Slashdot Mirror
Is Windows Worth $45?
bgelb writes "This article from the Wall Street Journal questions whether Microsoft really innovates enough to justify the enormous amount of money (nearly 10% of the cost of every PC!) it takes from consumers each year. Hard drive and chip makers innovate constantly, but what about Microsoft?"
I'm not a Windows user, but all of my friends in my networking class pirate, even the ones who are Windows enthusiasts. Of course, they all build their PCs, I suppose it is really people buying OEMs getting hosed.
Windows may take $45 dollars per year, but trust me... it certainly takes a lot more, when you factor in all of those lost papers, doomed databases, and the dozen hours each of us loses from meddling with its problems.
if you had an option to either pay it, or buy a PC without an OS. that it's forced upon you when you buy a PC (via OEM agreements) isn't fair regardless of the cost. I bought and iBook just because I wouldn't pay for Windows, since I would never use it. Yes, I pay a little for OS X, but it's something I may actually use (via MOL in Linux).
CBV
free ipod and free gmail!
So either you get users pissed off that they have to spend MORE to get similar functionality, or you get them bitching about how user-unfriendly Linux is (though free).
Not much of a choice between all three, really. What there ought to be is a free OS that is as comfortable an environment as MacOS and supports as much software as Windows.
They say I'm a dreamer, but my heart's of gold...
I have been pwned because my
I'd pay $45 for Windows. I'd pay $60 if they let me not install most of what I don't want.
It seems to me that essentially what Microsoft does is wait for someone else to come up with a cool new idea and take the risks of making sure it works, and then implement the same concept themselves in an integrated fashion so that the lazy and/or uninformed will just use theirs. I think a prime example of this is ICQ, which of course was followed by MSN.
And even the $45 amount thrown out in the article was a guess (by the author's own admission). It's probably closer to ~$70 (my guess).
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
There are choices for consumers and if they refuse to vote with their wallets, I have little pity on them,.
Patience young one. This is a Wall Street Journal article, not a computer focused article. This is just a sign that Wall Street is waking up to the fact that Windows isn't worth the money they've been spending. Ever since Microsoft released XP with these new tighter contracts, businesses who hadn't previously cared about alternatives now care. We've already seen some Microsoft replacing going on, this article is probably a harbinger of more.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I have always wondered what the world would be like if a company with
...
better technical leadership had been handed the PC operating system
monopoly by IBM oh so many years ago. Perhaps it would not have been
possible for that company, whoever they might have been, to achieve the
level of domination that Microsoft achieved because such a company might
have put too many resources to the task of technical innovation and left
the business (i.e. monopolization) side of things to falter. It is quite
possible that the only company which could achieve the kind of dominance
that Microsoft has achieved would be one which, like Microsoft, cannot
innovate or excel technically, because it would take too many resources
away from the business side of things to focus on the technical.
I guess this would mean that the companies which achieve monopoly status
are by definition technically inferior? This would certainly seem to be
the case
Some people would argue that Microsoft is not a monopoly because it does
not in fact have 100% complete control over the operating system market.
But Microsoft does have a monopoly in one *very* important market -
operating systems capable of running Microsoft Windows software. You
see, I think that the fact Microsoft's operating system's are the only
ones which literally trillions of dollars worth of software can run
on means that Microsoft is by definition monopolizing an absolutely
enormous market. While it may sound flippant to say that Microsoft
has a monopoly on Microsoft operating systems, I think there is something
really important behind this. No one company should be the producers
of a commodity which so many other companies depend upon to sell their
product. It's not healthy for the market and it's certainly not to the
benefit of consumers.
If consumers don't like paying for Windows they can buy a Mac, use Linux, or pirate it.
There are choices for consumers and if they refuse to vote with their wallets, I have little pity on them,.
Easy for you to say, but most people only know what is on display at CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, WalMart, etc. As soon as the big OEMs with retail distribution stop giving in to Microsoft exclusion deals (I forget the economics term, when a monopolist refuses to sell its product to a middleman if he sells competitors' products too). Dell employees came out of the closet and told the world about these deals, we know it goes on. Do you really think any OEM will stand up to Microsoft and risk losing Windows? Only WalMart has been able to do this, one juggernaut battling another...
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Which is somewhat ironic when you consider it's just Yet Another MP3 Player App bundled/tied to an online store and a portable MP3 player - none of which were particularly "new technology" at the time.
And look at OS X... think of how fundamentally different it is than OS 9. Then think of XP versus 2000 or 98. Not that much of a difference.
Windows 2000 and XP (which are roughly analagous to OS X 10.2 and 10.3) are just as fundamentally different to Windows 95, 98 and Me as MacOS Classic and OS X are to each other.
