Annual Cost of Microsoft Monopoly: $10 Billion

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's deals with major PC vendors lock users out from alternative options, such as Linux. A recent whitepaper calculates that the cost to industry of this Microsoft monopoly is $10 billion per year."

Comments

Of Course!

[Dagny Taggert]

This is what happens when a near-monopoly is allowed to thrive...it costs everyone.

Re:Of Course!

[RailGunner]

Crush Microsoft and you have an epidemic ofo unemployment in your hands: most MCSEs won't be able to hack arcane *nix systems you no doubt cheer for.

Maybe the MCSE's shouldn't have put their careers in the hand of one company, then? If MS collapses, and the MCSE's are all out of jobs - well, it's their problem for making a poor career choice. Maybe they should have seen the trend and prepared by learning about it.

Software development, however, will not be affected. There's not much different when you're coding C++ for Windows or Linux. Or Java. Or Perl. Or [insert language here].

There's not much different in using those computers, either. Thunderbird is similar in look and feel to Outlook, OpenOffice.org is similar to MS Office, and Firefox is well, Firefox, and a great number of Windows users are already running it.

Re:Of Course!

[Pxtl]

Standards for what? Documents? (HTML, Postscript, PDF, and RTF have all done fine as de-facto standards). Database interface (SQL)? About the only industry that would suffer would be games. Most normal user/office apps can run fine behind a decent platform abstraction layer like Java or a web-client.

Besides, everyone knows it's impossible to make a cross-platform version of Office (*cough* *cough* office 98 *cough*).

Re:Of Course!

[NickFortune]

In the grand scheme of things $10 billion is not a lot of money. But keep subscribing to that FUD.

Astroturfing again, Bill?

Re:Of Course!

[jav1231]

Very little. If the 'standar' didn't exist, people would have been managing systems as they alsways have. There were plenty of UNIX, VAX, Netware, and other SA's in existence long before Microsoft had a network OS. If something should happen to Windows, there will be others. My contention is there would be far better security. I don't doubt there are some good MCSE's but there are many many more who have no practical experience outside Windows. As such, they have very little knowledge of serial networks, console commands, and in many cases ethernet and TCP/IP. They are poor troubleshooters often times because they've never had to carry over any previous principles. I've had an MCSE tell me point blank that something couldn't be done that I'd been doing for quite some time. Why? "Microsoft even says so." Microsoft has poisoned these SA's and set them up for an all Microsoft world. As such, these folks have a hard time interacting in multiplatform environments. In the end, they owe it to themselves to learn alternatives.

Re:Of Course!

[NickFortune]

Can you imagine how much it would cost the industry AND all government operations if we didn't have a de facto standard in the form of Microsoft? Crush Microsoft and you have an epidemic ofo unemployment in your hands: most MCSEs won't be able to hack arcane *nix systems you no doubt cheer for.

I do find it interesting that you see the only two alternatives as being Microsoft in it's current monopolistic form, or no Microsoft at all.

Personally I was thinking more along the lines of

what if MS stopped bullying the OEMs and the hardware boys. They could let them sell Linux PCs as well as Windows. Not the crappy, crippled twice-the-price for half-the-spec systems occasionally used to maintain a pretense at competition, but a genuine level playing field.

You would seem to think that any such concession would inevitably lead to the destruction of the software giant. The only way I can see in which that might follow is if MS' offerings have become utterly debased and devoid of all value. A damning indictment coming from an apparent support of Microsoft. It's also somewhat further than I'd have been prepared to go myself.

You don't think you might be guilty of a touch of the old groupthink yourself, do you?

Re:Of Course!

[RailGunner]

OK, let me clarify my position. I'm a software engineer, so I get paid to write code. I enjoy it, and obviously I want to keep doing it.

That being said - the market for commodity software is dead. The future is in customization and embedded systems. This will continue, and will allow engineers like me to continue to get paid.

Furthermore, I don't believe that all applications must be open source. Operating Systems? Absolutely. It's the ultimate level playing field for the application space.

And as far as it not changing: Whether I'm writing a machine control module, Windows or Linux as teh OS doesn't change much.

Re:Of Course!

[sik0fewl]

There's not much different when you're coding C++ for Windows or Linux. Or Java. Or Perl. Or [insert language here].

Visual Basic?

*ducks*

Re:Of Course!

[Nossie]

I have to agree here.... screw those with their MCSEs ... they should have realised that before the government funded them (in the uk atleast)

It would have been a different scenario if the students in question were actually of any competence. I know of people who have interviewed MCSEs graduates that weren't capable of formatting disks! never mind administering systems.

In my walk of life... an MCSE can (almost) administer a Microsoft Windows system... a Linux or UNIX qualified admin can work *and script* both UNIX and windows and will still be doing so when the monopolist falls.

I guess it's quite similar to those that were MCSE qualified in Windows NT. Without going the Microsoft upgrade path to 2k and 2003 those graduates are now obsolete. If said graduate had bothered to get qualified in a generic 'server environment' qualification like a BSe in systems administration 20 years ago that would not have been a problem.

The same goes for RedHat and Cisco qualifications... although Cisco has became more of an industry standard as far protocols go.. than either RedHat or Microsoft will ever hope to be.

The point is: defacto standards do not come about because a government or corporation says so.. they last in our industry because they are reliably time and time again deliver the goods in question and don't need patched every day or upgraded every month. If you honestly thought otherwise... you wouldn't have been posting AC.

Re:Of Course!

[SatanicPuppy]

Riiight. There is nothing saying you can't run commerical proprietary code on Linux...I do it all the time even now using WINE, and it's perfectly legit under the GPL.

The only time you've got to give away code you made is when you've released a product that extends somethign that is already available under the GPL, which is perfectly fair. Its a derivative work, and the only reason you could create it is because someone else put the original work out there for you to build on. Seems fair enough.

What's going to make them stop?

[bigwavejas]

Until the penalties outweigh the revenue, what's going to make MS stop? This 300lb gorilla is going to keep stomping on the little people (Linux, FreeBSD and otherS) unless something changes. In addition... Even if this didn't exist MS still has a stranglehold on the software available for personal computers, everything from Games to Applications. That's the next hurdle.

Re:What's going to make them stop?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Until the penalties outweigh the revenue, what's going to make MS stop?

MS is certainly contributing to making itself stop, with antics like these.
As Microsoft makes it more and more difficult to use its products (from a legal standpoint as well as an illegal one), the alternatives are going to look more and more attractive by comparison.

Re:What's going to make them stop?

[chia_monkey]

Sadly, you are very correct. I don't see an end to this monopoly anytime soon. Microsoft seems to be held to a completely different set of standards than other companies. It's either their market dominance that scares people, their deep pockets (which are filling other pockets), or a combination of these and more variables.

The really sad part about it all is how Apple gets sued for the Tiger name or for "Apple" in cahoots with iTunes. Intel and AMD are going after each other. These are instances of competetition that is allowed to thrive and it's carrying over to the courts. Then you've got Microsoft getting pissy at Google and suing because Google is getting an ex-Microsoft employee (rumor has it, they're getting quite a few employees actually). And then you've got this monopoly business. This current administration in office doesn't care about Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. Microsoft has to get slapped pretty damn hard to stop...and I just don't think that will happen anytime soon.

Re:What's going to make them stop?

[someonewhois]

Ahaha. Sorry, but that's a REALLY naive way of looking at it. I don't think anyone I know in the non-tech world will consider using Linux (which they have never heard of) just because Windows requires them to verify their license on updates.

Re:What's going to make them stop?

[Daniel_Staal]

Probably true... But think about this: You're the IT person for a medium-sized company. You know that Linux is there, and know some stuff about it. You don't use it though.

Now, Microsoft suddenly decides to make it more labor-intensive to keep your systems up to date: You have to verify the license. It's not much, but it would be enough to make you start looking at Linux a little harder, just after your next update round.

Maybe you'll switch, maybe you won't, but you are thinking about it. If you do, you now will show every user in the company that Linux works. They had probably never heard of it. Maybe they'll like it. Maybe even take a look at it at home. Even if you don't, you may talk about it with your boss. Who make look at it, if you make a good enough case.

No one cost in this is enough to force a switch. But every small cost is enough to make switching just that little bit more attractive. And any one switch is one more real-world example, making more switches more likely.

This is how empires fall. Not all at once, but in pieces...

Re:What's going to make them stop?

[demachina]

That a pretty silly number. The amount Microsoft charges for the software they ship on computers, especially the base OS is really low. They make their money because:

A) Software costs next to nothing to ship per unit, after the R&D is paid for.

B) they have very high volume thanks to a monopoly

Yes Dell could slap a free version of Linux on it and save maybe $30-50. If Dell actually cut a deal to License Red Hat or SUSE I'm willing to bet it would end up costing the same or more than Windows.

$30-50 is more significant now that PC prices have dropped so much, but on the laptops everyone prefers these days its still really not much of the cost. Office is more but you seldom have to buy Office from a PC vendor so you can slap OpenOffice on instead.

Trying to make a financial arguement here is silly, switching to a different OS isn't going to save anyone money, it will just go into different pockets.

The fundamental problem is its just a monopoly and one company has complete control of all personal computing. If they do a good job and charge fair prices its not so bad, but if they screw the pooch and start jacking up prices you can't do anything about it until the monopoly is broken.

I can see OSX being a viable alternative now but there you are locked in to both their hardware and software so its a potentially worse monopoly than Wintel unless they open up the IA32 platform.

