Slashdot Mirror
Gateway Testifies To Microsoft's OEM Treatment
unconfused1 writes "Gateway testified yesterday about the incredible power that Microsoft wields over OEMs concerning Windows being shipped on every PC. It seems that if an OEM does not ship Windows on every PC they ship that they are severely penalized, and can have their license revoked."
The article basically says that no pc company could consider breaking the agrement and not getting the $10 per copy discount. As far as i understood Microsoft cuts them off the discount if they are EVEN offering non MS solutions, not just dual boot situations scary
I would love to see what Dell has to say about the OEM agreements with MS. After all they did support Linux for a little while. Now that seems to have gone by the waist-side. I also wonder what the reprecussions of Gateway speaking out against MS.
Microsoft is allowed to have that kind of penalty imposed; all these OEMs needed to do was get together and contest various parts of the licence agreement.
I agree that they needed windows because of the demand, but that doesn't mean they take anything Microsoft demands without a whimper.
In the words of Blake, "Do not go gentle into that good night... Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
Fight for what you believe in, or you deserve it.
I've always known this was true, but now we have a REAL company vouching it..but how does MS do it? Do they send goons in and say "if you don't install Windows we will break your legs?" I mean, how is this different from racketeering? The Mafia does that in major cities with Waste Management. You can only use THEIR company, or they break your legs or set your building on fire. WHich is very similar to how tings work in Eastern-bloc countries.
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
talking about this like its new news? It's like every three months people forget and have to report it again. This has been constantly reported since at least since 1997.
This is why I think there's some kind of mind control going on in the windows OS environment that keeps people from remembering this story. Thats why only alternate OS (Mac Linux etc) users really remember it month to month. Oh well, I guess it gives C-Net something to publish.
Witness the rebirth of ENRON!
tcd004
If you think back to how much MS had to push to get themselves pre-installed onto machines back in the 1980s where they were still fighting tooth and nail against competitive offerings.
Now that Windows is effectively regarded as as much of necessary part of the computer as the motherboard, the shoe's on the other foot regarding their relationship with OEMs.
Reminds me of the lyric from a song by the Police
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Well, I thought it was obvious..
If you testify against MS, their henchmen will cut your hair Bill Gates stylee.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Testimony like this and Michael Tiemann's puts lie to the MSFT propaganda about how consumers made them the multi-billion dollar owner of 90% of the market.
It's pretty plain that consumers have *never* been offered a choice. No "market" for PC OSes ever existed.
This may be a different way of looking at it but I see it as an "endorsement." If Gateway uses Windows, customers see it as an endorsement. If Gateway also uses other competing products, then that endorsement loses its meaning. If you saw a Britney Pepsi commercial followed by a Britney Coke commerical, would either endorsement be effective? So wouldn't it be in Pepsi's best interest to see that she only endorses Pepsi?
--- If we knew half the things we shouldn't we'd stop wishing we knew it all
"Uh, your honor? We'd like to delete this testimony since it makes us look guilty. We're really not guilty, so you shouldn't allow anyone to intimate otherwise."
They're pretty dumb if they thought they were going to get away with that. Once has to wonder what will happen to Gateway now... I think MS will take the cow boxes to the slaughterhouse while they still can.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
When I loaded the story to read it, it had a Gateway ad in the middle of the story. Go figure.
More seriously, this is an example as to why virtually all PC-only vendors are screwed in the long run (and why I won't buy Dell stock, no matter how well they do). Everybody in the PC industry builds commodity hardware, running an OS they don't control, and tries to compete based on marketing and lowest-cost production. Thanks to things like Microsoft's OEM contracts, there's just no room to go anywhere else. Dell's success is strictly based on execution and volume - they bring nothing else to the table, really. Same with Gateway, and all the other commodity vendors.
So if the MS monopoly is ever broken, it'll be at the hands of companies that have an investment in their own technology, and their own R&D. Perhaps companies that have access to non-Wintel technology (Compaq/HP, though they killed Alpha, IBM, Apple) will be able to take a stab at it. Right now, though, nobody but Microsoft really matters in the desktop supply chain.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I thought disclosure of MS's agreement concerning OEM os'es were corporate secret (blabla fines and revocation of contract). How can Gateway testify if they are bound by NDA's associated to the OEM contract?
Hell, maybe Gateway is realizing how much a pit Microsoft is when it comes to money. Or maybe it's MS's new contracting agreements ( if no upgrade within 1 year after new product comes out, owe full price).
It seems that MS is loosing its edge when it comes to controlling corporate powers. For the longest time, MS has made a standard (maybe not the best, but better than 10 types of hardware on 20 OS'es). We just have outgrown them.
