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.'"
He's pretty much shot himself in the foot, 'cause now he's got to prove that Windows works.
Forcing software sales along with hardware ones?
then it works.
It may not have all the functionality that someone wants, but it does work.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That law won't let you make the buying of one product the condition for the buying of another. In this case, of course, you have to buy MS Windows (and assorted crap) in order to be able to buy the PC.
In addition to this while the EULA specifically mentions a refunding process, resellers won't honour it.
Both the ministry of commerce and the bureau in charge of the consumer protection have given advice on the matter to the effect that the OS and the PC are two distinct products and that the sale of one cannot be bound to the other. So normally any PC for sale should have its price listed as X + Y + Z where X is the machine, Y the OS and possibly Z the extra software. However since the resellers won't comply, the courts will have to sort it out.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
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 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.
A DVD player without a DVD is not a product, because it doesn't work...
A DVD player without a TV is not a product, because it doesn't work...
A toy without batteries is not a product, because it doesn't work...
While you need to go to a store to buy batteries and DVD for your non-products,
for an OS, you may not even need to go to the store. You could download one of many free Linux (or BSD or other) OS's many of which do not even need to be installed to function.
Perhaps batteries are not the best comparison.
Inserting into purchasing process
WHICH OPERATING SYSTEM DO YOU WANT PRE-INSTALLED
( ) Windows (add $99)
( ) Red Hat Linux (add $39)
( ) Suse (add $39)
( ) NONE
In (Soviet) Finland, it's illegal to bind the sales of cell phones to a certain network. It's exactly the same logic as with computers and operating systems.
It isn't really applied to computers though; when I bought my current laptop last year, I made a vague attempt at Windows refund, only to get a reply along the lines that computer+OS is a single product. I'm mainly pissed off of the fact that this probably counts for the Windows market share, even if I never accepted the EULA.
However, there is a recent exception to allow such binding for 3G phones. It's meant to accelerate the adoption of new technology, since the 3G phones are comparatively expensive. So instead of paying the full price of the phone, it's spread over a, say, 24-month service contract.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
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
Define "operate". Yes, a PC without an OS will technically power up, but I think you'd be hard pressed to do anything with it without an OS of some sort. Have fun staring at "Please insert boot media..." all day long. Oooo, the lights will probably blink some, too, and you could spend all day going through the BIOS options. But other than that, you've got a nice paperweight without the OS.
That may explain why this French consumer group is suing HP instead of Newegg.
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.
So? His statement is still false.
Even if you make the assumption that the OS is a required part of the computer, there's still no reason they should only bundle Windows. They offer a variety of case designs to choose from. nVidia or ATI graphics cards to choose from. AMD or Intel processors to choose from. So why no choice on operating system?
Maybe not
I totally agree. This whole thread is like a car that has a bunch of bumper stickers containing inappropriate analogies slapped all over it.
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.
-
First is the presumption that a computer (shipped) without an OS is useless... I can pop in a Knoppix disk and do most of the things that people use their computers for without installing any OS -- banking, messaging, skype, word processing, photo editing, etc., etc.,
... His statement is false.
- second is that that that Windows is the only OS that anybody would ever want.
- third is the implicit claim of the (many) astro-turfers that this suit is meant to prevent HP from selling computers with MS-Windows.... From TFA:
Nothing wrong with consumers buying an HP computer with Windows, as long as that's what they want (which will be the case for many -- but not all -- consumers).
It's more like if every major hospital in the country forced children born there to be baptized as Roman Cathoic -- and required that the parents pay a tithe to the Roman Catholic Church for the 'privilege'.Now, yes, you can turn around and have the child declared Baptist, Lutheran, Jewish or Muslim, etc., but you still won't get back the $75 that went to the RC church.... and, for some people, just having the taint of the RC church on their children is almost as bad as being declared pagan. -- and, for some people, explaining to your parents back home why their grandchild's Birth Certificate says Roman Catholic is going to be, uhm, delicate.
Of course you also have the option of having your child born at home, but some people really like the convenience and safety of a large hospital.
[I'm RC, myself, so I can (I hope) get away with this analogy.]
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
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.