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?
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