I guess you could start shipping Linux but there are a few basic problems:

- There are about 100 distros to choose from every one somewhat different. Total nightmare for application developers, end users, and to support

- There are two major desktops and GUI frameworks, and a whole bunch more little ones, again a total nightmare for application developers and to support. Applications written to one still dont integrate with the other. Users hate that. They want everything to behave consistently like OSX. Developer hate that because the want to write and test to one API and have it run everywhere.

- Most people can't fix the stuff that doesn't just work, especially audio, networking, display and printing. Networking is different on every distro. Audio and printing are some better but there are 10 different approaches to each and again for application development audio support is a complete disaster. At this point queue all the people that will say, just use audio API X and you will have no problem, except you will get 10 people saying this and every one of them will substitute a different API for X.

Until Linux stops fragmenting, and focuses on applications and a friendly platform for application development its simply never going to unseat Windows on the desktop and has a great potential to get beat by OSX. Hell I'd take BeOS on the desktop in a lot of ways. BeOS multimedia support, especially audio completly embarrases Linux. After 10 years you would think the Linux world would have got a clue and ported/cloned it because it works, versus Linux multimedia which is a fragmented catastrophe. There are still companies using BeOS for multimedia for example n demanding theatrical productions because it is so well done.

Re:What's going to make them stop?

[piecewise]

Shareholders should not be financially responsible when they have no direct line to a company in order to prevent illegal activities. Furthermore, this STILL hurts customers and middle class people. After all, stocks are in the hands of working folks and 401(k) plans, too. Why should a blue collar worker have to pay because his company does something illegal?

Every cost gets passed on to the customer (who, by the way, always has a choice about buying the product) whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean we shouldn't hold them accountable.

If we are serious about this issue and want to do something about it, here's what we ought to do:

1. Increase accounting transparency
2. Tie executive and board pay to the performance of the company
3. Increase shareholder involvement in oversight
4. Make public the decisions of a compensation/salary committee
5. Demand that our public figures (a'hem, Republicans) hold accountable their friends (a'hem, Enron) -- the connection between corporate corruption and conservative corruption is an incredibly dangerous thing. Democrats cleaned their act up with unions in the 50's and 60's -- Republicans should do the same today (especially when they cry about "personal responsibility" so often but rarely assume it.)

Poor Apple

[databyss]

Poor apple topic sandwiched between two microsoft topics...

I predict apple juice.

10 Billion? What?

[zardo]

Where do they come up with a figure like that? Put on a blindfold and throw a dart? That's ridiculous. It probably does cost the industry, but the fact that they have to come up with a number at all demonstrates some level of bias here.

Re:10 Billion? What?

[Realistic_Dragon]

I calculated that numbers pulled out of asses cost the industry $98.2 billion last year!

Re:10 Billion? What?

[Revellion]

That makes me wonder. Some of the Laptops/PCs from Dell would probably be a lot cheaper if the customer could request to not include Windows or any other Microsoft software that they won't even use. I tried myself once to buy a Dell Latitude D610 from them. even asked in an email to em about it and the reply was that they could'nt. major way of screwing the customer over i say.

Re:10 Billion? What?

[bc90021]

RTFWP. They figured out what it costs Australia, and they have numbers from Microsoft saying that Australia is 2% of MS's income.

They extrapolate, based on their figure of $200 million in savings, which is 2% of $10 billion.

In reality, in any given year, Microsoft makes $40 billion. Does it really seem ridiculous that 10 of that might be from their monopoly? It seems sensible to me. The WP points out that in buying a computer, that it used to be (ala early - mid 90s) that the hardware was about 85% of the cost, and the software 15%. Now, hardware costs have plummeted, whereas software prices have gone up. Now when you buy a computer, about 65% of the price is hardware, and 35% is software. Good points, if you ask me.

Re:10 Billion? What?

[Glog]

Here's how they come up the number:

10 spread butt cheeks
20 pull digit
30 if count(digit) 8 goto 10

$10 Billion...

[Alien Being]

right from the community chest. That's a lot of little green houses and red hotels.

Rich Uncle PennyBags would be shocked!

[ballstothat]

10 billion! Wow... that's like... 5 million hotels on boardwalk!

I pity the thimble that lands there!

Microsoft's Smart

[Jeet81]

Well you can't blame Microsoft (flame me) but it's a business world.

The number is crap

[Henry V .009]

The Windows monopoly saves the world at least $500 billion a year in compatibility costs.

Re:The number is crap

[A beautiful mind]

...and costs $1 trillion in virus/trojan/spam/malware costs because of homogenity.

Re:The number is crap

[A beautiful mind]

Oh btw, (sorry for replying to my own post, but) the cost of Microsoft's monopoly has to DIRECTLY include the costs of all mass scale virus, spam, or any other security issues. That is simple maths.

Let's say, in order a virus to spread, it needs an environment to live in, which is given by Microsoft because they are a monopoly, systems have the same code (windows).

If a virus would manage to infect 10-15% of the systems worldwide and crash them down or make them otherwise impossible to use in a relatively short time, that would be an economical disaster, in the sense of closing the stock market and throwing the key into the ocean because it's useless in the future anyway.

In order a virus to spread, it needs a platform: a vulnerable version of an operating system with a high enough marketshare. 90% is bad, so its anything between 40%-100%. However, if you manage to split the market into shares smaller than 40% each, you basically prevented the mass virus infections. They just can't spread effectively, so this means, if you have 10 INSECURE operating systems, it doesn't matter, the virus still won't spread effectively. This is the case, when one quite good OS would be worse than 10 BAD, but as we know we don't even have one good operating system with a high enough marketshare, although linux is gaining.

The risk is there in today's world, waiting for a smart virus writer to write a good virus and that could collapse economies. We are ALMOST in that state, thanks to the monopoly.

If we would have 10 different operating systems owning the OS market in around equal percentages, then it would mean we would be forced to use open standards in communicating between those systems, which is a good and certainly possible thing, so it's not quite true that by having a heterogenous system we cannot work together efficiently. It would only mean that the virus/malware risk is basically solved, and that would indirectly solve other problems caused by infected windows pcs.

It costs us a heck of a lot money to have a monopoly, it is a bad thing in all cases. How long do you think humanity would have survived if we would be much more similar to each other? One illness would have wiped out our whole species already.

Microsoft OEM Pressure

[segedunum]

The pressure from Microsoft on OEMs is very, very well know. Would it be tolerated in any other industry? Absolutely not, but there's a tendency from people to think that that's just the way things are when it comes to computers unfortunately.

Re:Microsoft OEM Pressure

[Jeff Hornby]

Did you ever wonder why all of your appliances expect 120V and 60Hz. Pressure from Consolidated Edison, maybe?

Glad nobody tolerated their monopoly.

Re:come on...

[zardo]

Well you obviously haven't thought about how much time would be spent helping people with their linux machines. There are other options, like those sun thin clients. But in my experience most people don't even know how to use firefox, let alone a completely new OS.

Re:Dropping...

[tomstdenis]

"fastest growing" is relative. If I jump from 0$ in sales to 1$ in sales I've increased ... well an infinite amount I guess...I go from 1$ to 100$ and that's a 10000% increase!

That said... the reason windows revenues are going down is essentially a combo of

1. People are either pirating windows

or

2. Learning to use *bsd or linux.

Getting a cheap PC isn't that hard. If I was naive I'd go to Dell and buy their 399$ box... So Apple doesn't really win there [and them moving to Intel... is another story for another day].

Tom

Somewhere in Redmond...

[Shadow Wrought]

Bill is standing in front of a huge monitor displaying all the major hardware vendors. With a fluffy white cat on his lap and a pinky delicattely placed next to his mouth, he announces to the group that if they do not want his support revoked, they will have to pay, "One hundred Meeeellion dollars."

The vendors laugh and a hush falls over the Redmond conference table. "Fine," replies Bill, calmly stroking the cat before deftly returning his pinky to his lips, "One hundred Beeeellion dollars!"

"Shit," reply the executives.

Re:Dropping...

[lucabrasi999]

the #1 fastest growing company(Apple)

The number one fastest in what way? Revenues? Profits? Employees? Hype?

Shocking, just shocking

[SuperBanana]

Since the sidebar was the only thing that would load:

"linux support - get penguin powered" [...] "training - for linux administration and web development" [...] "development - apps for linux, unix, windows and the web"

How shocking that a company which sells training, support, and development services for both Linux and Windows would come out with an inflammatory article.

Why, they couldn't possibly have ulterior motives! Nothing like a bit of viral marketing.

The real cost comes from copy controlls

[argoff]

If you look at copyrights as a microregulatory controll on how people use information, and not a free market property right like mindless mob would have you believe. Then it becomes clear that the real harm comes from that poor belief system, and all the rest is just a natural consequence of it being brought to it's logical conclusion.

It's fanboy time!

[Mr. Underbridge]

The reason that Microsoft losing share to these other OS's is because unlike the #1 fastest growing company(Apple) they don't manufacture hardware.

Hm. So that's why Apple's marketshare has dropped by something like a factor of 10 in the last 20 years? Also, Apple's growth has nothing to do with Macs, and everything to do with iPods.

I own a powerbook, but it doesn't blind me, despite the glare from its beautiful silver finish.

Explain

[AutopsyReport]

Can someone explain to me how Linux has been "locked-out" from users? It's widely available to be used on a system with Windows (dual boot).

The reason I don't use Linux is because I know it to be a much less intuitive system, but I'd struggle to refer to my choice for not using Linux as being locked out by Microsoft.

Re:Explain

[psbrogna]

The vast majority of users will only ever use the operating system that came installed on their PC. It's my understanding that MS uses it's clout to discourage vendors from shipping systems with anything but MS o/s'. That is how Linux, or other o/s', are locked out.

