Microsoft Cracking Down On Indian Retailers

slashthedot writes "Microsoft caught some Indian retailers selling pirated copies of Windows by sending in a dummy customer to ask for a copy of Windows to be installed on their PC. The dealers claim that they are promoting MS software in this way. One retailer said: 'Since we are are not charging anything extra for installing the software, it means that we are actually not trading in pirated software. For us this is just a sewa (selfless act) that we are offering to our customers. Besides, the pricing of their operating systems is way too high for the Indian markets.'"

Comments

If m$ is too pricey

[ultracool]

Why don't they just install Linux?

Re:If m$ is too pricey

[kcbrown]

I'll give you a hint: it starts in m, and ends in onopoly. If they were to install Linux, they'd face the same compatibility issues as if they were in the US.

It all depends on who they need interoperability with.

In the U.S., most businesses that run Microsoft do so after having paid for it. Microsoft maintains its monopoly largely through inertia. The market is already well-established and isn't growing much, so compatibility with everyone else becomes the primary reason for choosing one piece of software over another. In the U.S., the compatibility requirements are already set and basically aren't going to change much. People run pirated copies in the U.S. in order to maintain that compatibility.

But India is more like an emerging market than an established one. That means there's a lot of room for growth, and thus a lot of room for choice. The compatibility requirements aren't as firmly set as they are in the U.S. market because the ratio of existing players to future players is much smaller.

The end result is that in India, if vendors like the one in the article really did sell Windows instead of giving it away and also offered Linux as the free alternative, the market would almost certainly choose Linux over Windows, and "compatibility" would wind up meaning compatibility with Linux, not with Windows, because as the vendor noted in the article, Windows is simply too expensive for most people to afford over there. In other words, the price of compatibility with the U.S. market would be too high for the Indian market to bear, and the Indian market would thus go its separate way.

And Microsoft would, as a result, lose an entire market. If the majority of people in India ran Linux because the price of Windows is too high, new players in the market would at that point have no particular reason to choose Windows at that point even if it were made free, because the primary compelling reason people run Windows is for compatibility with others in the market (which includes support and other benefits of compatibility). In this scenario, Linux would have the primary compatibility/support edge as well as the price edge, so Windows would be completely uncompetitive in the market.

That scenario is the one that Microsoft fears the most. Very few of Microsoft's products can win on their merits, so the dominance of Windows and the compatibility requirements of the market are really the only things keeping Microsoft in their dominant position. A market in which Windows isn't the dominant operating system is a market that Microsoft will probably do poorly in.

The bottom line is that for the Indian market, Linux is a much stronger contender than it is in the U.S. market, and it's only because of the ability (if not legality) of vendors such as the one in the article to give away Windows that Windows can do well in that market.

Re:If m$ is too pricey

[Nosferatu Alucard]

You'd also be surprised at what little tiny things many users enjoy about their PC that Linux does not currently offer them. I couldn't find my windows installation CD to reformat my sister's PC, but I had a Kubuntu disk on hand, so I put that on. I installed MP3 support for her, since my collection was in MP3 format, I taught her how to use Open Office, and showed her how to use the AIM chat software and things like that. She didn't have much of a problem figuring out how to get things done, but she did run into a lot of issues along the way. For example, my music collection isn't geared towards her tastes, so she likes to go onto websites like purevolume to listen to music. Flash, last time I checked, does not have a 64bit linux driver. Any website that was flash-based was off limits to her. Drivers were difficult to install for her, and anything that involved compiling or more than a double click setup file was too difficult to understand. She's got the capabilities to understand it, she's a very smart, tech savvy person, but she, like many other users, will not be too keen on the idea of having to spent hours researching a problem that pertains to a single bit of software. Until your average user can boot up, log in, and do everything without having to open a terminal or read a paragraph to determine which file is the right one in the suppository, you won't get the people who are middle-level users. The people who won't leave things alone, but won't spent hours figuring out how to play with it.

Re:If m$ is too pricey

[muuh-gnu]

> Linux is not considered a poor man's OS.

It is. The poorer a society, the more it values products they otherwise could not buy. If you are not a professional, who can judge the value of a product by its quality, the price is the only distinction. So Windows is perceived like something that costs "hundreds of US Dollars!!" and Linux as nearly worthless, so if price is the only criterion, getting Windows for free (or for $% on a pirated CD) is a way better deal like Linux for free (or god forbid, $5 for a CD). Ten years ago, when the net was still in its infancy, I knew people who danced around when they after hours an hours of downloading with a 56k modem, managed to get photoshop & Co, because "it cost $2000". They surely wouldnt have danced around after downloading a free software like Gimp, even if they needed it only for cutting their photographs and changing brightness and contrasts. They also wouldn't have valued Photoshop or Windows so much if the $2000 was a spare change for them, but would have equally evaluated every product which comes into question for a given task.

>> "I mentioned that I use Linux and he was absolutely amazed and asked me why I would do that."

He was absolutely amazed because the GP deliberately used something that was "free" (aka worthless) instead of somethig that has a higher market value by several hundred of dollars, even when you can get the second one for free of the net. He most certainly did not know either windows or linux good enough to base his decision on product quality. He probably never tried Linux at all, because it was "so cheap" compared to windows.

Re:Sad.

[hjf]

The golden rule is, if you can't afford it then don't buy it. I would be going after them too if I was Microsoft. These are companies pretty much promoting piracy

Let's see, I assume you are an american. You see, not everyone in the world makes the same as you americans do. Not all of us (myself included, I live in Argentina) can afford to spend 2 to 3 months salary on Windows. And microsoft doesn't help either. They have this flat-price policy, all over the world. You *may* begin to understand us, blatant pirates, the day Microsoft charged USD 6000 for a copy of Windows. But that isn't going to happen, as Microsoft even offers discounts to students, of course those discounts are available for USA only (and a few selected european countries).

The problem is their monopoly. Someone who tries to find any job nowadays is required to know Windows (let's not enter the Linux argument, please). Just take my word for it.

Microsoft tried to "help" the situation a little by releasing the "starter" editions: crippled versions of their software for less money. Personally, I see that as an insult. You see, I go to the movies every now and then. Last year I went to see "The Da Vinci Code", the same day it was released in my country (may 18). I paid $5 (that's 5 pesos, or USD 1,80) to watch the movie. It wasn't a pirated divx, it wasn't a crippled down, shorter, lower-quality version of the movie. It wasn't even a cheaper remake. It was the same movie that was released in the US one day later (movies are released on Thursdays in my country). It wasn't a crappy cinema either. It had air conditioning, a big screen, surround sound, nice seats, popcorn, coca cola, and everything else. So, how can the movie industry charge 1/5 to 1/10 what they charge in the US, and still profit, while Microsoft refuses to do so?

One time someone answered "because people would buy an imported copy of Windows and pay less for it". Yeah, right. I'd love to see an american with their brand-new cheap copy of Windows, in Spanish. Or some indic language even.

Re:Would be nice, wouldn't it?

[Jason Earl]

Microsoft benefited from it, then why would they crackdown on it?

Let's just say that Microsoft now believes that it can start harvesting the investment it made in the past by not hassling system builders in the Indian market. India now has a large technology industry, much of which is based on Microsoft software. Like the original poster said this almost certainly would not be the case if Microsoft had always been strict about licensing in India, but it is certainly the case now.

Besides, like executives in any publicly traded company Microsoft's executives are concerned about providing the growth in profits that will drive the stock price up. In Microsoft's case that means opening up new markets. India's technology sector is in a position to start paying for Windows, and Microsoft wants to make sure that Indians do exactly that.