The basic message is that MS can't do Jack Shit to OEMs, except of course to force them to pay the proper price for Windows licences, and not receive
any bonuses.
This would make the OEMs less able to compete, price-wise with their fellow scum-sucking OEMs.
Well, boo hoo, why should I care what happens to these unscrupulous box-shifters?
Look at the facts: extended warranties of doom, badly-configured machines with the wrong drivers installed, corners cut to keep the price down (Tom's did a thing on OEMs recently, pointing out that they like to push the main specs like Pentium 4 1.8!!!! And then not mention the crappy $15 video card etc., which is true), help-lines that don't even when you get through to them, incompetence on all levels....
Plus, just think- these OEMs aren't doing anything to earn their money- just employing people very little money to assemble pcs, man help-lines etc.
I know I am going to get modded down as -1 flamebait for this because The Common Man moderates, but seriously, to paraphrase Monty Python: "What have the OEMs ever done for us?"
graspee
Gateway can assert that Microsoft pressured them, but if there's really a market for Linux desktops then other companies would be offering them and making sales.
So why did VA stop selling Linux systems? Alleged Microsoft pressure on mainstream vendors not to sell Linux should only have made things better for VA, assuming there really was a market for Linux desktops. But the fact is that there is no serious market for Linux desktops.
While we're at it, I simply don't believe that IBM could be subject to such pressure, and yet they too have pretty much abandoned the Linux desktop and notebook business. You used to be able to find Thinkpads for sale on IBM's site with Linux on them, but not anymore. Does anyone seriously believe IBM talked them out of this? Isn't the Occam's Razor answer that they weren't selling?
For those who have not read it, I would suggest reading Sony's comments regarding Microsoft's licencing of Windows. This is from Sony's submitted commments to the Microsoft Antitrust case. If you think being an OEM and having to include Windows on every PC is bad, imagine being an OEM and knowing that it is possible that "Microsoft [could] use its monopoly power to force its OEM licensees to give up intellectual property rights."
slashdot!=valid HTML
I still think that the fastest way to begin switching the masses to Linux would be for the Game manufacurers to release games for Linux first.
How many times have you seen the latest, hottest most awesome game ever and then notice that the MS version is available but the Mac and Linux version is 2 to 3 months away(or not available at all)?
Now how many people out there actually wait for that linux version vs. loading it onto your windows partition.
Now imagine that Duke Nukem forever or Diablo 4 were coming out. But wait, only the linux version is available just now (shipping with a trimed down distro of course) but don't worry the MS version will be along in a couple off months.
If you were a game geek would you wait?
..which just shows that the human brain is ill-adapted for thinking and was probably designed for cooling the blood-T P
I'm currently looking for a new PC and have found that no major manufacturer (Dell, IBM, Compaq, HP) will sell a PC without WindowsXP. I knew Dell *was* installing Red Hat, but apparently only for business systems. You would think that at least IBM, who are backing Linux, would offer a PC without Windows, but no. I'd be happy if the settlement gave the manufacturers the freedom to provide PCs with OSs other than MS or even without an OS. I don't feel like paying for MS software that I'll never use.
"Just because you have a collection of porn of a particular girl does not make her your girlfriend", KingJoshi.
I don't know, could you point to another company that does this, checking up to make sure they aren't buying other products and then penalize for it? That is not simply good practice, it is as blatant of an example of anti-competitive you can get. This is leveraging your current dominant market share to raise barrier for entry to everyone else... Pretty much textbook anti-competitive..
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
damned, gateway did something I like!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Looks like Bill Gates and Co. are going cow tipping tonight...
Sorry- didn't realise that "plain old text" eat angle brackets. See it *was* funny originally...
"If you saw a Britney Pepsi commercial followed by a Britney Coke commerical..."
A Britney Coke commercial:
Britneeeeee: *SNNNNNIIIIFFFFF!* Ah!
*pause, drumbeat drumbeat drumbeat*
"Hit me baby, one more time!"
graspee
You know, Microsoft doing this sort of thing is certainly VeryBad(tm), but it's nobody's fault but Gateway, Dell, and all the others that it happened.
You really have to think about how things came to be this bad. Way back in the old 3.x days, if MS would have tried to pull something like this in the licensing, the OEM's would have told them to take a flying leap and installed OS2. So of course they gave the OEM's licenses dirt cheap, and probably a whole bunch of other things to get them to install Windows by default.
Ever heard of looking a gift horse in the mouth? Did these OEM's think Microsoft was doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not, they didn't think about it at all. All they saw was the bottom line.