Re:Explain

[Hymer]

...and precisly where is the Windows intrface more intuitive than Linux ? ...or MAC ?

It is not "intuitive", you are just to do things the Windows-way... Intuitive is when a person who never used a system can use it right away...

I may very well get killed for this, but...

[soma_0806]

Let me begin by saying I don't like Microsoft products. I think it's an evil, opportunistic company that is likely funded by Nazi gold, but....

Microsoft itself is not the real culprit here. If the cost to the industry is really 10 billion, then the threshold for establishing a monopoly should be met. The problem is no real enforcement of the Sherman Act or any of the other federal "calls to arms" against monopoly.

Like it or not, in capitalist society the message sent to business is to be as nasty as profitable and permitted. As long as consumers keep buying (maybe because they feel like they don't have a choice, and there is some argument there) and the government doesn't enforce its own laws (which is probably why consumers feel they have no choice), Microsoft can't be blamed overmuch.

In short (too late!), the problem isn't really the 300 lb. gorilla. It's just doing what gorillas do. The problem is the federal prosecutor with the tranq gun taking a nap.

AC

Re:I may very well get killed for this, but...

[herriojr]

This is my first post ever, so here it goes. I have a lot of friends who know very little about computers, yet have one (of course!). Probably the biggest issue is that when asked about operating systems, most really don't know about anything but Windows. A few of them are starting to find out about OS X, and they think it looks neat and actually debate on whether to buy it. Some decide against it because they find out the new game they want isn't made for OS X, others think it is too expensive (and that can be untrue). I still know lots of people who are making the switch or want to make the switch. Despite the growing number of switchers, Apple needs to work on correcting a lot of the misinformed people out there. Actually, just recently, someone I know told me he didn't like Macs because he tried it at his sister's and he said it sucked. Well, she was running OS 9. In my opinion (and probably a lot of others as well), OS 9 isn't anywhere near OS X. I showed him OS X and now he wants one. The reason people don't know about other operating systems is that they don't see it on TV or in magazines, etc, except for Macs maybe. Macs get placed all over the place in movies now, but a lot of people don't differentiate between computers people are using in movies. I'm assuming that their iPod is probably the biggest marketing tool for their computers. When people walk into Apple stores, they see that they also sell computers and are shown how the user interface is and are told the advantages, etc. In my opinion, Apple is going to be the biggest threat to Microsoft (in the home user market) because they are MARKETING their products. I've never seen a Linux commercial, so very few non-computer people even know about it. Maybe if people saw it on TV (basically if they are informed) and were told all the advantages (It's FREE! or pretty close to it if you buy the CDs), they would be more likely to buy it (and hopefully their install process works fine otherwise they will tell other people that they couldn't get it to work). Maybe if Linux were marketed (or better marketed if it already is marketed), it would stand a chance in the home user market. If people don't know their options, there are no options for them. I believe that is why Microsoft has held their monopoly for so long (along with many other factors of course). If you think people should switch to linux, stop telling all the other computer-knowledgeable people about it and start telling the general consumers. I tell a lot of people they should switch to the Mac, and I show them what it's like and let them see how EASY TO USE it is. They usually end up liking it a lot and then know that there EXIST other options besides Windows. Beyond this, I would like to say that Dell and other computer manufacturers should also be held accountable for knowingly contributing to Microsoft's monopoly. Other companies are so willing to help out wrongdoings if they can make a buck without any consequences. There are a lot of changes in the law and how government works that I would like to see changed that would effect such things, but this post is already long enough for my tastes. Anyways, I think that's enough writing. Hopefully some of you find this an interesting (and coherent) thought. I have a tendency to wander off-topic. -Jon

That's nothing compared to.........

[ARRRLovin]

....the time we waste at work on the internet! ~$750B.

My Resume Cover Letter

[jayhawk88]

Dear Universities, Think Tanks, Consulting Agencies, and all other interested parties:

I would like to apply for the job of "Guy that pulls numbers out of his ass". I feel that my ability to pull numbers out of my ass qualifies me as an excellent candidate for this position. To demonstrate, please allow me to give some examples:

$4.3 Billion
$350k per year
$20.34 for every person in the United States

Please note how I was effortlessly able to adjust the meanings of the ass-pulled numbers by adding descriptive phrases, while still distancing the numbers from any real facts or statistics. I realize that it takes more than pulling numbers out of my ass to succeed in todays competitive white paper/consulting/propoganda market, and feel that I can be a great benefit to your company.

Re:My Resume Cover Letter

[lucabrasi999]

I would like to apply for the job of "Guy that pulls numbers out of his ass".

Dear Jayhawk88,

Thank you for your interest in my company. Normally, we would definitely be interested in hiring a "Guy that pulls numbers out of his ass". However, I regret to inform you that we will not be hiring any time soon. I will keep your resume on file, for we do plan on hiring again -- in about 25 years.

Sincerely,
Bernie Ebbers

Re:$AUS10 Billion

[lucabrasi999]

But this is what, $42.00 in American currency?

They said Australian Dollars, not Canadian Dollars.

Article Summary

[AutopsyReport]

Took a good five minutes to load, but here's the summary folks. Also, keep checking this mirror, I'm sure it will be up soon.

Over the past decade, the personal computer industry has seen a major reduction in competition in the operating system platform market. A computer operating system platform is the software which computer users learn to operate their computer with, the software that independent software vendors develop applications for and the software that third-party computer hardware developers create compliant hardware for.

Competition in the desktop computer operating system space is practically non-existent, with one platform from a single supplier commanding a very high proportion (over 95%) of the Australian market. This single platform from a sole vendor is Microsoft Windows. Cybersource believes that a sizeable portion of this market share is due to the fact that over many years, most consumers were never given the option to acquire alternative operating system platforms. Instead, Microsoft Windows was always bundled with most vendors' computer products, whether consumers wanted that bundled product on not.

We have seen that the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has acted in the best interests of consumers to increase competition in such areas as telecommunications. Cybersource wants to see similar actions introduced in the computer operating system platform space.

In the software market, as in the telecommunications market, a single, powerful and well-leveraged vendor can cause the reduction of real competition and the corralling of almost all consumers into a single monopolistic platform situation. This causes significant reduction in choice, price competitiveness and innovation. Cybersource calls upon the ACCC to rectify this situation for the benefit of the local Information Technology industry and of all Australian IT consumers.

Key Points

1. It is impossible or extremely difficult for consumers to purchase a desktop PC or laptop from a tier-1 or tier-2 computer manufacturer without also having to purchase an OEM copy of Microsoft Windows operating system platform.

2. Cybersource believes that this greatly reduces choice for consumers and competition for the industry. Such a reduction in choice, and consequent reduction in competition, costs the Australian economy hundreds of millions of dollars annually, through paying one vendor needlessly high prices for monopolistic products.

3. The computer market is many ways similar to the telecommunications market. When one vendor has over 95% of the market, that vendor should be bound by a universal service obligation to ensure that all consumers can access the content, documents and data which reside on that vendor's platform. Neglecting such an obligation hinders all consumers and third-party developers not using that vendor's platform, further increasing anti-competitive pressures.

4. Cybersource believes that such anti-competitive practices should be stopped as soon as possible, through remedies introduced by the ACCC, to secure both a broader competitive base and increased options for consumers.

5. The first remedy that Cybersource seeks from the ACCC is that all tier-1 and tier-2 vendors should be required to offer their desktop and laptop products without an operating system pre-installed, that this choice be presented to consumers as broadly as the products themselves are, and that the price difference between the with and without operating system options should also be clearly and broadly presented at retail outlets, on vendor marketing literature and vendor websites.

6. The second remedy that Cybersource seeks from the ACCC is that Microsoft should be required to offer unfettered and unencumbered access to all major content, document, data and applications formats which could enable interchange and interoperability between users of its platform and users of other alternative platforms.

MS Tax vs MS Profits

[Dracos]

MS profited $12B this year, and is expected to profit $15B next year. And they make $10B just from being a convicted criminal?

If only duh-byah hadn't quashed the anti-trust suit.

This sounds as hyped as the piracy numbers.

[asdfasdfasdfasdf]

With a New PC system with OS-- easily available for under $500, I find this hard to believe. The price of a microsoft windows OEM install hasn't gone up considerably since the mid 90's, when there was a competing operating system (OS/2) available for about the same price.

I just don't feel they've taken the "good" parts of Microsoft's monopoly into account (kill me for saying that.) Considering all of the features included with the OS that we used to pay for-- Browser, media, utils, etc, Microsoft has "given" a lot to maintain their monopoly. While I support competition whole heartedly (and look forward to a day where I can "choose Mac OS to run on my custom intel hardware) I don't think this is an honest assesment. You get a LOT with what you pay for, and there hasn't even been a new version in 4 years. And they still support you with security fixes for FREE (all jokes aside).

Office is no more expensive now than when Word Perfect was still alive and kicking.. And the features keep coming. (Though I gladly use openOffice, myself.)

I think the worry should be "Let's not make this a total monopoly so one company can't hold all the keys to human technology in the future" rather than, man, they're screwing us out of cash.. because I think the sheer volume of units they ship actually causes the price to be CHEAPER, not more expensive.

I guess we'll only find out if Apple sucks it up and makes their OS able to work on Dells.

Re:This sounds as hyped as the piracy numbers.

[ch-chuck]

When I bought a Dell Inspiron 8600 last Dec for a project, intending to use Linux on it, there was no option for "no OS" so I had to buy Windows, which was immediatly wiped off the hard disk, didn't even activate it. That was some amount of payment to Msft for absolutely nothing, and I think should be viewed as a net loss to an economy as there is no product delivering any 'value' to anybody other than taking my $$$ and giving it to Msft. In fact, that represents money NOT spent on anything else, not at the grocery store, toward a new car, etc. As far as I'm concerned it may as well have been burned.

Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[dsginter]

Here's a blantant example of how Microsoft has everyone in their pocket:

Dell Dimension 2400 w/ Windows XP = $299

Same PC w/ FreeDOS = $319

Now someone tell me how Microsoft prices Windows XP $20 cheaper than the same PC with a free operating system.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It is called a loss leader.. while illegal in theory it hasn't ever been used to prosecute a business for non-competivite behavior.

Are you drunk, stupid, or joking? A loss leader? You honestly think MS pays all the computer manufacturers to include Windows on their machines and then makes their revenue selling, office or services or something? It is completely untrue. They sell Windows, but have contracts insuring they get paid for every PC sold, not for every PC with Windows. The extra money is for the expense of putting FreeDoS on the machine. They manage to get this ridiculously favorable deal because as a monopoly they have the power to put any PC seller out of business at their whim. Get a clue.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. When it's steel, that's dumping.

If it's lumber, it's dumping.

If it's banana's, it's dumping.

If it's airplanes, it's dumping.

If it's MS, it's fine.

So, if MS Windows costs -$20, then by pirating it, I am saving MS $20. Yes?

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[BJZQ8]

"incentives to ecourage Dell to keep the FreeDOS price up" I believe that's exactly what Microsoft was supposed to be prohibited from doing under the terms of its anti-trust settlement...Then again, you might also say "a huge stick to beat Dell with unless it keeps the FreeDOS price up"

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[NatteringNabob]

HP pulls the same crap. If you look at their otherwise very nice dual Opterona machines, they have one version with WinXP Pro that is $3499. The closest Linux version, with the HP Linux installer kit is $3799. Note that these machines do not come with Linux pre-installe,d they come with the HP 'linux installer kit' so it doesn't cost HP any more to produce these machines. In addition, these machines are specifically targeted at the Workstation market, not the Office PC market, so Linux would be a natural fit in this market. But some mysterious force prevents HP from selling the equivalent machine at a lower price with no OS. It is pretty darn obvious that the DOJ should have required that Microsoft's OEM agreements should always allow distributors to sell machines without Windows discounted by the cost of Windows. Instead, after a successful anti-trust prosecution, we get the same old slimy, probably illegal tactics that we have always seen from Microsoft. Thanks, W!

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[Kimos]

That's simple. It costs essentially the same amount to clone 100000 copies of Windows as it does for 100 copies of FreeDOS. Thus there is a greater profit on the Windows install, and that means it can be sold cheaper.

This is one of the most common misconceptions about software and is a major factor in why it is so widely pirated.

Yes the actual production of the disks with the software on it costs next to nothing, but the data isn't something that the company just found, the software has to be written and maintained. When you buy a closed source application you're not paying for the CD and a colorful box, you're paying for the hundreds/thousands hours of development time.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[giminy]

Not that I'm defending Microsoft, but there could be a simple explanation for this:

Dell knows what support for a machine running XP costs, and they haven't got a really good idea of what it costs to support the same machine with FreeDOS. When in doubt, charge more.

Logic dictates that everybody buying the machine with FreeDOS will be relatively computer-savvy and thus won't need support, but humans have proven logic wrong on a number of occasions...

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[AviLazar]

Well when you buy it from Dell (or other PC vendors) here is the difference:

Dell buys in bulk, and thusly gets special prices
Dell's Windows version is only allowed on one (sometimes two) computers

Dell also puts in other programs from other companies which they get paid for (like anti-virus software, online services like aol, etc)

When you buy the box windows version from the store you are:

Not getting bulk rates
Are not getting advertiser discounts
Getting a version of Windows that allows you to install on three computers.

That is why there is a price difference (and other's that I am missing).

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[dfiguero]

Now someone tell me how Microsoft prices Windows XP $20 cheaper than the same PC with a free operating system.

Easy:

They have this deal where clippy will work their helpdesk for X amount of time for every copy of Windows sold...

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[man_of_mr_e]

Actually, it's not as insidious as you might think. Notice that the Dell with XP also has a bunch of other software, like AOL, Wordperfect, etc..

AOL actually pays Dell a fee to include their software, as do the other companies that Dell provides "trial" software for (JASC and others, for instance). This allows them to sell the PC at a lower cost.

Also note that the regular price for the PC is $349, and the $299 price is a special.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[phorest]

That 20 dollars probably covers the cost of some warehouse monkey to get the box back to the line and then swap-test-and rebox the product. (In all likelyhood they lose a cash token of 50 bucks and now you are dealing with just the cost of the hardware + value added services (swap-test-and rebox).

I suppose someone who works for Dell could tell you about the actual process and how it costs more to fabricate a different machine then how they do it everyday.

They have a process and say what you will about it, but in the real world when you insert a variable that isn't a marketable value to the consumer then you get Value-added services applied to that product. We do it all the time with something as simple as writing a requested report not on the list of contractual items, thus being able to charge for it...

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[rspickles]

Wrong!!! Its simple - Dells contract with Mircosoft is set so that Dell pays by the number machines made not the number of copies of WinXP installed. So when you get the Machine that comes with FreeDOS you still get the privlidge of paying for XP - so to keep profits up Dell must charge extra for the computer that comes with FreeDOS. This is a sweet deal for both Microsoft and Dell - Dell gets to cut the price of XP machines and Microsoft gets to lock in lots and lots of computers to XP at shipment. The only person taking it in the pants is some end users and nobody is talking to them.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[Foofoobar]

Yes, Amazon had something similar that allowed them to lower prices due to the reduced cost in shipping.

And guess what happened? They pocketed the difference rather than passing it on. Do you honestly think this would affect Dell's pricing?

Their pricing is practically dictated to them.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[arkanes]

It's not a misconception at all, and it's got relatively little to do with pirating, except in that it's correct - the cost to duplicate software is very close to zero. This makes it totally unlike non-trivial physical goods, where in addition to your production cost, you also have non-trivial per-unit prices.

Now, parent is still wrong, and it's because he's right - because the cost of duplication is identical for both FreeDOS and Windows, and Windows is proprietary and therefore requires a per-unit royalty, regardless of the actual cost incurred, it makes *no sense whatsoever* for a PC with FreeDOS to cost *more* than the equivilent Windows PC.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[abandonment]

Dell absolutely does have 'a choice'

same thing as how Dell has 'a choice' to only offer crappy Intel processors instead of the much superior AMD 64 bit-based machines.

We have been pricing a number of machines in house from Dell, made the mistake of buying one laptop from Dell, but every other machine that we purchase will be from acer or another PC manufacturer that can:

1) beat Dell's prices
2) offers AMD machines & much better machine specs all around
3) offers WinXP instead of the crippleware XP Home edition (which we reformat anyways and put dual/triple boot OS configurations on them, but at least we get a 'real' copy of XP).

The only reason we have any windows machines in-house is that we are a software developer and customers use XP, whether we like it or not.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[dotpavan]

Now someone tell me how Microsoft prices Windows XP $20 cheaper than the same PC with a free operating system.

simple math! it is because XP is worth -$20 :)

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[happyemoticon]

I agree about the technical support/warrenty: they're absolutely useless. Dell's tech support used to be quite good when I was talking to people in Texas and Florida, but the Indian tech support sucks bottom. I'm not just talking about accents, which are a hinderance; their phone connections are incredibly shitty, and apparently there was some gap in their English education, as they do not respond to the words, "I cannot hear you, you need to speak louder." That's with a modern cell phone turned up all the way - if I use that volume with most people, their voices distort from being amplified that much. However, I am slightly hard of hearing, and I have a tendency to get angry at people for muttering shit at me, rather than just break down and wear a hearing aid. Anyway, every retail guy I've ever known tells me that the warrenties make them money hand over fist: pure profit.

Not all Dells are that poorly built. I bought a 2.6 GHz Dell about two years ago and was quite impressed at how expandable it was. The internals were good, full of fans. The clamshell design was nice. Installing a new hard drive was a snap. Of course, I have no doubt that your friend's was a piece of shit. The only PCs in my future are AMD-64s (homebuilt) and Apples.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that due to the Microsoft monopoly, Dell doesn't really have a choice to not sell Windows computers. 90% of the computer sales market demands Windows, and they can't be sold on other options for various reasons that have been proven in court (compatibility, network effect, retraining, etc). So Dell is essentially forced to buy Windows at whatever price Microsoft demands. It's not a voluntary exchange.

Now, that wouldn't be a particularly big deal if Windows purchases were similar to most other products. You pay per install, and get volume breaks as you get above 100, 1000, 10k, 100k, etc., but that isn't how the deal works. Microsoft writes the contract such that you pay per machine sold, whether it has Windows installed or not. Now, Dell might not like that deal, but they don't have a choice, because if they don't sign it, they lose 90% of their customers. Well, they do have a choice to forgo the volume discount, but that would drive up the price of their machines to the point where they wouldn't be competitive, and they would only lose 50% of their customers.

The thing that gets really shady is why does Microsoft write the contract that way? The answer is that since Dell is paying for Windows anyway, they have no incentive to also pay to put a different OS on the machine. It costs them more to put a zero-cost OS on your box than to put Windows on it. That gives Dell an incentive not to sell non-Windows boxes, and helps prevent any other operating system from becoming a viable alternative to Windows. The contract will in some cases also say that they are not allowed to set up any machines to dual-boot. In some cases they will change the volume prices based on whether the OEM sells any other OSs at all, so selling a single Linux box will cost Dell tens of thousands of dollars (I'm not sure they get away with that one anymore).

