Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Flip-flopping on Virtualization License
Cole writes "Microsoft came within a few hours of reversing its EULA-based ban on the virtualization of Vista Basic and Premium, only to cancel the announcement at the last minute. The company reached out to media and bloggers about the announcement and was ready to celebrate "user choice" before pulling the plug, apparently clinging to security excuses. From the article, "The threat of hypervisor malware affects Ultimate and Business editions just as much as Home Premium and Basic. As such, the only logical explanation is that Microsoft is using pricing to discourage users from virtualizing those OSes. Since when is a price tag an effective means of combating malware?" Something else must be going on here."
Only if you believe that EULAs are enforcable.
Artificially introduced market segmentation.
Seperate the user base by requirements. To match a low, medium and high priced product range, when there is no real difference between the actual products other than artificial restrictions.
By specifically disbaling certain features from the low versions, power users (the few who will touch Visat with a bargepole), will be forced to empty their bank accounts for the high version (Vista Ultimate/Business), otherwise they may just buy the version which could do everything they required (which would be cheaper).
Less revenue for Microsoft.
This is similar to the recent debate over MS Visual Studio Express vs. Professional. The former's EULA disallowing plugins of some variety which actually loaded fine. This forced users to buy the uncrippled version for actual development. More money to MS.
There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
I've bought the software (note - this is a lie; there's no way I'm going to buy Vista any time soon). Microsoft has made their money. They should stop telling me how I can use it.
This is why I like free software. I'm treated as the owner.
The reason Microsoft wants to keep the cost high to virtualize Vista is because they want people to actually run Vista as the main os. When lots of people start running linux (or parallels on macs), they are using Vista simply as a bunch of libraries to run one or two apps.
They want to remain in control of the platform, if people use mac or linux as their main os and use Windows to run one of those not-yet-supported programs the power of Microsoft wil start to degrade...
Dependency hell? =>
"Something else must be going on here". No shit sherlock.
The thing that's going on is market segmentation [wikipedia.org]. To put it briefly: Microsoft reckons that those customers who are likely to want to run Vista in a virtual environment have got the money to buy a more expensive version.
If it was that simple, Microsoft wouldn't conflict itself so much. There are many more things going on, not the least of which, is the virtualization on the Mac (not a core Mac user myself).
Mac+OSX has still many disadvantages on its own, the biggest of which is vendor support for software and games. Parallels integrates relatively seamlessly virtualized Windows into a Mac.
Under virtualization, you really don't need more than Vista Home, since you can't run Aero anyway, so people would naturally flock to that. Many PC owners are willing to switch to Mac today, as long as they have a seamless Windows experience, which they still need.
Microsoft isn't just trying to make a buck, they're trying to decrease the rate of Vista/Windows virtualization. The problem here is: they can't change the license of XP which is out there already and people run that on their Macs.
So the conflict (at least part of it) is: forbid virtualization on cheap Vista (and thus stiffle Vista adoption as people run their XP on Macs), or allow virtualization since XP already allows virtualization anyway.
And only after all those strategy issues are resolved, comes the question if Microsoft could make more buck with expensive virtualizable Vista: corporate customers usually need to virtualize Windows for testing. But they don't really need a ton of copies for that purpose. A 1000 employee company may need just 5-6 licenses for the 5-6 developers who specifically need to do testing of their software. Hence the buck making potential isn't really quite there.
Microsoft isn't stupid, and they can see the writing on the wall. Switchers pose a problem for Microsoft, because most anecdotal evidence and many studies show that switchers don't switch back to Windows. Now before you bash me as an Apple fanboi, consider this: most people who leave Windows are looking for an out due to frustration. Even if you think Mac OS X is inferior to Windows, someone looking to get away from Windows might not be the most objective person in the world. Apple's plan is to get people to switch, to just taste OS X, and then count on them not going back to Windows. Intel Macs make it "safe" for users to try it, because they can always fall back to Windows if OS X doesn't work out for them.
The most ridiculous part of the MS strategy, though, is to assume people pay attention to the EULA anyway. I recently installed XP on my Intel Mac on to a boot camp partition. Parellels is smart enough to see the boot camp partition and run in VM mode. Is that "illegal"? Will Microsoft come kick in my door? Would I be able to do the same thing with Vista (probably) even though the EULA states I can't?
Mac OSX Home Basic 129$
;-)
Mac OSX Home Premium 129$
Mac OSX Business 129$
Mac OSX Ultimate 129$
Ubuntu Home Basic 0$
Ubuntu Home Premium 0$
Ubuntu Business 0$
Ubuntu Ultimate 0$
A both OSes have home versions which allow restore of backuped Data...
For Vista you need Ultimate or Business to get restore functionality
Parallels is I believe the first to offer 3d accelerated virtual drivers. You can bet VMWare are working hard to be second.. xen will probably follow eventually on their pay versions (free versions have no windows acceleration, so it runs as slow as molasses anyway).
Within 3-4 years all this 'stuff doesn't work under virtualisation' will be ancient history - it's just going to take time for it to mature. We've just migrated all our servers to uber-powerful virtualisation boxes... if you spend 4 times as much on the hardware but can run 20 VMs on it at the same speed.. then you've gained (not to mention the decrease in power costs, the increase in available office space, decrease in noise level, etc.). One OS == One machine is history.