Fast forward 5 years when the entire country is hooked up to Windows for life support, in part, I might add, to the OEM's willingness to throw Windows out there with every computer simply because they were getting a hell of a deal. Now they can't tell MS to take a flying leap, so of course MS is there to "restructure" the licensing deals. But is this MS's fault, or is it the fault of the OEM's for being greedy, and getting burned by it. Depends on your philosophy on life I guess: Is it the drug dealer's fault for selling crack, or is it the addicts fault for trying it?
It hurts when I pee.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
According to the article, The new terms would affect contracts written after Dec. 16 for the top 20 PC makers. and Fama concluded that the new uniform pricing mechanism benefits those companies selling the highest volumes, such as Dell Computer. and "Dell may not want to be a witness, but Dell is affected in similar ways to Gateway because of uniform licensing."
Maybe Dell has already spoken. Reference this recent slashdot article:
More on Dell Dropping Linux Support
If they had the balls, they would reject this ultimatum policy entirely and compete and be successful without Microsoft or Windows. There are other OSes out there, lots of them. Or if none of them are sufficient, they could team with a software manufacturer to create or port one for exclusive distribution. Or they could just sell their hardware without a bundled OS.
The real problem is that these OEMs are on one hand complaining about Microsoft's power in the marketplace, but on the other hand (the one with the wallet), they are helping further entrench Windows in the marketplace by complying with Microsoft's abusive licensing restrictions, just so that they won't have to take a short-term risk. Nobody seems willing to take risks anymore, but everyone seems willing to run to the government when Microsoft chooses to shift its bulk around in ways they dislike.
I can't really feel any sympathy for Gateway, or any other OEM with issues with MS' license. They've had every opportunity to try and work it out privately with MS, or barring that, to drop MS entirely, but they won't because they rely on MS (or believe that they do) to sell machines. So that's a decision they've made on their own. Gateway's market share is close to 10% - Apple has made do with less than that without Microsoft, so why can't Gateway break away from the herd (pun intended) and wield that market share and customer base they've been nurturing, if they're so dissatisfied?
Now, M$ never audited any of the mom-n-pops I dealt with, but the threat of an audit was more than enough to keep them in line.
sPh
Other monopolies (Verizon, the local water company, etc) aren't allowed to cut off good-faith customers. Your power company can't say, "You have to buy our skateboard and milk, they're bundled with our power!" Your local telephone company can't say, "We'll double the price of your phone service unless you stop using any competitors products!"
Microsoft is a monopoly just like the others, and to most businesses, Windows is as essential as power or telephone service. Microsoft should not be allowed to withhold Windows from them or vary the price based on how much they subjugate themselves.
(Volume licenses are okay, though)
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
No longer sell Windows OS at OEM price.
That means that there computer would be at least 100 dollars more expensive then there competitor.
Thats enough to kill a computer company.
I have know about this for quite some time. I have always thought the major OEMS should get together, tell MS to shove it, and turn i into an AD campaign.
You see a bunch of CEOs from competitive companyies talking about how they want to give the consumer a choice and the only way to do that was to raise there prices because MS won't give deals to computer companies that allow the consumers to have a choice on how they spen there money."
The wouldn't run a week befor MS changed there ways.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Microsoft Who? Don't know who you are talking about.
You'll find out when you get a job in the tech industry. For now, enjoy school.
Perhaps Gateway has concluded that they can't compete with Dell, and their plan is to be driven out of business by Microsoft, then sue for $20 billion to distribute to the stockholders?
sPh
... that the testimony clearly says that although M$ OEM contracts were draconian before the settlement, they used the settlement to make them EVEN WORSE, if thats possible.
GOD, if nothing else, then this should clearly say to the judge that the settlement is not effective. On the contrary. It gives Microsoft easy way out of too benevolent contracts.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
billg: "Buy him out, Boys!"
[thugs trash Homer's house]
billg: "I didn't get to be the richest guy in the world by writing a bunch of checks!"
Carthago delenda est!
Am I one of the few people who don't seem to think there's anything with Microsoft saying, "hey, if you only sell machines with Windows on them, we'll give you a $10 discount on the licenses"? The angle, I think, that one needs to look at this should be: "hey, if you ship only Windows machines, we'll reward you with a discount", not "we're charging you more because you're not shipping solely our products". You see this sort of thing all the time in endorsement contracts. And, after all, if the OEMs actually saw a practical advantage to shipping something like Linux on desktops instead of Microsoft OSes ... like those side offer lines (business, professional lines, whatever) from Dell, etc., they're not obligated to stick with Microsoft.
Free choice, right?