The point being that Windows pricing and contracts aren't about serving the customer, and they aren't about maximizing profit for Microsoft or the OEM (in the short term). They are all about maintaining the Microsoft monopoly. Capitalism doesn't work unless there is competition, which means monopolies aren't capitalism. That's why we have anti-trust laws.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[malfunct]

Except (and I mentioned this in another post but its an important point) for the economy of scale. 99% of computers Dell sells has windows so they have the process streamlined. Add in a freeDos computer and it incurrs extra work over and above that needed to produce the windows PC. So while the cost to duplicate software is nearly free, the cost to build and track an extra SKU that is only purchased by a small number of people is not free and so we have the extra price for the special order. It seems that Dell values this extra work at somewhere around $20.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Dell absolutely does have 'a choice'

Yeah they can choose to go out of business or stay in business. That is exactly their choice as having their prices go up $50 for every machine would make them no longer competitive in the only factor that people buy Dells for, low price. Dells are junk machines, built cheaply, with inconsistent hardware. Dell would lose the number one spot within a year if they started selling Linux desktops at a fair price and were punished by MS for doing so with higher OEM Windows prices. It has happened before and no one at Dell is stupid enough to gamble the whole company on pissing off the only supplier they have for a critical component of nearly every product they sell

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[arkanes]

I hear this reasoning a lot too, and I find it possible but extremely implausible. Dell creates and tests *lots* of OS images. They sell lots of (different) OS images. I find it difficult indeed to justify that a FreeDOS image is that different than any of the number of different Windows images they ship.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[Foofoobar]

Companies who have brand name recognition don't have to shave the price that much. And it's not so much anti-Microsoft as much as being aware of the relationship between Microsoft and Dell.

Just because it's not PRO-Microsoft doesn't immediately mean it is anti-microsoft. Sometime's the truth is still the truth without the labels you put on it.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[arkanes]

Dell sells at least 2 brands of Windows: XP and Home (I'm discounting the server versions, although they're probably built using the same supply chain). *However*, not all of those images are identical - based upon current promotions, different software is pre-loaded and different configurations are chosen. In addition, MS regularly provides Dell (and other OEMs) with updated base Windows installs (with new patches, SP 2, etc), although it's less likely that those are tracked as closely. Whoever assembles the PC already has to pull the correctly imaged hard drive off the rack - it's no more expensive to pull the FreeDOS one.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[NatteringNabob]

>Which version of linux? if its RH Enterprise then the price is acceptable. It is the Linux installer kit, which is essentially no version of Linux. On re-reading the specs, I notice that these are actually single Opteron machines and the Linuc version offers 1GB more memory (cost, about $130) and an extran 80GB disk (cost, around $100). Tha makes up about $230 of the $300 differential, but the real question is 'why can't I buy the *exact same* HP workstation products w/o Windows?' If you look at IBM's website, they play the same games. And as somebody else pointed out, so does Dell. I have to figure that it costs these vendors more moeny to produce machines that have just slightly different configurations, but one configuration (the cheaper one) only comes with windows, and the other, moer expensive one, only comes with Linux. I'm guessing that somebody made it worth their while to go to that extra trouble, and it wasn't Red Hat.

Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly

[Shaper_pmp]

Sigh.

Look, it's really, really simple:

Price of Windows machine = Hardware cost + OS licence cost + OS installation cost + Dell's Profit - Money back from bundled software (AOL etc)
Price of FreeDOS machine = Hardware cost + OS licence cost + OS installation cost + Dell's Profit

Now, FreeDOS is free (leaving aside media duplication, which should be the same for both OSs), and isn't even installed on the machine when you buy it, so the two equations actually look like this:

Price of Windows machine = Hardware cost + OS licence cost + OS installation cost + Dell's Profit - Money back from bundled software
Price of FreeDOS machine = Hardware cost + Dell's Profit

Now, for the price of the Windows machine to be less than the FreeDOS one, one of 5 things has to happen:

Monetary kickbacks from bundled software offset the price of the OS licence and installation. I doubt very, very much if they can make enough money back from bundling a crappy AOL installer to pay for the Windows OEM licence and the hassle of installing it on every machine.

The hardware costs less for the Windows machine. We know this isn't the case, since the two machines are apparently identical apart from their OS.

Windows installation cost is negative. This is clearly stupid - hard drives aren't supplied with Windows pre-installed, so installing another OS doesn't cost you anything. I'm willing to admit the possibility that production-line Windows installations (eg, using disk images) would be so cheap as to be effectively free, but that just makes them irrelevant - it doesn't explain the difference in price.

The OS licence cost is negative (ie, Microsoft pays DELL for each Windows copy sold). This is not the case, since Microsoft makes money from Windows sales. Microsoft's business model means it has to charge for software - it can give away some items as loss leaders (eg, giving MS Office cheap to schools to get home users to buy it), but if they were giving away Windows to home users they wouldn't be so worried about piracy. Hence "OS licence cost" > 0.

Dell makes less profit on Windows machines. This is the only option that makes sense. Now, if Dell doesn't have to factor in the OS licence cost or OS installation costs it could (should!) be turning those into pure profit. The fact that it's doing something so manifestly against its own best interests suggests that they're being strongarmed behind the scenes.

This is an illegal and unfair monopolistic practice, exactly what the Microsoft anti-trust ruling was supposed to stop. However, after MS was convicted of being an illegal monopoly Bush and Co. got in, and all the high talk about breaking up Microsoft or imposing real sanctions withered away. Suddenly the administration got cold feet about prosecuting, and although they'd already won the case they pretty much let them off with the lightest penalty they could get away with.

Microsoft clearly hasn't learned a thing from this, apart from that you can do whatever you like as long as you contribute to the right political campaigns. Look at the recent debacle here in Europe, where MS was instructed to open up APIs and protocol specs to allow fair competition, then attmepted to use the punishment to squash competition, charging thousands of dollars for the information they were supposed to "open", unnecessarily bundling protocols and formats together so licensees had to pay for mountains of data they didn't want for the single bit they did, and using a restrictive licence that specifically blocks the FLOSS movement from benefiting, although the penalty was designed to encourage competition and FLOSS is Microsoft's biggest (only real?) competitor.

I'm ignoring for the sake of brevity your confusion over the OEM and retail prices of windows, since it's irrelevant. Ditto your bizarre idea that it's legal to install a copy of Windows on three machines - this is piracy, and while you might

Re:Dropping...

[bodester17]

I would go with....hype.

Apple is a worse Monopoly in my opinion.

[asscroft]

Not only does MS sell thier OS to OEMs, but you can put together parts and install MS and it will run just fine. Apple restricts their OS to machines they build, and they charge top dollar, and yet they're beloved on /. and MS is the great evil. What's even worse is we know Apple can run on PCs, and their proving that as we speak, and yet, when they switch over, they'll add an evil little chip to make sure your Mobo is one they sold you. How's that for a monopoly?

Re:Apple is a worse Monopoly in my opinion.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Why don't you buy yourself a dictionary and look up the word "monopoly" then come back here and tell us what Apple has a monopoly on? OK, thanks, bye.

Re:Apple is a worse Monopoly in my opinion.

[Mad_Rain]

Perhaps what you need to do is to review the definition of a monopoly.

Your opinion about Apple controling both the hardware and the software of their computers may be valid (I'm not going to argue or agree with you). But calling them a monopoly shows a lack of understanding of the term. They (Apple) haven't prevented you from choosing a competing product through illegal methods or coercion.

Re:Apple is a worse Monopoly in my opinion.

[Mad_Rain]

By your logic, then Kleenex has a monopoly on Kleenex Tissues, Clorox has a monopoly on Clorox Bleach, and Domino's has a monopoly on Domino's Pizza.

Apple is not a monopoly.

Re:Apple is a worse Monopoly in my opinion.

[doughrama]

Microsoft and Apple are monopolies. But they are different kinds, illegal and legal.

Apple, from the beggining, is a monopoly by design. They make the computer and the OS. (not including the brief period where Apple allowed 3rd parties to make mac's)

MS, as much as we may hate to admit it, became a monopoly by choice. Business's and consumers chose MS. Along the way to monopoly'hood MS used it's influence to stifle competition. When you are not a monopoly you can get away with monopolistic practices. So MS used all the dirty tricks (which weren't dirty when they were smaller) to get where they are today.

Now MS, the monopoly, is no longer a monopoly of choice, they are a monopoly of because of the lack of choice. Sure you could always argue that there is choice. You could buy a Mac, our build your own box and install linux instead of using Windows. That's all great to say but the bottom line is that it's just to expensive for that to be a viable choice. It's not just about the hardware but all the custom software and process's that will only work in an MS environment. Transitioning from MS takes a lot of time and money, you can do it, but many factors are working against you.

But being a monopoly even the kind that is MS, is not illegal. What's illegal using using your monopoly position to stifle competition in markets which you do not compete in directly. Or to use your position to influence companies that are not in your market to prvent other from entering your market. (think netscape and bundeling) For example, Why do people buy Dell's over Gateway's? Price and service. (other factors as well, but the vast majority of the time it boils down to price and service.) So Dell wants to sell Linux boxes, MS says "no way, if you do we will raise the price you pay for Windows $100 and lower the price Gateway pays by $100."

This would kill Dell. They would be at a total competitive dis-advantage and I doubt they would survive it without giving in to MS's demands. So, the easy solution? Don't sell linux... Or sell linux, but still pay MS for the copy of Windows per box. In fact the deal might be, make the exact same linux box more expensive than the windows box.

