Slashdot Mirror
HP's Windows Bundle Trouble
narramissic writes "A French consumer group has filed 3 lawsuits against HP, saying the company's practice of selling consumer PCs with Windows pre-installed violates a French law that 'prohibits linking the functionality of a product to another product' — not to mention that consumers wind up paying for an unwanted OS. For its part, HP contends that it is not in violation of the law because the OS is integral to the PC. 'The PC without an OS is not a product because it doesn't work,' said Alain Spitzmuller, legal affairs director for HP France. 'We believe the market is for products that work.'"
then it works.
It may not have all the functionality that someone wants, but it does work.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
A car without gas doesn't work, yet I am free to buy a car without gas in it and bring my own gas to use in it. As far as computers go I order barebone machines all the time (Sun X2100's being a great example, they offer Solaris, SuSE, Red Hat, Windows or no OS). I can do the same from many vendors for desktop systems. Apparently selling machines without an OS is acceptable to a large number of consumers.
Honestly I don't see why HP's argument is flawed, without an OS the PC is useless for things that consumer's want to do. HP could install Linux on every PC they ship, but the problems inherent in that should be easy to see for anyone, even the most die-hard linux fanboy (I'll give you a hint, basic computer + linux + user who knows nothing about PCs = PROBLEM). Basically the computer they're selling is largely useless to the average consumer without an OS pre-installed, and so either HP would have to change what they sell from full working PCs to almost full working PCs or they just need to win this. Face facts, without an OS the computer is no where near as useful. It's like telling McDonalds to stop putting their food in bags, because it's unfairly forcing the consumer to pay for something (the bag) that they're probably going to throw away. Or telling TV people to not ships cables with the TV, because it unfairly links cable sales to TV sales when the user may want a different cable. Admittedly Windows is more expensive but the situation is largely the same...
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
I guess there's a good chance I'll get modded down for the heinous crime of coming out in favour of Microsoft here, but why should HP be sued for not selling a computer without an OS? It's like suing a company for selling a pen that comes with a cartridge. Sure, the pen could be sold without one and the buyer could get them separately, possibly even cheaper, but the fact is that the majority want to buy a pen and use it as-is. The same goes for computers.
I think HP should sell PCs that come with other OSes (or even no OS at all) - simply because I think there is a market worth taking there. However I don't think it's for any government or "consumer group" to try and force this on a company.
To look at it another way, there are plenty of PC manufacturers that solely sell PCs with DVD writers, monitors, keyboards and/or mice. Just like an OS, none of those things are *needed* in the strictest sense, yet nobody seems to be up in arms (or rather up in lawsuits) about that.
While I've greatly enjoyed watching the anti-trust decisions go against Microsoft in the EU in recent years, it seems that those legitimate victories for consumer rights are now being turned into a witch-hunt by various organisations in Europe who see the anti-MS sentiment as a means to get their hands into Microsoft's very deep pockets.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
No, I think it should be mandated that computers can be purchased OS-free for a price that is less than the price of one with the OS by a difference of the retail price of the OS. I think people should have the choice.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
No. The difference is that an operating system runs on the computer. It isn't a necessary part. You could netboot the computer, or boot it off of a CD. Both are perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to be able to buy a computer OS-free.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
The problem with an OS-free PC is that it will actually cost you more. The large PC manufacturers get Windows for very cheap, and then load it up with "value added" software, links, demos and other such great stuff. It turns out that by having Windows on the PC they are actually turning a profit.
You might not like paying for Windows in some way, but in effect it lowers the cost of your PC, odd as it may sound.
Either pay more (or at worst get no reduction in cost), or just nuke windows off the drive when you get it.
He's probably also never bought an automobile without an engine.
Well, one thing I can do with a computer without an OS on it is to install and run an OS on it. The OS is no more integral to the computer than the computer is to the monitor. You could equally well have said "I had no idea that staring at a blank screen with the DVI cord unplugged was that interesting". By your logic, since the monitor is useless by itself, the computer and the monitor clearly can't be separate products.
Thousands of products are unusable unless combined with another product: a flash light delivered without batteries; a trailer without a car to drag it; a bucket of paint without a brush; a fridge without food in it. The list goes on forever.
No, I disagree. Every desktop oriented Linux distro in the world would be scrambling for a chance to be OEM installed on consumer PCs. And given the choice between an HP with Windows for $1000 and an identical HP with Linux for $600, I think most consumers would pick Linux every time. Assuming the in store Linux HP machines weren't purposely rigged to look bad, I think most non-gaming consumers would realize that OpenOffice, Firefox, Gaim, and Thunderbird meet all their requirements.
Maybe not
"No, I think it should be mandated that computers can be purchased OS-free for a price that is less than the price of one with the OS by a difference of the retail price of the OS. I think people should have the choice."
That is absolutely ridiculous! HP doesn't pay retail price for every copy of Windows they put on their computers so why should they dock that price?
Having Windows XP on a new computer probably only raises the price $10-$25 if even that much.
If simply all computer vendors were legally obliged to itemise the computer and operating system in all advertising, *and* make the operating system optional, it would immediately level the playing field for all competitors.
Our government departments are, indeed, in Microsoft's pocket. Heck, our entire country is in America's pocket.
There are 10 kinds of people; those who know ternary, those who don't, and those now hunting for a dictionary.
I know many of the Linux zealots here will bash HP for not offering alternative OSs as an option, but remember that when your average consumer (ie: grandma) purchases a PC they expect a certain level of support and functionality.
.. it's quite likely she may want Option B. Then when she gets home to install it, and then has any number of problems (her ISP won't support her, her printer doesn't work, her nephew can't email her, her bank won't support Firefox, her old copy of MS Office won't load, etc etc etc) then she's going to call HP.
If grandma has a choice between:
A) Desktop + Windows for $800
B) Desktop + Linux for $600
At that point, HP's costs increase trying to support Grandma, or HP risks seriously upsetting a customer and possibly getting into further legal troubles. It's a lose-lose for HP and Grandma.
A business should never have be forced to give its customers a choice. If it makes business sense to only bundle Windows, then it should be free to do that. Let someone else sell a Linux box, take the risk, and see what happens.
-David