And it's economically advantageous for smaller OEMs to stick with solely Microsoft offerings, given their options, unless you're so small as to be catering to the niche group of Linux users, in which case you often wouldn't need to bundle an OS anyway!
There is a reason why MS tries to get at least 5 companies to push technology such as their WebPad. It's basically called divide and conquer in that it's easier for each OEM to gain market share by competing against each other than to gang up and change the rules. Think of it as a modified prisoner's dilemma with prisoners not allowed to communication and kept in separate cells so they can't revolt. That is the reason why OEM licenses are considered trade secrets by MS. Since each OEM doesn't know the special volume discounts (which are significant given the low margins of box pushing) of the others, they attempt to bargin a better deal which as OPEC has shown leads to similar concessions by the others.
It will be interesting to see how Intel attempts to wriggle more negotiating space with the alternatives of Linux, HP Unix coming on-line.
LL
What is funny is that Microsoft doesn't consider themselves a monopoly. They think they have to fight, tooth and nail, to barely hang on to that 90% market share. That's why they think what they did is right
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
I realize this goes against the grain of many elite slashdot Linux HAXXORS, but maybe you could try checking the facts first?
Dell still offers Linux!
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
It seems to me that Gateway may have just signed its death warrant. It is already in financial trouble: their recent Gateway Store idea looks like a bust, they are getting taken to the cleaners by Steven from Dell and the "current economic downturn", and their stock is in the toilet. Now, they just turned on one of the the only companies who could bail them out and keep them afloat, while at the same time making an enemy of the only supplier they have that is irreplaceable. No wonder the other OEMs don't want to testify.
I've always known this was true, but now we have a REAL company vouching it..but how does MS do it? Do they send goons in and say "if you don't install Windows we will break your legs?" I mean, how is this different from racketeering? The Mafia does that in major cities with Waste Management. You can only use THEIR company, or they break your legs or set your building on fire. WHich is very similar to how tings work in Eastern-bloc countries.
I don't know where you are from but in the United States exclusive contracts are a typical occurence in the business environment. The only thing that makes MSFT's an issue is that after a company has achieved a certain amount of market share it may be unfair for them to have exclusive deals with other vendors because it may effectively shut down the competition.
AFor instance a common example of such exclusive deals is schools, stadia, fast food places and restuarants that only serve soft drinks from a particular vendor (e.g. only Pepsi or Coke products).
However it is up to the courts to decide whether there was anything inappropriate about these OEM deals and if so to come up with a decision. Likening it to racketeering on the other hand is a gross exagerration and implies that you think that MSFT forces its competitors to accede to its demands through violent means. If you know this for a fact I'm sure the courts would love to hear your testimony.
Look around you. Some establishments will only sell Pepsi while others only sell Coke.
I would think most screwdriver shops would do this...they're already using whatever processor, RAM, HD, etc. you specify, so the logical extension would be that you could specify the OS to be installed. I've bought parts for complete systems at PC Club and not had to pay the "MS tax" along with those parts. I've never had them assemble a system (I can do that myself), but I would think they'd build a "naked PC" if you asked.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Thank you for using our eSales Advisor live chat service. For your convenience and reference, we have attached a transcript of your chat session below
Topic: Customizing A New Notebook
Me: Can I have Windows XP removed before shipping?
Carson: hi. welcome to gateway country. my name is carson, your esales advisor. may i please have your phone number in case this chat disconnects?
Me: xxx-xxx-xxxx
Carson: thanks. let me check
Carson: which laptop do you want to purchase? and which operating system do you want?
Me: I was considering the Solo 1400se. I'd prefer either Mandrake 8.1 or RedHat 7.2
Carson: i see. we cannot send a laptop w/o an operating system.
Me: Why is that?
Carson: licensing agreement.
Me: With who?
Carson: microsoft
Me: What are my options then - I take it Linux is not an option?
Carson: correct. we can load xp, win2000, or 98.
Carson: ok. you're welcome. thank you. bye.
Carson: | eSales Advisor | 1-800-846-2036 x55238
carson.kotay@gateway.com | 11410671:6051783
I knew the answer, but I wanted to see it in writing from a rep.
I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
I don't know, could you point to another company that does this, checking up to make sure they aren't buying other products and then penalize for it?
Soft drink manufacturers do a somewhat similar thing all the time. Restaurants, airlines, sports stadiums, you name it, they all get a better price on their Coke or Pepsi products if they sell only one brand.
In the soft drink world, that's not such a significant problem, though, because there is competition. Smaller companies like RC and Shasta may have some grounds to complain that the lock-in keeps them shut out completely, but consumers still come out relatively okay because the competition between the big boys keeps flavored sugar water innovation up and prices down.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
They actually had a Simpsons episode about how Microsoft does business.
