Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Sell PCs, Starting in India
kripkenstein writes "According to an Ars Technica report Microsoft will begin selling complete PCs, for the first time in the company's history. The program is aimed at customers in India. 'Dubbed the IQ PC, the machines will cost RS21,000 (about $525), are manufactured in partnership with Zenith, and will sport AMD Athlon CPUs. ... In some ways, the move to sell hardware is a natural extension of Microsoft's low-cost Windows initiative ... It may also be a response to projects like Intel's Classmate PC and the OLPC XO.' The Ars Technica summary is careful to state that they seriously doubt this will lead to Microsoft selling PCs in the US, yet the question must be asked: After Microsoft mice and keyboards, then the XBOX and Zune, Microsoft is increasingly becoming a hardware vendor. Is it only a question of time before Microsoft starts to compete directly with the likes of Dell and HP?"
Okay, so where is the link for Americans that want to order a handful of these machines for their kids' classes? My kids' school has Windows pc's and is surely willing to accept a few more of them. Why is it that I have to live in a foreign country to get the "cheap pc"? (Yes, I know I can set up Linux, but the school is not ready to admin heterogenous operating systems and I can't replace them all.)
(Begin Rant)
I think that any "Americian" company willing to sell a product a foreign market should be required to make available that product in their home market at the same - or better - price. Although this seems like an off-topic statement, it's applicable because this article is showing the opposite stance. They want to sell a discounted product abroad, but will not offer the item at "home". Blame my mother for this idea, as she is the one that taught me, "Charity begins at home."
Before someone tries to throw out the argument that it's a business decision, may I simply point out that subsidizing "a limited number of retail outlets in Pune and Bangalore" is little different than subsidizing "a limited number of retail outlets in (inner-city of choosing) and (rural district in chosen state)". I would hope that an American company subsidizing an American region should have more "long term" benefit than subsidizing Pune and Bangalore.
Of course, this same principle applies to all merchandise -- consider prescription costs. It makes no sense to me that I have to pay 5X for a drug that sells for X elsewhere, when the producer is not willing to hire me for 5X the the salary. If my company is willing to lay me off in favor of hiring 5 people off-shore, then they should only be allowed to sell off-shore also.
(/End Rant)