the more reason, to **not**
lock me into them.  If they really are superior what are they afraid of? 
Why must they attach the service to the sale of the product?

-Derek