Apple may be a monopoly, but they are a monopoly of their nitch. There are plenty of alternatives, just no alternatives if you want a Mac. Guess what? That's how it is and that's ok. Lot's of alternatives to BMW, but none if you want the BMW.

But in a semi-related note, if Apple can maintain and grow it's position in the digital music market, expect to see the record labels start suing Apple for unfair monopolistic practices. (this is years down the road, when downloadable music is the norm, and hard copies are the exception.)

Oooo! A new whitepaper!

[ThinkFr33ly]

Slashdot User's Whitepaper Analysis Code:

if(isWhitePaperAntiMS)
{
this.RTFA = false;
TakeAtFaceValue();
AddAsYetMoreEvidenceOfHowEvilMSIs();
}
else
{
this.RTFA = ((new Random().Next(0,2) % 2) == 0);
ClaimBias();
DismissAsIgnorantRamblingsOfTheUneducated();
}

Re:Dropping...

[zxnos]

or

3. businesses are not upgrading from windows 2000.

4. many people find their 8 year old computer working just fine for internet/email/word processing/spreadsheets/tax software.

5. some other ancedotal excuse.

Hi...

[Tebriel]

I'd like a big mac, a large fries, and a bullshit statistic to go, please.

Does that include

[MECC]

Does that figure include the cost incurred by their culture of software neglect?

Should it?

Convicted Monopolist

[erroneus]

Damn this kind of thing just burns me up. They were convicted of abusing their monopoly and harming the public.

Nothing has changed their practices... not even a little. They continue to do harm. I think they should be brought back into court for a REAL remedy. How can we start a petition to get the Justice Department to charge them for failing to abide by their terms and for continuing to do the things they were convicted of -- i.e. bundling MSIE and all that, and then add everything else we can think of as examples of wrong doing.

If we have a community that wants to see justice, someone who wants to get elected will see that justice is done.

The Slashdot Bandwagon

[Boing]

I'm normally not one to point out examples of groupthink in this community. By and large, we have our biases same as every other discussion group that's ever existed.

But: every time there's a new study on how "piracy costs the music industry N dollars", where N is the estimated number of piracy incidents times the average suggested retail price of the pirated materials, there is universal outrage. "That's fallacious," we cry, "it assumes that every incident of piracy would have otherwise been a retail purchase at full price!". And we are right to make that claim.

However, here's a study that exercises a similar fallacy, and yet the outrage goes in the other direction. (and yes, I know this doesn't apply to everyone... I'm generalizing).

We can't assume, if the major vendors decided to stop bundling Windows/Office tomorrow, that any significant number of people would happily explore alternative options and be just as satisfied.

We can't assume, had Microsoft gone belly-up nine years ago, that people would have been perfectly content to start figuring out monitor sync rates and which filesystems with which to partition and format their hard drives.

We can't assume that all the unwashed masses would've just gone to Apple; we can't assume they would've been able to afford it; we can't assume Apple's products would've advanced at the rate they have without the pressure of being the "underdog". And since the premise of this "study" (though I am loathe to call it that) is that of the cost of a monopoly, we can't assume Apple (or Linux, or whatever) "winning" the market would've been any better.

Like it or not, Microsoft's presence and market dominance is an inextricable part of computing history. There is no way of even remotely predicting how the last twenty years would have panned out without it. And despite its grandiose claims, the authors of this article don't even seem to have bothered trying.

Re:The Slashdot Bandwagon

[be-fan]

Losses, perhaps, over some ideal market -- a perfectly competitive market.

No, losses over a more competitive market. The more competitive the market, the lower the losses. In a perfectly competitive market, the losses are zero.

No markets are, in reality, perfect competition.

Doesn't matter. A lot of markets are close enough that the losses due to lack of perfect competition are very small. Even in moderately competitive markets like soft drinks, the economic losses are still much smaller than in a major monopoly like Microsoft.

There are huge barriers to entry in the OS world, simply because an OS is not just an OS but also a suite of programs, drivers, etc. That alone prevents the market from being perfectly competitive.

Undoubtedly. But the OS market doesn't need to be perfectly competitive. That'd be nice, but it's not essential. The losses could be minimized by making it more competitive. That's the whole idea behind anti-trust legislation. There are certain natural monopolies that are inevitable (power companies are a classical example). However, in order to maintain some semblence of efficiency in the system, monopolies must be regulated, and prevented from doing things to make the situation worse. In the case of Microsoft, there is a lack of controls that should be there.

Re:$AUS10 Billion

[tomhudson]

Hey, if they're only estimating the cost at $10 billion, the study was probably funded by Microsoft. An independent study would have factored in the other costs of the M$ monoculture (like the viruses, spambot nets, etc,) and come out with at LEAST 10 x as much.

Just one potential example - the Office add-on for automating collection letters they tried to develop a few years ago - with a "phone-home" back door. The beta testers were really enthused about having their receivables being logged by the mother ship. How much did it cost the participants to train people to use it, then UN-train them and re-enter everything back in their old systems?

Who knows? Only time will tell what the true cost is.

Re:Dropping...

[Marc2k]

The corporate world uses the crap out of Win2k. It's still supported, it runs just about everything current, save IE 7, and it runs one just about any commodity pc made in the past 7-8 years. That's really where the money is.

Is that figure net or gross?

[amliebsch]

Is that $10 billion figure net costs or gross costs? If gross, then what are the benefits from same? Isn't that relevant? If something has a $10 gross cost and a $20 gross benefit, that's a net $10 benefit.

Re:Dropping...

[BewireNomali]

I tend to think that Microsoft's greatest advantage is that they don't manufacture hardware.

Losing market share as a coercive monopoly (http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Coercive_monopol y ) is inevitable once leveling factors come into play. As there is little natural barrier to entry in the OS business, it's natural that more attractive price points would erode its position as a monopoly.

Blame Game

[GeorgeMcBay]

Some things never change. The Slashdot crowd is still playing the blame game, working on the assumption that if Windows didn't have a large monopoly, Linux usage would be more widespread.

Still ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people just don't want to use Linux even if given a choice, because it still has serious usability issues that show no signs of being solved. Mostly because even though it is "one OS" it still suffers from the fragmentation that killed UNIX as a viable platform. Instead of kernel/system call fragmentation, it is fragmentation of desktops (KDE, Gnome, etc) and services (different print systems, different X servers, different window managers, each with slightly incompatible ways to cut & paste, etc).

Not to mention how much easier it is for developers to develop for Windows due to the fact that you don't have to worry about a billion different differences between distros, libc versions, kernel branches, etc.

But go ahead and keep blaming Microsoft's business practices... why stop now? It is easier than trying to actually compete for users.

Re:Blame Game

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

But go ahead and keep blaming Microsoft's business practices... why stop now? It is easier than trying to actually compete for users.

The article says MS is costing the industry X squandered dollars with their blatantly illegal business practices. The number is probably bunk, but could be in the right ballpark. How does Linux users believing that most people enjoy the experience of using Linux have anything to do with whether or not MS is engaging in illegal business practices?

Ok Linux sucks, whatever. Even assuming I agree with you, what does your statement have to do with anything? Does it make MS's business practices any less unethical, illegal, or despicable? Does it address the article at all?

Re:hey moderators

[Adam Back]

I agree. If I had any moderation points I would mod it 5 insightful. This is precisely the problem: copyright & patents. Copyrights are in effect a government subsidy for monopolies. So some people argue actually enforcing monopoly law alone would be enough, and this certainly seems like something that should be illegal under anti-monopoly laws, if anything should.

This is only the retail end of costs

[MemoryDragon]

Given that a bigger part of the professional programming population spends a good deal of its time working around the non conformity of Microsoft web browsers to W3C standards and trying to reverse engineer Microsoft protocol descriptions right out of the fairy tale real, I would say the annual cost of the Microsoft monopoly is much bigger. If Microsoft had to pay pack all the costs caused by their behavior and their monopoly even with 50 billion+ in the bank they probably would be bankrupt in a handful of years.

Huh?

[FunWithHeadlines]

Apple is a hardware vendor, one of many.

Microsoft is a software OS vendor, one of few.

Apple is not a convicted monopolist.

Microsoft is.

There's your answer as to why Apple is not a "worse monopoly." They aren't even a monopoly! They are a hardware vendor with software for their hardware. You are welcome to put a Linux variant on their hardware instead. You are welcome to buy from many other hardware vendors instead.

I'm sick of this type of argument, usually seen in political circles. Target A gets caught doing some harm, so partisan followers change the subject with "Yeah? Well Target B is just as bad, so let's talk about them instead." How about we just keep talking about Target A, the subject at hand.

Must be two major reasons, then.

[cbreaker]

"and is a major factor in why it is so widely pirated."

I tend to disagree - I think the reason so much software is pirated is because of the retarded prices. $600 for a copy of Office 2003 Pro non-upgrade? $1000+ for the Adobe CS package, or hundreds and hundreds more for each individually? $300 for Windows XP?

The only mainstream software out there that's resonably priced is games. Sure, $50 might seem like a lot for a single game, but for a game like Half Life 2 - it took those guys a long time and a crap load of development to get it shipped.

I understand the the audience is different, but really, unless you pirate software you gotta be rich to own anything besides Works, the OS that came on your PC, and some browser.

Just wait until Microsoft and Friends (TM) go and really lock down their software. It *can* be done fairly effectively if you're shitty about it, like how games are now a days (check out Steam, you'll frigging hate it.) Microsoft isn't going to get nicer, so it's going to happen. Wait 'til I tell my mom that the new printer she got only works with Windows whatever, and it costs $299 for the upgrade.. We'll see people seeking alternatives pretty furiously if and when it happens.