"It's easy when you collect nearly 10% of the cost of every PC that's shipped, while having no manufacturing costs of your own."
this guy is a total asshat. how can he say that windows has no manufacturing costs? 3-4 weeks ago on slashdot after the windows source code leak, folks were saying "holy shit guys - look at the 4.5 million lines of code that becomes windows! what a crappy, bloated OS!". now this dumbass claims that it costs nothing to manufacture. how many man-hours did it take to write windows 2000? windows xp? the media it is shipped on costs very little, but one-time cost of writing is also counted in the total-cost. so unless it was written by non-paid interns (which we know is not the case), this guy is grossly underestimating the profit.
i bet he's just another disgruntled mac user...
Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
So basically Microsoft needs to just wait, work on Longhorn, make it stable and release it once it is completely finished, with much much more stability
That's a bit of problem though, because a lot of the timelines are now starting to place Longhorn at around 2008. That's an awfully long time for Microsoft to be sitting on their hands really.
Yes, there are plenty of promises of wonderful new features in Longhorn, but then MS was promising a OO filesystem in "Cairo" the update to WinNT that was perpetually delayed and never quite arrived. As long as Longhorn is several years away they can promise all the amazing innovations they like - we have to wait to see what they actually deliver
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Thats a pretty good indicator of how important OEMS are to Windows. I haven't ever got 80% off for buying in bulk, much less 93%. If it wasn't for OEMs choosing peoples OSes for them, Windows would be losing a lot of market share fast.
WWJD? JWRTFM.
Don't think about the cost of the Microsoft OS - think about how it drives hardware obsolescence - the average user only buys a new machine because they need a new version of Microsoft Office, which needs a new version of the latest Microsoft OS, which needs a faster CPU, and more memory. (Or, more recently, getting the latest Microsoft OS because they can't keep up with the patches).
This drives computer sales - versus what would happen with Linux - users would still buy better peripherals, but Intel wouldn't be where it is now - because the peripherals would use embedded processors, and Intel doesn't rule there. Memory wouldn't sell as much, because without OS bloat, we wouldn't need as much memory. So in summary, I'd say that Microsoft does serve a purpose - marketing of new computers.
The question I think should be asked isn't whether it's worth it, but rather, "How many times do I have to pay for windows?".
Several people purchase computers to replace the computer they already have. The old computer gets junked. Lets forget about the possibility of people switching from windows to linux. Lets just ask an even more clear issue. Why can't the user use his old copy of windows on the new dell? Can't resellers ask for proof of previous windows version to not get billed for the software?
This is just a sign that Wall Street is waking up to the fact that Windows isn't worth the money they've been spending.
The real assessment is much more sobering to those of us in the software industry -- this is just another bit of proof that the general perception nowadays is that software should be free, or damn close to free. No one groans about $600 for an LCD monitor, $200 for a hard drive, or $250 for a new video card every two years, but $45 for tens of millions of lines of code that is the single most important element of the PC (how great is that PC minus software)? Whoa, that's just unacceptable!
Consider this a win if you're blinded by your anti-Microsoft rage, but the reality is that this is yet another step towards the caveman mentality that only physical objects that you can hold in your hands have value. Of course I realize that's the going philisophical argument in these parts, so I'm preaching to the wrong crowd.
You like XP, and that's perfectly fine. But suppose you went to your local computer store to buy a new machine and found that every machine there came pre-installed with Redhat Linux. Also suppose you found out that $45 of the cost of each computer is going to the cost of Redhat. So you grudgingly buy one of these machines, remove Linux and install XP. In this scenario, was Linux worth $45 to you? Keep in mind this is what people like me are forced to accept. I had to pay some undisclosed amount for XP on my laptop, yet I have never used it (and never will). To me, that copy of XP was not worth $45. To me, it's not worth anything, yet I was forced to pay it to get the laptop.
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
Microsoft will always, always have a monopoly on the PC Operating System market. The simple reason for this is that VERY, VERY few people or companies would ever take the risk of installing an O.S that doesn't run the vast majority of software products already available and demanded on the market. After all, when it comes down to it, isn't a free economy all about choice? This gives consumers two initial choices A: Install and use Linux (forget for a second that for many people this is going to have quite a steep learning curve compared to Windows). What does the consumer get? More money in his/her pocket, but FAR less choice in software applications. B: Cough up a wad of cash and use Windows XP. Rest assured you can go online, or go to your local "software supermarket" and have millions of choices concerning software, compared to a much smaller number for Linux et al. Given the fact that a huge number of people choose "B", software developers aren't really encouraged to support Linux, but instead keep churning out new programs for Windows machines, thus repeating the cycle. I don't think any of us will ever live to see Microsoft as anything other than a monopoly. Sad, but true.