Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sets Value Of Pirated Windows: $1
nick_davison writes "The BBC is reporting that Microsoft has reached a deal with the Indonesian government on pirated software - which is believed to affect around 50,000 government PCs. Under the deal, Indonesia will pay $1 per copy and agree to buy legally in the future. Indonesia's information minister, Sofyan Djalil, said, "Microsoft is being realistic. They can't force developing countries like us to solely use legal software since we can't afford it. They want us to gradually reduce our use of it." Somehow it seems unlikely the same rules will be applied to developing companies and poorer individuals in the United States."
An exchange for Schappelle Corby?
VERITAS VOS LIBERABIT
That's still more than the average /. user values it at.
...include tech support?
That's at least a dollar more than I paid for it
Twice what it's worth, huh?
"Somehow it seems unlikely the same rules will be applied to developing companies and poorer individuals in the United States."
You scream Linux, OpenOffice and not bluff you'll get big discounts. MS is rich because people simply pay up. Start being an *informed* consumer, markets work better that way.
Deleted
So this explains the MS sponsored TCO researches saying Windows is cheaper.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
Cool. I just PayPal'd $1 to billg@microsoft.com. I figure we're square now...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
fools! MS would rather PAY YOU to maintain its monopoly and mindshare than have you turn to linux.
...and about as good for you, too.
Seriously, though -- why do people still pirate MS products when you can have the free (better?) alternative operating system, office suite, e-mail client, yadda yadda?
Is this a statement of "joe sixpack" and his relative ignorance of the alternatives or is this more a shot at OSS -- "we'd rather break laws than use your free (no-good) stuff?" The former seems to be a quest for a Linux marketing department. The latter is one for the usability experts to hammer out with the open source coders.
Either way, there's some truth to be revealed in the answer to why people still pirate Microsoft products.
Yeah, well, Britney is easier on the eyes than Bill...or Steve, and she dances better. I'd say she's worth more...to me...for now.
What?
Can this set any precident for the "value" of MSFT software in general? If someone is caught with pirated software, could this overturn the (potential) $150,000 copyright violation because of this precident?
I assume MSFT knows what it's doing (what with their fleet of lawyers).
The Indonesian information minister's statement is ridiculous: "They can't force developing countries like us to solely use legal software since we can't afford it." WTF? Why not? If you can afford Windows, give it a shot. If you can't, try OSS. It'll work. Maybe better, maybe worse. But you sure as hell can be forced to do things legally.
It's not like they're being forced to pay outrageous prices for their sole source of food or something. They have a choice of software, and they choose an expensive, proprietary, non-free one. The shiny, fancy one. Guess what? It costs money.
I always like to use free stuff.
GPL - Free as in mine
BSD/X11/MIT - Free as in not closed yet
CDDL - Free as in slave labor
Apache - Free as in complicated
Microsoft - Free as in stolen
Did I miss any?
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
A little more research on google news shows that MS is denying this report.
Look at just about *any* large software company that sells to businesses. Their goal is to get you locked-in to a software package, and then milk as much money as they possibly can from you. The real money to be made is in hidden costs. Sure, Bob the Purchasing Manager *thinks* that he's bought a copy of the software, but in fact he's signed off on spending money on the software package for the next fifteen years until the company is frusterated enough to ante up enough money to jump ship to another package.
And the best tool of all in the software world to squeeze those-money engorged corporate udders is incompatibility -- file formats, APIs and protocols that only *you* can provide. (And user expertise in your software.)
The smart purchaser stays the hell away from any proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols.
The main reason that the open source world is nice for the corporate world is not the up-front price benefits. It's the fact that open source software inherently has non-proprietary file formats, APIs, and protocols, means that a choice of open source software ensures that you can't be milked (well, *too* much) or else someone else will toddle on in and start providing an alternative.
Consider an example: People using Subversion for their source control aren't going to pay a cent for anything in the future. Even if Subversion cost $5000 a seat, instead of being gratis, it would still mean only a one-time payment. People using ClearCase have many years of rich milk-giving ahead of them.
Microsoft lets people use Windows for minimal cost in areas that it wants to enter because it establishes one of the above pillars of lock-in -- it builds user expertise in their software. Any software with a different interface or behavior immediately represents a barrier to change. That retraining has a cost, that cost can have a dollar value assigned to it, and that dollar value is exactly how much Microsoft can milk you for in the future.
Microsoft's most-used mechanism to help *spread* lock-in is not contracts or dirty legal tactics, but bundling. Get one element of lock-in into play (say, file formats, with Windows binary compatibility), and use it to get Windows deployed, then try to use that to get people to use another element of Windows that can provide its own lock-in benefits. The economic potential, the amount of money that Microsoft can milk users for, increases with every increment of lock-in.