But that's where "trusted computing" and DRM comes in. Microsoft knows it wants to lock the hell out of your computer, and they know when they do it, it's going to piss off a LOT of people. So, they're doing everything they can to lock free software out before it happens. I dunno, maybe I'm seeing conspiracies here that aren't, but it just seems too obvious to me to dismiss.

Re:Must be two major reasons, then.

[NickFortune]

$600 for Office is not a lot of money, try hiring a personal secretary to do what you're able to do with the Office tools. $300 for an OS?

What in the name of CMOT Dibbler has the cost of hiring a secretary got to do with the inflated margin MS charge for office?

Do you have any idea what OS's used to cost before MS came out?

And this would relevant because...?

There are a lot of things not to like about MS, but I really don't think anyone can claim they've done anything but drive prices down to the point where computers are affordable for the masses.

I'm inlined to credit Moore's law for that one, personally. Perhaps you'd like to explain how this one works?

Re:Must be two major reasons, then.

[NickFortune]

You're right, I forgot, all you need is fast chips to drive the level of demand required to support the production volumes that enable Moore's law to be practical from a business perspective. Disentangling your syntax (and disregarding the sarcasm) you seem to be saying that the price of hardware would not have come down it not been for Microsoft offering such quality software.

That makes a fairly major assumption. It could just as easily be true that dropping prices led an explosion in personal computing and that Microsoft owes its success to hitching a ride on the IMB brand name.

Certainly there was an explosion in the field personal computers in the early 80s: Commodore, Acorn, Sinclair to name but a few. All released home computers before the PC. So it seems that the costs were already dropping then, and that increased microprocessor use would have driven the price down anyway.

The reason MS did so well was because they had the OS on the platform that emerged dominant. And the reason for this dominance is that IBM legitimised personal computing with the IBM PC. Business bought PCs, and people bought a home computer to be compatible with work.

As far as the cost of hiring a secretary, that's what it would require for me to create the documents that I'm able to create in Word, Excel, and Powerpoint and to continue to do my work.

That's assuming no other options exist besides a human secretary or MS software.

Generally speaking, a good way to value a product is to compare the pricing of your alternatives.

I entirely agree. OpenOffice is free by the way. Thanks for playing!

Re:Must be two major reasons, then.

[1u3hr]

$600 for Office is not a lot of money, try hiring a personal secretary to do what you're able to do with the Office tools.

Don't complain it costs $20 for a CD. Try hiring the Rolling Stones to play in your living room.

Non sequitor

[rolofft]

If Windows were on equal footing with BeOS, Amiga Workbench, and OS/2; if Word were on par with Wordperfect and AmiPro; and if Bill Gate and Steve Job saw eye to eye... Australia would be $200,000,000 richer? Not only that, but the differential between the cost of hardware and software would stay perpetually where it was in 1995?

Wouldn't training costs for sys admins and secretaries be higher if Windows and Word weren't de facto standards. Wouldn't developers be overworked if the market demanded every consumer program be ported for Atari ST and FreeBSD?

Isn't this whitepaper tantamount to saying Australia would save $234,670 million if only Spiro Agnew hadn't been convicted of tax evasion?

"Giving away" is illegal for a monopoly!

[hellfire]

I just don't feel they've taken the "good" parts of Microsoft's monopoly into account (kill me for saying that.) Considering all of the features included with the OS that we used to pay for-- Browser, media, utils, etc, Microsoft has "given" a lot to maintain their monopoly. While I support competition whole heartedly (and look forward to a day where I can "choose Mac OS to run on my custom intel hardware) I don't think this is an honest assesment. You get a LOT with what you pay for, and there hasn't even been a new version in 4 years. And they still support you with security fixes for FREE (all jokes aside).

1) You used to pay for browsers and media tools? Since when? Quicktime pro is something you pay for but the basic quicktime has ALWAYS been free, and versions existed back in Windows 3.1. Netscape was free unless you were a business, and frankly the only people who paid were large businesses who cared. As for utils, I really can't think of much that was truly useful. The only useful utilities, ever, I could remember are both for Mac, Norton (which was good until OS X made it obsolete) and Techtool pro (which has a great interface for testing hardware and not just software, which is more useful).

2) Giving away things for free is BAD BAD BAD under a monopoly! It's been posted so many times that slashdotters who read microsoft articles should be able to recite the sherman anti-trust act and the subsequent laws by heart by now! Christ!

When a monopoly gives away something, they are trying to use their huge power and cash reserves to force the competition out of the market. Netscape is the key example. Netscape was trying to make money by making companies buy their web browser while giving it away for free to personal users. Well, microsoft undercut that and gave IE away for free. They used their considerable power in the OS to make a free product and undercut someone who could have legally competed with their own product. That's wrong, and that's illegal under US law.

And Microsoft didn't begin giving away anything substantial until I.E. anyway.

Now, Media player doesn't count here, because Quicktime and realplayer (if you can count real as competition) already give their media viewers away for free, so there's nothing to undercut.

Office is no more expensive now than when Word Perfect was still alive and kicking.. And the features keep coming. (Though I gladly use openOffice, myself.)

Bullshit, it's feature bloat, no reasonably good features have been introduced since Office 95 except to tighten down the security on their buggy visual macros, and Office costs around $500. My parents bought me the Apple II version of wordperfect for $50, and when I worked at a hospital installing software, business licenses were $20 an install (though there may be other contract fees but when you have to manage 7000 PCs I doubt the fees came out to a $500 a piece price tag, that's what volume discounts are for).

I think the worry should be "Let's not make this a total monopoly so one company can't hold all the keys to human technology in the future" rather than, man, they're screwing us out of cash.. because I think the sheer volume of units they ship actually causes the price to be CHEAPER, not more expensive.

You need economics 101. Monopolies do not follow standard supply and demand theories that competitive markets do. This is because they have total control of the market. They set the price to maximize their profit based on what they can get away with, not based on demand of their product.

However, in conclusion basic sentiment is, that as many figures are these days, they are overblown, and I would tend to agree with you. However I completely disagree that Microsoft has "provided value" to offset any additional costs of "goodness." Besides these figures are overblown anyway, you are coming at the whole thing from the wrong angle.

DEAR SLASHDOT OWNERS

[argoff]

If you want people to use your forum and add value to your service, then they need to trust that insightfull comments that they make will be appreciated and moded insightfull - and even more so they need to trust that they have reasonable protections from large corporate interests that might try to manipulate a forum's discussion or content.

Translation. You need to do something about the relentless modding down of anybody who attacks Microsoft and Microsoft's "intellectual property" regime. I have been posting here since 98 and have made over 1300 posts and know a baised interest when I see it, and at least since 2002 almost every post, without fail, that questions Microsoft's "intellectual property" regime has been attacked without reguard to how truthfull or insightfull it is. I'm sorry, but in this case it seems like the moderation system is just not working.

Please, again, I'm dying for anyone for anyone to explain to me how my parent post is redundant or overrated. And please, if you don't like what I'm saying, or think I'm just a loud mouth, then I beg you, kick me off of slashdot - it wouldn't hurt me to have an excuse to start my own blog.

It's cheaper for Dell to support Windows

[RockClimbingFool]

They sell orders and orders of magnitude more XP boxes than Free DOS. The margins on computers that cheap is so small, ANY change or disruption to the supply / manufacturing chain costs Dell money.

They could put nothing on the drive and it would cost more than the XP install because that is additional time and effort in tracking these low volume machines through the factory.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Re:10 easy facts (the Unseen hand - look it up)

[be-fan]

Your #4 is incorrect, and has been for about 50 years now. The "unseen hand" is a useful analogy, but its not entirely consistent with modern economic theory. Read up on anything written in the last 50 years regarding monopolies, and you'll learn that they can exist naturally, and indeed the government, by virtue of its coercive ability, is often the only way to break them. The remainder of your post, derived from this flawed premise, should thus be disregarded.

Oh, and FYI, professors are leftist because they actually study the world. I find it incredible that most people wouldn't ride in an airplane built by a layman, but are perfectly willing to listen to economic theory espoused by people unqualified to do so.

Interesting response

[be-fan]

I'm surprised so many Slashdotters come to the defense of Microsoft in response to a story that merely says the obvious. Of course Microsoft's monopoly creates losses! If it didn't, it'd be the first monopoly in history not to! The fact that it is a monopoly, and that it uses business practices that are illegal (for good reason) isn't even under debate. They've been convicted of the charges already!

Re:Interesting response

[phkamp]

Has it never struck you as a very obvious explanation that Microsoft could have people paid to spin their case on Slashdot ?

With a marketing budget of their size, I'd be surprised if they didn't drip some greenbacks into hands that would spend time defending their reputation online.

And no, I don't think Slashdot is the only place they have paid staff doing astroturf.

Re:Interesting response

[tdubya]

What's more interesting is your logic of the fact that there is no debate on whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not because the COURTS decided they were already... That means that there is absolutly no debate on whether OJ murdered Nicole and Ron, or whether Michael Jackson touches boys, because the COURTS said they didn't. There is always room for debate, and to say there is NO room is ignorant.

Re:Interesting response

[be-fan]

THe OJ and Nicole example, or the Michael Jackson example involves things that may or may not have happened, and there is no way to know what really occurred. In contrast, whether Microsoft is a monopoly involves no such uncertainty. The courts get to decide who is and is not a monopoly. According to the courts, Microsoft is a monopoly. Now, you could say that this judgement is wrong, and that Microsoft's should not be labeled a monopoly, but that does not change the fact that, currently, as a result of previous court decisions, it is labeled a monopoly.

