Slashdot Mirror
The Intersection of Microsoft, Linux, and China
at_$tephen writes "Fortune magazine has an article stressing the Chinese market's importance to Microsoft's long term strategy, and touching on Linux's involvement in the Chinese market. In the early days of Microsoft rampant piracy helped establish it as the de facto standard in PCs despite good alternatives. History may be unfolding again here, with the exception that having the Chinese government as an ally has huge additional benefits. Or perhaps Gates has met his match with the Chinese government. 'In another boost for Microsoft, the government last year required local PC manufacturers to load legal software on their computers. Lenovo, the market leader, had been shipping as few as 10% of its PCs that way, and even US PC makers in China were selling many machines "naked." Another mandate requires gradual legalization of the millions of computers in state-owned enterprises. In all, Gates says, the number of new machines shipped with legal software nationwide has risen from about 20% to more than 40% in the past 18 months.'"
This is very good! The more businesses are forced to actually pay for all those MS loaded machines, the easier they might consider using linux.
Go Microsoft!
(This is why I wish copyright protection on software would be 100% succesful: Too many people just download software and keep using it that way, if this would be impossible a fraction of those would pay but many more will start searching alternatives...)
Dependency hell? =>
may be a horrible thing but it probably has something to do with this. That and Chinese getting richer. With 98/2k/etc you could used a burn copy of any MS stuff and it'd all work perfectly with Windows Update and everything else. Now with XP after WGA and especially Vista you can still crack stuff but it becomes more of a hassle if you care about what's on your HDD and want updates and whatever else. So I think these are the reasons the piracy is going down instead of Chinese people suddenly caring about their certificates of authenticity and 3 men holograms :)
It has been precisely the lax means and methods in Microsoft's anti-piracy efforts of the past that helped it to grow so quickly. illegitimate software was even counted in Microsoft's statements describing its market penetration and saturation.
Presently, Microsoft's copy protection has not only been shown to inconvenience legitimate users who upgrade their hardware and the like, but also makes illegitimate software distribution a great deal less convenient. And this is, obviously, to the detriment of Microsoft's present and future market penetration and saturation. Where once "alternatives" were a threat and even a previous reality [read OS/2], people are looking at alternatives once again in the form of Linux and MacOSX. These solutions do not offer the resistance that Windows offers and I think we can see clearly how Microsoft has managed to over-zealously shoot themselves in the foot.
By far the easiest solution for Microsoft would be to remove their copy protection schemes and just kind of look the other way for a while until their saturation once against builds the addictive dependency on Microsoft software that it is presently losing. It may mean some sort of decline in stock values or a leveling-out of revenues, but they would regain something far more important -- market saturation and monopoly control.
You can get the real thing, and you get the same price." Indeed, in China's back alleys, Linux often costs more than Windows because it requires more disks. And Microsoft's own prices have dropped so low it now sells a $3 package of Windows and Office to students.
I do think its unfair that they get a "cost of living adjustment" for software and medicine, yet we have to compete for techie jobs on our own cost of living. They get the best of both worlds. This is another reason why free trade is not fair. They get almost 1st-world wages but only have to pay 3rd-world prices for these items. Tell me this is what Adam Smith and David Ricardo had in mind.
Table-ized A.I.
Exactly...I use Linux, but I am an IT geek. I know several people that are NOT geeks that have tried Linux, all of them went back to Windows. One of them was because of gaming, one was a wifi card in their laptop that they couldn't get to work, another didn't want to go searching for comparable software, etc. Until Linux is as easy to use and as widely supported by OEMs as Windows is....it's a no brainer. These people won't mind paying for Windows because of the frustrations of Linux. IMHO, Linux is, at least at this stage, a geeks/enthusiasts OS. Oh yah, and a broke dudes OS....(Universities, etc.) BTW...no need to insult me....I know I'll get moderated to 0 for this post...
* Back then, Linux was about as friendly to the average user as a dominatrix on a meth jag; this had more to do with hardware drivers (or rather, lack thereof) than anything else.
* The other x86 GUI-based alternatives for the typical home user were... OS/2 (insert sarcastic mention of how developers 'loved' writing for it), Geos (well, if you used a Commodore), and, umm... not much else, unless you wanted to lay down some serious dough and buy a Macintosh.
Ease of copying coupled with an interface that really didn't require much in the way of brainpower was what gave Windows its boost.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The characterization of computers without pre-loaded software as "naked" and mandating that software be bundled with PCs by the retailer is nothing more than an attempt to create a barrier-to-entry into the market. Now, instead of creating your own operating system and just selling it, you have to negotiate with PC retailers (who probably have exclusive contracts with Microsoft) in order to be on the same footing as the more-established players.
That Linux and FreeDOS exist is a convenient workaround to the bundling requirements, but it doesn't negate the anti-competitive nature of Microsoft's "no software implies pirated software" BS.