Microsoft didn't give away Internet Explorer for free because they love you and like petting kitties and giving candy to babies. They did it because (a) it builds user expertise in a feature of their software that then is difficult to move away from, increasing lock-in, (b) enough use of Internet Explorer results in network-spanning lock-in as people start dabbling in things like ActiveX, which are a big milk-producing mechanism for Microsoft, and (c) it provides another, significant, platform to use to introduce file format and protocol incompatibility, and thus further milk-producing lock-in. Internet Explorer is an *investment* in producing economic potential, lock-in, which they can cash in for loads of money over time in the future.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
end rant
WHY does M$ needs $50k from Indonesia? Maybe they could donate the windows copies to the Tsunami Relief efforts...
* Some corporations are corrupt
* Some governments are corrupt
* Individuals are often powerless when the two get together
* Resistance is futile
* You will be assimilated
Hope that helps.
A dollar a day keeps the lawyers away!
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
What? MS wants them to reduce their use of legal software?
... but they want to keep their customers.
A very true observation. But it's not so much about money itself anymore as it is power and control. They want the guarantee of a steady flow of money more than the money itself, and the only solution that can put that guarantee in place is the lock-in of a single vendor solution. They're willing to all but give Windows away to establish that lock-in, and that's what this agreement is designed to do.
It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
* Most corporations are corrupt ...
* All governments are corrupt
* Individuals are powerless when the two get together, unless they get together, too
* Resistance is not futile, but is bloody
* You will be assimilated quicker if you buy Nikes, eat at McD's, use MS products
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
It's not about the money. The vast majority of Indonesians take pirated software for granted, and have no real desire or need to buy original.
;)
Several years ago Microsoft Indonesia sued cmoputer stores who install (pirated) Windows onto newly built systems. They claim damage of several billions rupiah, enough to make any local computer store to go out of business. Last time I was in Jakarta, all those stores sued are still in business. In one news article, the defendant's lawyer asked the judge whether he has a PC at home, and whether his copy of Windows is legal
About two years ago a supposedly tough copyright legislation was passed, but there is simply no real enforcement in Indonesia, people still sell and buy openly. There is no "incentive" to buy originals. Even if there is enforcement, most individuals can't afford originals.
And her exact words (after a five minute rant about how the guy was an asshole) were, and I quote:
"Damnit this is awful. But it sounds about right. After that damned Suharto ran off with $30 billion dollars, there was no way in hell we could ever afford to pay for anything. But still, better for him to steal it than Microsoft."
They couldn't afford it, so they used pirated copies. The agreed to pay $1 for the 50,000 copies they have now, and agree to pay licensing for future upgrade.
If they couldn't afford it now, how will they affor it in the future?
And, what's to say, I can't afford Windows, so, can I pay $1? They got to, why can't I?
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
I've been to Indonesia briefly. If I remember correctly, one dollar translates to about 10,000 Rupies, which will buy you a pretty good meal just about anywhere, or an unreliable CD containing mp3s of every Bob Marley song ever recorded, or 10 packs of ramen (ramen costs the same everywhere in the world), or about 5 or 10 angkot rides, or more biskuat than you can eat in one sitting. I stayed a few days in a hotel in Batu Karas for about about $4-$5 a night for a room shared with a couple friends. You can buy antibiotics for about a dollar or so I believe.
I didn't see many computers there, so I don't know if Linux is very well established, but no one cares about piracy over there. The percieved cost of windows is about the same as the percieved cost of Linux: whatever it costs to get a burned copy from a street vendor. "Joe sixpack" is unlikely to own a computer (though TVs are very common), but if he does, he'll probably use whatever everyone else is using, which is probably Windows.
I'm from Indonesia, even here I think only a few people buy legal, indonesian version of windows. Compared to pirated version it's still expensive. Please don't think that company over here is too poor to buy the software, they can buy $2000,- worth hardware. It's just not feasible under Indonesian business practice. It's cheaper to pay the authorities (read: corrupted police officer) than to pay microsoft. Mind you, this is one of the most corrupted goverment in the world, and the standard average salary in the goverment is very low
Work like you don't need the money, love like you've never been hurt, and dance like you do when nobody's watching
I don't know why Americans always talk about "legal" copies of Windows, music, and so on, like it's some universal absolute. Legal depends on the jurisdiction, and there are at least 200 countries that are not the United States.
If Indonesia decides that copying Windows is legal, then it's legal there.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Why is it that I have to compete on a global market labor-rate-wise, yet they don't have to pay global rates for software? You can't have it both ways, guys. If you stab my job with your $4/hr labor rates, then we get to stab you with $200 software.
If you go global, then do it fair.
Table-ized A.I.
Slashdot Sets Value Of Original Windows: $1
My <1000 UID is with a hot chick