Get your facts straight?

[heelios]

1 USD = 1.23004 CAD
1 USB = 1.31739 AUD

Thanks.

Re:Dropping...

[Coryoth]

The number one fastest in what way? Revenues? Profits? Employees? Hype?

Slavishly devoted fanboys. Apple absolutely leads the commercial OS market in blandly devoted fanboys. Of course in the whole OS market they are a distant second to Gentoo, but their current growth rate in mindless followers is much better than Gentoo which peaked a while ago.

*(Not to knock Apple or OS X, they are a company that produces decent hardware and a fine OS, they just seem to have a side effect generating vocal mindless zombie followers as well as normal users).

Always skeptical with biased reporting like this.

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I do have to agree that Microsoft dominates the PC industry with a lot of unfair partnerships and agreements with PC vendors. But to say that PC consumers are losing billions because of this "monopoly" is a little far fetched. This assumes that PC users actually WANT Linux, and are not being offered the choice.

Lets put it this way. In a fair world, both Linux AND Windows are offered on every Dell computer. Many assume that Linux is FREE and Windows is NOT. Would the Linux option actually cost nothing compared to buying a Windows license on a Dell computer? My honest opinion is NO! While you are able to get Linux for free by downloading it online, a company like Dell would prefer to setup some form of Linux support option which you will have to pay for. Linux IS FREE, Linux support IS NOT! Also, considering the sheer amount of support required by newbies to simply install and use Linux, Dell would quickly want to absorb the extra cost of support by charging SOMETHING for installing Linux on their PC's.

The bottom line is, people often over estimate how free Linux really is. In a perfect world, if Linux was as easy to use and configure as Windows, then yes, you are losing $100 every time you buy a Dell computer because they charge you for the XP license and don't offer you a viable free alternative. But in reality, Dell would charge about $100 to install Linux on their PC's because of all the extra headaches and nightmares it would cause them in technical support alone.

IE Costs?

[MikeFM]

How much does IE alone cost in extra web dev expense? It seems to add about 20% to dev time in my experience to deal with IE bugs and inabilities. And it keeps us from using some features that'd make life much easier or make our products more useful.

different language options neither

[dindi]

When I bought my toshiba laptop in Costa Rica they did not only refuse to sell me the laptop without Windows XP, they weren't even willing to give at least with an English version ....

OK, so with PCs at least you get a normal version, but laptop versions do not install anywhere else other than the laptop ... so great I had to get a pirated version of XP for my desktop PC (do not even ask why I need it) because I refuse to pay again for the same thing I did not want to buy the first place, but if they at least gave me a normal English version not a Crippled only toshiba Spanish, I could have simply used the licence I ALREADY PAID FOR ....

I hate microsoft for that crap, and hate all retailers who force me to buy a copy with every laptop I buy ...

I do not need WINDOWS on my laptop please do not let me pay for it :(

PCs I just build from pieces and not by OP system (Linux/BSD would be used anyway)

Monopoly? You should try TREK!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You should see what MS is able to do, now that they have embraced and assimalated Unix! This is just from the public Beta - but watch out!

[dehli001] ~ > ssh 127.0.0.1
jahangir@127.0.0.1's password:
Welcome to the Interix UNIX utilities.

DISPLAY=localhost:0.0

Man, this was cool, no? Well then, check this out!

5 Klingons
4 starbases at 3,1, 0,2, 7,2, 1,3
It takes 250 units to kill a Klingon

Short range sensor scan
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 * . . . . . . . . . 0 stardate 2300.00
1 . . . . . . . E . . 1 condition GREEN
2 . . . . . # . . . . 2 position 3,1/1,7
3 . . . . . . . . . . 3 warp factor 5.0
4 . . . . . . . . . . 4 total energy 5000
5 . . . . . . . . . . 5 torpedoes 10
6 . . . . . . . . . . 6 shields up, 100%
7 . . . . . . . . . . 7 Klingons left 5
8 . . . * . . . . . . 8 time left 8.00
9 . * . . . . . . . 9 life support active
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

This is just beta. Wait untill we see what they're working into XBox!

Of course they have a choice!

[doubledoh]

I still fail to see how creating exclusivity agreements is a bad thing. If Pepsi hires Britney Spears for $10,000,000 just to do pepsi commercials and only drink pepsi when she drinks cola, and Britney goes ahead and drinks Coca-Cola in public...then Pepsi has every right to void the contract or give her less money (assuming those are the terms of the contract). The fact is, no one has a right to microsoft XP! But, if you want to use/sell XP, then you must agree to Microsoft's terms, sell another OS, change your business, or go out of business. No one has a right to force any business or consumer to do anything, include selling or not selling an operating system at X price. Microsoft says, "If you sell MS XP in great quantity and exclusively, then we'll give you a huge discount." That's no different from Pepsi saying to 7/11, "We'll give you this nice drinks fridge for free if you promise to only put pepsi products inside it." If 7/11 wants the fridge, they must abide by Pepsi's generous terms, or pass on the deal. That's business. And that IS a choice. Everyone has a right to sell computers, but not everyone is going to make money doing it. Dell is after the cash, so they are going to sell the most popular product (Windows) because it makes the most money...so obviously it pays to stay buddy buddy with Microsoft. Dell can still choose to make less money and sell Linux (much less money), but they don't because obviously that's not what the masses want! Don't blame Dell or Microsoft for making smart business choices. Again, no one is forced to do anything...they are only compelled to act on reason!

Freedom, man freedom! You have to remember, the freedoms you want to take away from businesses are also freedoms that will be taken away from you! And how dare you try to limit other people's freedoms just because YOU don't like something. If you don't like a product or a company, don't support it by buying it! If that's not enough, get on the news and persuade people to boycott etc...but please, don't try to limit my freedoms as a consumer or as a business with government force! Remember, the only true monopoly is your government--it is your government that doesn't give you a choice. You HAVE to pay taxes, you HAVE to obey laws, or you will go to jail or get shot. In the business world, you always have a choice (unless govt. interferes).

Re:Of course they have a choice!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I still fail to see how creating exclusivity agreements is a bad thing.

Exclusivity agreements remove choices, and thus harm consumers. In most cases, that is not a big problem as consumers just go with a different competitor. It is a problem when a monopoly is involved. In that case it is not only bad for the consumer, but can be used to keep things bad for the consumer and the free market cannot solve the problem. For this reason it is also illegal.

Here's the test geek Linux zealots won't do...

[suitepotato]

Put the average end-user in front of two identical machines, ready to load. Each with one Ethernet card, one webcam, one HP inkjet printer, one external USB/Firewire device, one HD, one DVD burner, one dial-up modem. Give them Windows XP Home retail for one and Fedora Core 3 for the other. The assignment: by yourself with no external references or help, install each one and have all peripherals and harware working. You may only connect to the net to download drivers but may NOT research anything. You have to go with the interfae and help files immediately availible with the OS in question.

I guarantee you it will be Windows XP Home every single time that is totally or mostly successful. The webcam alone will be enough to prevent the FC3 build from reaching totality. The second most problematic will be the external USB or Firewire device. The third will be the modem and fourth will be the printer.

People can whine about there being a monopoly when the Linux would comes up with a disto that is as easy to use, as well supported, has as wide support for hardware as easily, and is so easy to maintain as Windows. Of course, the method Microsoft chose to follow to this plateau also came with a lot of tradeoffs on stability and security but any Linux zealot who claims Linux is secure and stable is lying blatantly. If Linux was so stable, or any *nix for that matter, would you need to have (you@yourbox)# kill [process id] in your toolbox never mind the legendary issues with the quirks of the most common *nix tools?

Here's a neat one. Load up the Stardock Object Desktop software suite on a WinXP box. Load up xcompmgr w/KDE on the FC3 box. Make each work. I guarantee the xcompmgr on FC3 will be so unstable and resource hogging as to make the machine useless, illustrating the claim of those who put it in, that is is unstable. Not so with SOD. Neat shadows, transparancy, zoomers like OSX, etc. Eye candy in abundance.

All that said, I use FC3 every day at home. But I have no blinders on that it is a techies' OS and NOT a casual end-user OS. I've been supporting Windows since before most of the anti-Microsoft crowd began their inane tinfoil hat FUD ranting against Redmond and if there is one central truth to it that I've learned, that it is very stable and secure IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING (with the exception of Millenium Edition which sucked donkey balls, especially on HP Pavillions).

I guarantee you that should any distro of Linux of tomorrow become equal to the ease of use and intuitiveness of Windows of today, it will be equally open to user error because that is the nature of the situation. The only practical way to shield against user error is to make the doing of things so hard that it discourages the attempt. The only practical way to make the system easy to use for total idiots is to make it childishly open and easy to do the slightest thing.

I wouldn't sell ANY version of Linux preloaded on consumer PCs aimed at casual end-users because as someone who's supported them for years on end, I know they won't even read their VCR manuals to stop the clock from flashing 12:00. They won't have truck with RPMs and dependency never mind makefiles and builds.

Re: Of Course -- People could get used to...

[ch424]

using Linux by learning to setup a Cron job to start Openoffice an hour before they get to work, so that it's just about ready when they arrive!

Re:$AUS10 Billion

[nemattoad]

Well since the canadian dollar is higher than the australian dollar, you just made yourself that much dumber.

Re:What support?

[giminy]

Bummer that.

Still, it could end up costing Dell a bit of money just supporting the hardware without a commercial operating system. If someone calls to say that their modem is defective, it would require someone who actually has a clue to answer the call and be sure that's what is wrong before sending out the prepaid shipping label boxes and things...