I can buy a television without subscribing to cable TV service offered by Best Buy, why should a computer (for which there more options) be any different?
http://outcampaign.org/
Regardless of how you feel about MS hegemony, there is a certain practical logic to the argument that a naked PC is sort of a wink to piracy. Yes the owner might transferring over a legal copy of an OS purchased elsewhere. But realistically that's a tiny number. It's always a tricky argument to navigate. When is manufacturing lock picking tools a crime? They do have legitimate uses too. The argument is delicate because we've seen it abused, like with the arguments against the VCR, and these days, DVD ripping. One could go on and find all shades of grey (are people who write trojans and viruses committing crimes?)
In any case, there are other models for dealing with this issue that can be argued both for and against, though if we accept that it is a grey then are logical compromises. Namely system like the canadian model where taxes are paid on media and the proceeds, iirc, go to some recognized royalty distribution system. This anticipates that a lot of ripped music should have been paid for and was not, while also recognizing we can't criminalize everything, and simultaneously not over burdening legitimate use.
So how about if china were to impose a levy on all new PC's sold naked. The money would be shared out among a consortium of major OS makers. GNU/Linux should have a place at that table. I'm not quite sure in what form. But one could I think find some way to assist GNU/linux development even if there is no one recognized authority.
If at some point Linux became a major fraction of OS in China it would also make sense to stop that policy. No longer could one argue that naked PCs are piracy tools.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If you read the article, you will see that forcing businesses to pay is what Microsoft started off by doing, quite unsuccessfully. Their usual heavy-handed strategy of suing businesses for pirating their software failed miserably, as the Chinese courts were not sympathetic towards Microsoft.
So, they finally changed their tactics, dropping prices dramatically. That's why they're finally making some headway in China. Oh, and some very active government lobbying seems to have played a big part as well. Microsoft seems to be best buddies with the Chinese government now, making deals with them, selling them software in huge quantities ...
Gotta love free enterprise. Corporations don't care where the money comes from; this is proved time and again by Western corporations sucking up to the Chinese government.
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
If your to believe the MS marketing machine , most of the government owned boxed are legit copies.
However knowing China as well as I do I would say the 40% they claim is being shipped to the people of china and none to the government. The seem to like to just take software licenses they want.
And as a side note. Why doesn't MS just lower the cost of windows ? They could all but eliminate piracy in low income countries if they were willing to make the costs less for windows. Just charge a couple bucks for it but , include only the nations language pack so it can't be used in another country out of the box. Surely more legit versions of windows is better then less, even if the profit per disc is less it is still profit.
Also I have been to chinese manufacturing plants, and let me tell you , just because they stop pressing dvd's for windows with keys they don't stop pumping out the discs for windows, they sell the over runs to piracy groups. They do the same with mislabeled dvd's as well. It's pretty weird to see.
This package Does Not Contain a Winner
However, there are downsides. Life in China by all account is not a lot of fun for most people. Access to things we take for granted is limited to the usual third world elite. It is not free trade is your problem, but the lack of democracy and knowledge about the rest of the world that China's people suffer from, and, I think, the acquiescence of the US population in their country being run by large businesses with monopolistic practices. If you had free trade, you would be able to buy those $3 Windows copies and the cheap medicines in the US. But you don't.
The difference between Adam Smith and Marx is basically that Smith lived in a world of tiny companies and thought capitalism was benign, while Marx lived in a world of growing capitalist monopolies and saw that it was not. What is happening in China is a repeat of the British industrial revolution - poor workers making an elite rich while being kept in a state of ignorance. Just as in the UK, some of those workers are more highly paid (the ones in the cities). How long before they start to get difficult? I really think that over the next thirty years we will find out whether in fact it was Smith or Marx who was right (my money is on Marx, as an economist you understand) and the laboratory will be China.
Pining for the fjords
HP has a Linux-based Quickplay OS for some of their laptops, on a seperate partition, that it can boot for quick access to multimedia functions. This is a legal OS. I belive Toshiba has a similar feature. These would be fine or Desktops as well. Major OEM's that don't want to preinstall Windows should provide a Linux version that can offer basic functions. Or a full implementation, the solution I would prefer.
When Chinese users want to install Windows, or another OS, they could choose to leave this on it's own partition and setup grub to dual-boot. There could also be a self-destruct button that wipes the partitions and formats the drive. Everyone (except MS) should love this as a government's job shouldn't be to force OEM's to help a company sell software. (think RIAA.)
Even as a Linux user I can sympathize with MS and their frustration, but their reaction does not help the cause of capitalism or Democracy in that region. This is very short-sighted and wrong.