There's a HUGE difference between Microsoft and Verizon.
One is a monopoly that was granted by government fiat. A natural consequence of that is that the government has the authority to regulate it and impose restrictions. Verizon didn't build its monopoly by building a unique business model or providing unique service. Its monopoly was granted to it by the government.
Microsofts "monopoly", on the other hand was built without government assistance.
You have no way to obtain phone, power or water without the utility (government regulations see to that). You can always obtain an OS without Microsoft.
Also, Microsoft was not cutting off the supply to Gateway. It was not "raising" the prices either. Gateway could always buy Windows at the full retail price at the time of retail availability. There is a cap on the price which is the retail price - a price at which several million people buy the product.
Are you trying to say that because Microsoft has this "monopoly" that it owes the government nothing for, it should be required to offer a discount to Gateway just because it asks for it?
Mmmm.. Donuts
...Why couldn't an OEM hide behind a subsidiary or spinoff marque that they could use to sell hardware without the M$ tax.
Suppose that, OK, Gateway computers HAVE to have Windows, because Gateway must follow the Way of Gates. But what's to stop Gateway from spinning off a tiny company called "Freeway, a subsidiary of Gateway" or whatever, and have *that* company sell all the non-M$ OSes they want? So M$ strips Freeway of any license to bundle M$ software. Freeway thumbs its nose and says, "So what?" Meanwhile, Gateway mocks sympathy for M$ and says, "You know, I really do wish we could better control those rogues down at Freeway. But our organization just doesn't have that level of control over our subsidiaries."
Why couldn't this work?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
>Do you *really* want a manufacturer's installation of Linux on your box??? Is there ONE SINGLE Linux user that wouldn't much prefer to FDISK and install it clean?
Yes. There is.
Prime example:
My Father recently had to buy a new PC. Being several states away from him, I couldn't go with him. He did take my recommendations with him, which included "Absolutely, definitely, no XP."
You see, his Fiancee does work on the computer, and is a financial planner. Due to the huge list of privacy concerns, passport tie-ins, and licensing restrictions, I didnt feel it was appropriate to keep customer data on a PC running XP.
Upon his triumphant return with a PC with XP installed, he asked for help, which I refused.
I am not, nor will I ever become familiar with XP, and it is really a bad idea to store customer data on it.
What does this have to do with Linux pre-installed?
Well, glad you asked.
If he had had the option of using the linux partition instead, he could have. He has a video camera that sync's with the machine, a web-based email system, and a few other non-windows-requiring activities.
For those, I could happily ssh in and help him with whatever he needed fixed.
I could even access the windows partition, to read certain files!
Alas, since MS strong-arms every manufacturer to not install older software, nor alternative software, there is no option for my Father.
None.
1 Microsoft Way. Not just an address..
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Quoting the CNet article referenced in that link...
The move was not unexpected. Dell executives have suggested that the operating system has more potential for workstations and servers. The desktop decision was largely a financial one, influenced by the slow PC market, said Dell spokesman David Graves.
[...]
Analysts seemed unsurprised by the move. "Linux has held a very small portion of the market" for desktop PCs, said Dan Kusnetzky, vice president of systems software research at IDC.
Until someone from Dell testifies that "we dropped Linux support because Microsoft pressured us to do so and not because it simply wasn't selling" don't go putting words in other peoples' mouths.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Yes, it would be in Pepsi's best interest to see that Britney only endorses Pepsi, but that is moot, because Pepsi and Coke are both large companies that are in relatively equal competition with each other.
Windows is a monopoly, and as such, can cause severe damage to CPU distributors by charging extra if they want for whatever reason. The key idea here is that the CPU distributors need windows on their machines to survive as a company. They have no other alternative whereas britney can always go to a different soft drink company, and not go out of business (and yes I mean business, there's no art to the crap she puts out)
Let's say it more specifically: Microsoft has a monopoly in desktop operating systems, therefore it is illegal for Microsoft to make exclusive deals with OEMs. There, that's better.
However it is up to the courts to decide whether there was anything inappropriate about these OEM deals and if so to come up with a decision.
The courts *have* decided: it's illegal. Read the ruling. Or does your employer screen your internet access? ;-)
Likening it to racketeering on the other hand is a gross exagerration and implies that you think that MSFT forces
Yeah, and if I tell you that you should do business with me or else, you know, accidents happen, I'm not really forcing you, am I?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
problem solved, no more MS windows PC. I mean who would actually PAY for Windows?