True-ish, and Apple certainly can't chuck any bricks in that particular greenhouse. However, there are a couple of mitigating factors:
If Apple doesn't sort this out soon they're going to start hacking off developers - virtualization is so darn useful. This will come to a head when 10.5 is released and betas of 10.6 go out and developers have to juggle past, present and future major versions of the x86 based OS - but the initiative will have to come from developers, via Apple - Parallels and VMWare have no strong incentive to break a sweat over it.
P.S. Also bear in mind that the last thing Apple want is, officially or otherwise, a "try-before-you-buy" route for OSX: even if the implementation was non-flakey, the first impression of playing with a new OS is always frustration because of the differences and the fact that your instinct is to plunge into "clever stuff" rather than work through the basics. Better if you are sold on the idea by an evangelist, part with cash, and have a $2000 incentive to get over having to press the fricking pretzel key instead of "ctrl".
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
From TFA: "For its part, Microsoft says that hypervisor rootkits are a serious threat to virtualization, and they could be right."
... oooh hypervisor rootkit!!! ... won't fool any of the guys who know enough to employ virtualization.
Surely, they don't mean to suggest that hypervisor rootkits stop being a threat as soon as the user ponies up the additional $210 or so for a Vista Ultimate edition?
Come on, M$, take your time and try to come up with a better excuse than that! Saying
So far, I can't remember a law that outlaws overclocking or unlocking additional render pipelines.
On the other hand, should I dare to mess with the software to bend to my will...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And therein lies the problem. Microsoft views virtualization as the road to rampant piracy and I can't blame them given their software validation model. It is all about money in the end. Besides, allowing virtualization in these EULA restricted products would raise all kinds of questions (as well as litigation) from those that paid more for it in the higher priced product.
On the other hand, I could be just talking out of my ass since I am only guessing.
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Well MS is certainly "free" to add restrictions to its own product, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. And when those restrictions make life more difficult for the rest of us, we're "free" to complain as loudly as we like.
Products should not be sold based on how valuable it is TO YOU, but how valuable it is on its own merit. Product price should not be allowed to be based on how much money you have to spend, that does not affect the actual value of your product.
No, sorry. The price is set by how much the consumer is willing to pay for the product, because products are NOT not inherently valuble. The trick is finding a balance between manufacture cost and sell price.
The only thing that keeps this practice in check normally is law of supply and demand, but with software you have a legally supported monopoly so that doesn't help.
Indeed, this is a problem with monopolies, because what makes this mechanism work is indeed the law of supply and demand - that is, if you price something too expensive there might very well be someone willing to sell it for less. This is the reason most countries have antitrust laws in one way or another.
This is the first I've heard of this EULA restriction, and it begs a question. Software developers often use a virtualized environment for far, far easier testing of their software on multiple platforms. Do they get a different EULA that allows them to run the low-priced editions in a VM? If they're making consumer software, it would be awfully silly to deny them that convenience or force them to test on a Vista edition that few of their customers would use. Maybe you get a completely different license if you get Vista through MDSN? Which would legally mean, I presume, that a small-time developer who didn't want to pony up for an MSDN subscription and just bought a couple Vista editions at his local store would still not be allowed to virtualize for testing?
Sounds like you're describing the whole "trusted computing" initiative. I don't doubt that's where MS is trying to go.
That's one of many reasons why I simply use Linux with a Windows 2000 VM for those games and other software I can't live without (and won't run in Wine).
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Maybe not eliminate them, but they could well implement some "licensing" scheme for games, much like console manufacturer's (of which MS is one of now) do.
You can kinda already see it starting with the "Games for Windows" initiative. How long before a game (or any other app) needs to be digitally signed by MS before you can use it? Not for security or anything like that, but the manufacturer just has to pay MS it's dues so they can get their "Games for Windows" logo and the ability to run on the platform. It happens in the console world, and it can happen here too.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Ah, Mac fanboys... you never cease to amaze me. You protest loudly about how Microsoft makes it hard to run Windows on a Mac. What about the fact that Apple makes it illegal to run OSX on your Dell???
The barrier is just as artificial. An Intel Mac is no different from a modern PC, except that Apple has added some hardware detection to the OS so that it won't run on non-Apple hardware. Of course, this hasn't stopped enterprising hackers from figuring out ways around it.
Apple and Microsoft are both producing proprietary software and trying to force hardware lock-in as well when it suits them. Actually, Apple's hardware lock-in is much worse.
Not to mention that the Mac Mini is an underpowered piece of crap. Why would I pay $600 for a mini when I can get a much more powerful mini-PC, or a fully loaded desktop with monitor, for that price??? But I digress...
My bicyles
Prosecution: he installed this OS in an unauthorized fashion, prohibited by the EULA.
Defense: Once he has bought it, you cannot tell him what to do with it.
Prosecution: He didn't buy it, he licensed it.
Defense: He went into a shop, paid for a disk, and has no further obligations. If that's not buying, what is? Do you think he also licensed his copy of War and Peace that he bought in the same store at the same time on the same card?
Prosecution: And, we claim damages....
Defense: Damages for what? He bought it, he installed it, he used it. Can a book publisher collect damages because I use my ordinary glasses to read it with instead of buying a new pair as stipulated in the Eula?
Well, it would be a fun case to see.
In a free market, companies are free to sell what they what at whatever price.
The problem is that it is illegal for you buy an artificially dumbed-down software product and tweak, patch, or hack it to make it perform like the fully functional version. Doing that would not be illegal in a free market.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.