Slashdot Mirror
Why Are Licenses To Microsoft Still Mandatory?
Space Cow asks: "I am in the market for a laptop computer and priced some machines at Dell. You have no choice during customization (unless you choose the more expensive Linux machine) to avoid purchasing a Microsoft OS and a Microsoft Productivity suite. I spoke with a Dell sales rep and he said that they can easily remove the Microsoft software, but the price doesn't change! What? I have to pay for 2 MS licenses even if I don't want their software! I thought this was changing due to the case against Microsoft and other recent events (Refund Day, etc). Any ideas of how to get Dell to lower the price for a no software machine? If I buy the machine with MS software, am I eligible for a rebate?" It seems that even when they are being watched, Microsoft is still trying its best to cram its software down our throats. Microsoft long ago removed the rebate clause from their EULA so now it appears that the only way to get Linux installed on Dell machines is to pay them more for the privilege. Would someone please explain to me the logic behind that?
We were trying to buy a Dell laptop the other day, and the salesman said the system wasn't let him place the order...it was an invalid configuration. The reason? We wanted the DVD drive and NT4. DVDs won't work under NT4 he said. Our quick reply was that we have a bunch of Thinkpads with NT4 and DVDs that work just fine.
The problem is that DVDs themselves work fine under NT, you just can watch movies with them. We don't want to watch movies, just read data. I can understand their ordering system throwing up a warning about the limited functionality under NT, but to completely block that configuration probably just lost them a sale.
My opinion is that you pay more to have Linux installed on the machine as you are still paying the MS license (yeah, yeah, I know, illegal, but since when has that stopped Microsoft from demanding money?) plus their (Dell's) fee for Linux
Please note that these are just my personal opinions and should in no way be seen as facts of any form
-GreenHell
"I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
I work for a computer manufacturer (albeit a very, very small one), and we don't charge less for taking the OS off either. Our logic has nothing to do with M$.
Usually when someone doesn't get the machine with the OS we spend countless hours on the phone in tech support with them trying to install their own OS. Not every computer user is a Slashdot genius.
If Dell doesn't drop the price, the money is going into their pocket not M$.
Brian
Microsoft is Evil
The second reason comes down to support costs. Yes, you might be able to get Linux, FreeBSD etc on a system, but Joe Shmoe sure as hell can't. At least not without some tech support. When he can't get his winmodem working under FreeBSD he's likely to demand a replacement. Having Windows on the computer allows the tech staff to test something under known standards.
Save the flames please. The cost to train an entire phone support staff on another OS is astronomical. I believe IBM spent several million dollars to get their staff ready for W2K. And they had the advantage of being familiar with NT 4. There is no carryover like that from a Windows OS to something like Linux. You have to know it well enough to walk someone else through troubleshooting it.
It is not uncommon to have people who have decided to load another OS onto their system to call tech support and lie about what OS is installed. It is usually glaringly obvious when this happens. This creates difficult situations, as you must deny someone support who just spent thousands of dollars on a computer. If you do go ahead and help them you will have created a precedent that could be legally binding to help out other people with that OS.
It's not about making money for MS, they are going to get theirs regardless. It's about support costs. The average computer maker will lose money if a customer has to call tech support 3 times in the life of the computer. This is why Compaq decided to start charging for tech support years ago. Like it or not, Linux is not ready for the mainstream of America (something I think is liked by most of the open source community to be perfectly honest).
As for charging more for a computer with a free OS, remember it's the support costs that your paying for. After all you can install Linux or whatnot on your own and not get the support costs. Most IT depts budget more over the lifetime of a desktop computer to support it than they do it for purchasing it. This is where the real expenses and profits are to be made. If I understand correctly Dell farms their Linux support out to Red Hat. That means those support calls are more than they would for an internal solution.
Hope this answers your question
... fact.
M$ charges licensees per CPu shipped, whether they ship with Windows or not. Their clain is that this is to prevent piracy. Most of the industry however feels this is to make it unworkable for their licensees to ship alternate OSs as a reasonable option.