;-)
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Had my fill of M$
Having your fill of them and not acknowledging their existence are two different things.
I wonder how many calls it would take?
Call Gateway Sales
Home or Home Office 800.846.4208
Para Información sobre
"Oficina en Casa" 888.299.7512
Any Size Business 800.846.5211
Education 800.211.4952
State/Local Government 800.211.4952
Federal Government 800.216.2940
International Sales 605.232.2191
Remanufactured PCs 800.846.3614
Add-On Sales 800.846.2080
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
I'm going to buy a Dell laptop. On their website you can customize the laptop fairly much, including operating system and office package.
.. write to all consumer-rights organizations and consumer TV programs. I think it's worth the effort, don't you?
But, suprise suprise, on the menus you can just choose between Microsoft products, and 'none at all' is not an option.
So I phoned their sales department. 'Why can't I deselect Windows and Office?', I asked. The drone at the other end told me that virtually everyone wanted Windows on their laptops, so it wasn't there. So I told him that I was not one of those 'virtually everyone', and didn't want it.
'No can do', he told me. They apparantly had a deal with Microsoft, which required them to ship -all- computers with Windows.
I didn't quite believe it. I live in Norway, and I've always believed that our laws is more consumer-friendly than what's the situation in the US.
So I asked him if it really was legal. He didn't know, but the one thing he _could_ tell me was that without that agreement, the boxes 'virtually everyone' bought (including Windows, that is), would be so expensive that they wouldn't be able to compete other laptop-makers.
So, there I am, with no other option than buying Windows and Office lisences I won't be using anyway.
But then one thing occured to me. Nobody can _force_ me to accept the EULA that comes with Microsoft's products. So if I buy my laptop with Windows and Office, and refuse to accept the EULA, I should be able to return the software to Microsoft and get my money back. That's how it _should_ be, at least.
Can somebody confirm that the EULA gives you this possibility? Have anyone tried this? Any success?
I will certainly try my best to kick up a fuss if I can't
--
Tore
..will dismiss testimony out declaring it ``hearsay''.
***
That's silly. The testimony earlier WAS hearsay. I can't comment as to your state of mind. Only you can do that. Lacking YOUR testimony, what I say about your state of mind is hearsay.
Engineering and the Ultimate
First, there's licensing restrictions - which obviously should be changed since they are anti-competitive.
Secondly, some of us (ok, maybe just me) are members of things like Neilsen Home Shoppers (you know, the guys who measure what you buy) or other programs - we need to ensure that every time we buy something it has Linux. Or, if not, that we BUY (not d/l for free) Linux as an add-on.
If it's not measured, it doesn't exist - that's how they think.
Third, if you own shares in one of the OEMs - send an investor relations email to the board, politely asking why they are not maximizing your shareholder return by offering a Linux version. Tell them to setup a shell corp if they have to, which buys the box and then sells it to the mother corp (Win OS) and another corp (Linux/BSD/etc).
If you are a shareholder, file a shareholder resolution. No, I am not kidding. Do this now. And then expense showing up at the annual meeting to push this. Keep it short and sweet.
This is war. Take no prisoners. Refuse to accept the ground rules imposed by the enemy - impose your own rules, choose your own ground. Fight them where your weapons are strongest, not the lawyer/contract arena they excel at.
But don't play their game - play yours.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
The hardware industry has been fighting for survival. Even the big names have been taking hits. Was VA Linux in a better situation?
VA Linux put out nice enough systems. But they were expensive. And you hardly had to buy VA Linux hardware to run Linux. One of the places I saw VA Linux boxes also included Sun and Compaq hardware. They ran Solaris, Windows, and Linux. And Linux was found on more than the VA machines.
Is there a market for Linux? Yes. But it is not a market one can corner. And offering Linux does not provide a shield against the tough times the industry in general has been facing.
It seems that if an OEM does not ship Windows on every PC they ship that they are severely penalized, and can have their license revoked."
If the OEMs negotiated contracts giving a discount if Windows is shipped on every PC, then it is the OEMs who are breaking the contract by not shipping every PC with Windows. If they don't like this situation, then they need to negotiate a new contract that gives them a slightly less discount for shipping slightly fewer Windows PCs.
If you're a Gateway, HP or Dell, Microsoft may have you by the balls, but you STILL have Microsoft by the short and curlies. The marketplace may demand that you ship with Windows, but you don't have to ship consumer models with MSOffice, you don't have to ship server models with IIS or Exchange, you don't have to ship MS mice with every PC, etc.
If all else fails, sue Microsoft under the terms of the US Commercial Code for selling you non merchantable goods.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Well, hey... do cows tend to fight back if cornered?
