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.'"

Comments

It has a bios, doesn't it?

[geekoid]

then it works.
It may not have all the functionality that someone wants, but it does work.

Bad analogy

[seifried]

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.

I'm with HP/MS on this one.

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

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.

Re:He's an idiot

[ThinkingInBinary]

Do you honestly think it should be mandated that computers must come OS-free? And I'm not talking about "should be" in terms of how it would reduce the inept-user population, I'm talking about "should be" in terms of freedom and government non-interference. You are free to go buy a computer without an OS, or buy the parts and assemble them yourself, etc. Should companies not be free to sell OSes pre-installed on computers? Should people not be free to buy them?

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.

Re:He's an idiot

[ThinkingInBinary]

Right, and since mechanics can install a transmission in their own car, all cars should be sold without transmissions, too.

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.

Re:He's an idiot

[MeanE]

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.

Re:He's an idiot

[jlarocco]

I'm pretty sure Microsoft offers licensing discounts as long as they're exclusive. Start selling machines with Linux and the discount is lost, and the $800 HP becomes $1000.

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.

Re:He's an idiot

[DeadboltX]

"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.

ACCC

[Ambush]

It's a real shame that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission seems completely oblivious to Microsoft's behaviour. The ACCC refuses to consider this issue despite repeated submissions and complaints.

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.