If/when the cout case is final and over, assumign M$ doesn't pull a suprise victory out of the hat, they will ahve to stop this. Til the, yo uand I over-pay because our industry is dominated by a monopoly. (Maybe you should see if there's a class action suit you can join, although M$ has pretty sucessfully defended themselves from consumer suits so far by using a precedent that says basicly that, if there is a middle man, you can only sue the middleman.)
dell's are generally, well, sucky and overpriced. well, those goes any potential moderation since i had a strong opinion, but... why not get an Apple PowerBook if yer just gonna stick Linux on it. for one, you get a nice PowerPC, but more importantly, it doesn't way half a ton, and it's sleek and shapely. it won't necessarily shatter into 1000 peices if dropped from more than a quarter of an inch.
but if you really must have a Dell, don't gripe about paying for Windows, they've already overcharged you for the hardware.
No, you don't (directly). Dell does. Dell passes it on to you. Microsoft gives Dell a sweet deal on a per CPU sold basis. That could be changed, but hasn't been changed. Dell pays per CPU sold
I thought this was changing due to the case against Microsoft and other recent events.
No, Microsoft has not yet been force to make concessions. All of the ramifications of the trial have been put on hold until the appeals are done.
Never meant half of the things I said to you. So you know, there's a half that might be true - G. Phillips
Or "How much would you like to pay today?"
What is happening here is that since the computer comes "ordered" with the MS products automatically (because of how much OS and browser share they have) that there is no reason for most computer wholesalers to even think about ordering it any other way.
It doesn't cost the wholesaler anything extra to get the computer without Windows, because of the "great" incentives that MS offers, but it doesn't cost any less either. Basically, because of the incentives, the licenses are fairly cheap, if not "free" (other then the hassle of actually using Windows).
Your best bet is to find a good download of your favorite flavour of Unix and just get the computer sans Windows. You're paying (or rather not paying) for the licenses anyway, but you might as well start without Windows anyways. It will make it that much easier on you.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
IANAL but:If I were to order a new system and was informed that I could not get a reduction in price for a computer without M$ software, I would demand a written explaination. If the written explaination stated that M$ charges them whether or not W2K or whatever is loaded, I would sue M$ in local Small Claims Court. I shouldn't have to pay for something I didn't receive. M$ would surely lose the judgement. Getting them to pay may prove difficult, but M$ needs more negative publicity now like they need another virus in Outlook!
Has anyone tried this? Are there any lawyers out there?
"Open code, in other words, can be a check on state power." -Lawrence Lessig
What I'd like to see is a laptop manufacturer that doesn't install Windows on ANY of its systems.
-- My comment is above.
...
Bitchslapped? Give Rob a bitchslap from bitchslapped.com.
If you don't like how they sell their machines, simply don't buy from them. There are several other places to buy laptops.
Why do I think the poster is from Stream or a similar dirtbag outsourcer? Look at his stupid excuse:
Hate to dissapoint you, but I have not worked at this "stream" place of yours. You sound like a disgruntled employee that somehow connected an answer to industry sales and support policies to somehow relate to me. I'm sorry that you had a bad experience, but your attack was unneccasary and offtopic. Or were you denied support after calling in when you had an OS that was unsupported?
I have known several people over the years that work at outsourcing places, I even once worked at Wang. I understand the process they use on things quite well. I do not see how any of this relates to what I was talking about.
As for this "half baked double talk", it sounds like you don't have a lot of industry experience. So I'll fill you in on the status qou. If you start supporting a certain configuration that hasn't been advertised, people will find out about it. Once people start to find out about it, they can demand it. Computer companies have lost in court over this before. You cannot differentiate between different customers who /bought/ the same service contracts. You must provide them with the same level of service. This is one of the primary reasons that call support centers must keep permanent records of their calls.
The trick is to go in as if your a business, then you can configure linux laptops, desktops, etc. If you go threw the home/small office one, you will only get windows machines.
-LW