I submit that if Gateway wants to capitalize on goodwill generated from this operation, though, they might want to start by ending their abuse of the ATX spec and go back to making hardware that can actually be upgraded. I've noticed that a lot of their most recent systems are very cheaply made systems using cases that seem to be designed specifically for Intel motherboards (i.e. no cutout around the rear ports and no way to add a new mobo without a pair of metal snips). That's just one thing they could do...
/Brian
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Errors like this are pardon parcel with learning english from talking and hearing and not by reading. I mean, nobody expects a slashdot post to win the pullet surprise or anything, but he could of spent a moment proofreading his post. For all intensive purposes he has made himself look like a real moron.
AND MS Works
Yeah, WTF is up with this, anyway? When I bought my first computer over 6 years ago from Gateway, they forced me to buy MS Office with it. I didn't get a choice! It came with Windows 95 and Office 95 and if I didn't like that, tough.
Back then, I didn't care, but now, it pisses me off...
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
You kinda missed the point... Do I want pre-installed linux? no ... but would I like to buy on oem box and install my own os? maybe ... can I? no! *all* oem boxes have windows on them, so I end up paying for windows wether I want it or not ...
Here's the other thing, a linux box would prolly be 50$ cheaper then a windows box because of the MS licensc, ms dosen't want people buying a *cheaper* linux box and then putting a pirate windows on it!
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
They've retreated from their visible "Linux Everywhere" position they previously held, even disbanding their Linux business division.
Seems like they are still in the "meeting demand, but not creating demand" mode on the Server side.
Without competitors like VA around, they don't have to push it anymore. The Linux community either buys preloaded from them or builds their own anyway.
You know, "market development fund" sounds an awful lot like payola to me. Isn't that illegal, or is it just for the music industy?
One possible solution to the problem - let Microsoft "innovate" anything they want into the operating system, but prohibit them selling the OS to OEMs for a period of ten years. Just cut the relationship entirely - it's the ultimate leveling of the field, and removes all leverage that Microsoft has on the OEMs.
OEMs would be free to sell machines with other operating systems, or none at all. Consumers would be required to buy Windows separately and install it themselves should they prefer that to whatever non-Microsoft OS the OEM preinstalled. This would also halt the other trend that MS and the OEMs are promoting - a lack of recovery disks.
I think you'd see the following happen: Apple would immediately release an Intel version of OSX, since the business suddenly becomes interesting to them. RedHat, Mandrake, Lindows, and other as-yet unformed companies could raise the capital to make consumer friendly versions of their offerings.
If you really want to get Draconian, use Microsoft's own arguments against them. They claimed that Netscape still had full access to the market via Internet downloads - so force them to offer Windows exclusively in the same manner.
Not meant to be flamebait, just anecdotal evidence from my attempts to order a Dell and an IBM machine with RedHat pre-loaded:
- Microsoft charges OEMs for a license for each PC shipped - not each PC with Windows, but each and every one they ship. This keeps piracy down, according to MS, by removing the incentive to ship "naked PCs".
- Now, to install and test RedHat on a machine, and to offer some support for it (sound card, monitor, etc) costs extra money.
Add 1+2 and you see why it costs more for a PC with Linux on it. For our Dell server, the grant ate the extra 50 bucks, and I ordered with RedHat (6.1, in those days?) just to make a statement that we wanted it. For my Thinkpad, it wasn't worth it. In both cases, MS got their money.Of course, this is only my understanding, I could be wrong...
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
I will miss their cute little cow commercials!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
They are protecting you against the harm that they will otherwise do you, so it is a protection racket.
OTOH, as MS sets the "official price" of Windows so high, they can claim that they are providing favored vendors with a price break. And if you sell a non-MS OS on your hardware, you obviously aren't a favored vendor, so you can pay full price (possibly less a volume discount, but still a lot higher than your competition). It's possible to stay in business this way, as Pogo, and a few other small vendors prove. But it sure isn't easy. And one always hears of stories that one of those businesses got to be too successful, and then experienced a "shippment problem". True or not, this has got to make it "exciting" to be in that line of work.
And you need to write off most potential customers, because your costs for MS software will be, O, at a guess 5 times the cost that your competition pays. You don't qualify for the discount.
This may be legal. IANAL. I don't feel that it should be legal, but it may be. Lots of things are legal that I don't feel should be (and conversely).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Never comment on other people's modding else you will be modded down. This is a Prozac moment. At 4:11pm EST Tuesday 03.26.2002 /. officially took itself too fucking seriously.
Microsoft (and all large software houses) operates on the same principle as the IRS: They don't have to catch everyone violating their licensing agreements. They just have to catch enough, and punish them harshly enough, to keep the rest scared.
sPh
Wait.
This is just proof that the settlement isn't enough. MS should not be allowed to use predjudicial behavior in any manner. MS is a PUBLIC company. So, yes, they have the obligation to obey PUBLIC rules. It would be different if MS was a private company owned by one person; but its not.
You can't refuse to sell black people food at publicly owned restaurants.
Why should MS be allowed to PENALIZE companies for selling other OS'? Or for not selling ridiculously high quantities of MS products.
This is just a method by which MS can unfairly maintain its monopoly, put itself ABOVE capitalistic competition.
I don't see why people defend MS so much. Whatever you think of their products, whatever you think of whether or not they got to their present position by merit or fraud...they're still a monopoly. Monopolies are inherently not good. They are everything capitalism opposes.
Even if MS were to play perfectly fair -- no crooked deals, no blackballing, no spurious lawsuit threats -- it still wouldn't be good enough. They would still hinder competition and deny consumers choice, if only by default.. Because they're so large, its impossible competing against them effectively; they can outspend you a million to one. Because they own so much of the desktop industry, few hardware or software developers offer software/driver versions for non-MS products.
Let me put it to you this way. Lets just assume Gates was a saint, freakin' mother teresa, a Stallman on wheels. That still doesn't mean we should tolerate his current power. No matter how good the man, you wouldn't want to have a person be dictator of the United States, would you?
Its the same thing with MS.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
You're jumping to the wrong conclusions. Obviously, if Dell can be bullied in the Desktop market, they can be bullied in the server market too. The point is that Microsoft allows a small server OEM market for Linux.
Back to the "meeting demand, but not creating demand" concept.
Linux has already gained ground in the server market. And any time Microsoft has anything near positive to say about Linux, it is in that context. Of course, there is a point where Linux is more of a threat to SCO and Sun than Microsoft for server market share. But that won't continue forever.
The desktop is new ground for Linux. A lot of work has been directed toward this target. And it may or may not be suitable for you (IMHO its suitable for power users and complete neophytes). But any support in this market by a OEM is doing nothing short of expanding Linux market share.
So how do we meet demand but not create it? Provide it as an option for servers if the customer walks up and requests/demands it. Otherwise, push Windows.
To assume small hardware companies went out of business during a tough time for the entire industry because they sold Linux machines ignores a far more obvious answer.
The big difference between Coke and Microsoft is that Coke isn't a monopoly.
Coke is selling products in an industry with competition. MS is not. Coke cannot put a grocery store out of business, whereas MS could squash Dell like a bug if they cut off the "Windows air supply."
Microsoft is a monopoly, pure and simple. Locking their competitors out of the marketplace is CLEARLY using their monopoly leverage to maintain said monopoly. I'm not sure how anybody could see it any other way (short of being paid off like George W. and Company...)
Who did what now?
There are far too many ways for Microsoft to retaliate without being obvious, without the victim even having more than a vague suspicion.
They won't sell consumer lines with Linux installed. Last I checked, you couldn't even get an optiplex with Linux, you had to go with a server or precision workstation. Their Linux support is spotty at best.
Gateway is down to about 7% of the PC market, and dropping rapidly (source: Gartner Group report in ComputerUser's hardcopy mag) and I gather is going deeper in the hole every quarter; consensus is that in a year or so, Gateway will no longer exist.
:)
That being the case, I have to wonder if this is in fact a last-ditch attempt to lighten the yoke of M$'s decidedly skewed OEM pricing.
Not that Gateway's move was a bad thing by any means, but I just don't see it as being purely in the interest of promoting the action against M$. Methinks it may be more along the lines of "reduce what you're charging us for OEM Windows licenses, and we'll agree to drop our testimony."
Of course, I may be just another paranoid conspiracy theorist.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I tried to by a desktop-type system from Dell without an MS OS, and the salesman said that it was impossible. I found another much smaller company that was willing to do it and ordered my two computers from that company instead.
The reason is simply that the smaller supplier has to pay full price for each copy of Windows and they pay Microsoft only based on how many Windows licences they sell.
The big OEM's get Windows a lot cheaper, but subject to the condition that they not only ship it with every machine they sell. In addition they have a whole set of other conditions about how they set it up, what they can and can't also supply with computers.
Even though this was found to be illegal in the early 90's Microsoft continue to do it...
The truly insidious thing about having to buy Windows no matter what is that it leads to false marketshare data that says hardly anybody ever owns anything but Windows, which leads other companies to support nothing but Windows.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.