Thanks to China, Red Flag Linux is a popular Linux Distro. Even if you're a Mac or Windows user you should sympathize with Linux users' frustratioins with having to receive preinstalled, paid for OSes that they do not want. In China or the US or any region at all.
when I was in China I frequently had market sellers attempting to sell me dodgy DVDs and CDs for 2 or 3 Yuan.
But I don't think they had windows on them...... yikes!
Seriously though, even in the large multinational Shenzhen office I was in the IT support guy installed windows of a shiny gold disc - it was just how things were done there. The serial number was written on the top in black pen. I guess product activation and WGA make it more difficult for this to work so they crawl back to the conference table and talk.
BTW. Many of the top executives from another multinational always impressed me by running Yellow Dog on a USB stick - I'm not even sure their laptops even had software on - but the USB sticks were on their key rings. I always thought that was a neat security idea. I have never seen that done anywhere else.
Ok, I get that /. readers hate Microsoft, but this is really a story about doing business in China more than how evil Microsoft is. The article really stresses how much Microsoft was hated when they tried the strong-arm tactics of selling (even more than in America) until they invested heavily in the country and opened a research center to change their image.
That really applies to all businesses trying to do business in China - particularly sales. It's actually quite an interesting story of business culture clashes and a good lesson on how standard US and EU business practices don't really work well in China.
The only barrier to manufacturers shipping a "naked" PC would be a legal one imposed by the government. And the interested party that is asking the Chinese government to impose such a restriction is Microsoft. So you can be sure that, if there is any such law imposed, the law will say "must include a legal copy of Microsoft Windows", and not just "must include an operating system".
That's easy, "we are the good guys and we don't steal like the bad guys." In the US, we have always maintained the "white hat" wearing attitude. Everything we do is for the good of the world and humanity. Everyone else is just evil. (yes, most of us really DO think that way.)
So if someone were to point to China saying "look what they are getting away with" the US perspective on it is "...because they are the bad guys!"
And making it difficult to ship binary drivers is a bad thing? If the corporations in question would just release source---or even specs---for their devices once, the Linux devs would integrate the drivers into the kernel, and continue to update them through new kernel versions, and the hardware would work perfectly out of the box, just like all other supported hardware does...
"Just install Windows over" does not work. Most end users are not technically competent to install Windows on a PC. They want the machine to work out of the box. People who sell PCs and don't supply a mchine that works out of the box will be selling into only a small specialt market
If they can lower the price in China, they can lower the price for the rest of the world. If they want to practice price discrimination then they should give it away to those with no money at all.
What?
...which is all largely irrelevant.
This kind of sadistic user hostile sort of environment didn't stop Windows or MS-DOS when the main competitor was a vastly superior Macintosh. So this often trotted out fallacy is just that. People stay away from Linux (and also Macs) is because they have to worry about msword documents, IE only websites and games that won't run on anything but Windows.
"easy" has nothing to do with it.
"choice induced confusion" also has nothing to do with it.
The herd is comfortable with what they think the rest of the herd uses.
It's interesting how some people like to ignore or re-write history.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If you really think that names mean anything, I've got a bridge to sell.
If you believe that the Soviet Union was socialistic because it said so, you surely must believe that it was democratic because it said so, no? Of course you don't: After all, your government stands to gain from emphasizing the difference between your capitalism and their "socialism", thus creating a powerful image of an enemy, but didn't had any interest in claiming that you both are democratic, for otherwise you might realize that both the USA and the Soviet Union (and every other country, for that matter) is oligarchic, not democratic, and that it doesn't make any difference if you have one party or two. Indeed, what the Soviet Union called socialism was simply capitalism. That the Soviet Union "lost" the cold war was solely a consequence of it being more totalitarian than the United States.
What change, exactly, did capitalism mean compared to feudalism? In the end, it still is structured according the principle that some people are more free than others, entitled to infringe other's freedom. As you said, capitalism didn't really create the super rich. Indeed, it actually mostly just shifted the rankings of the rich and the unscrupulous. Didn't you ask yourself why that is? It is because capitalism is simply the adaption of feudalism into an industrialized society, like we are now seeing the adaption of it into an information society in form of "intellectual property". Above all, you should realize that the free market is indeed the very antithesis of capitalism or the so-called "socialism" of the Soviet Union or even China: for one is only truly free if nobody else will infringe on this freedom. But capitalism, as any feudalistic society, is founded on the principle that some people, be it by heritage or money, are entitled on infringing on others freedom.
In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
Markets in China are supremely important to all US business interests. The foundation of capitalism is businesses must grow. As barriers to growth pop up both here and in other markets, new opportunities must be found. There are 1 billion people in China. So it's not just Microsoft who sees the importance of markets in China. It's every company that ever had a widget to sell. It has become a great concern to the US government, too. Business interests and growing markets drives US policy these days, like it or not (see Iraqi petroleum). These concerns trump everything else. 50 years ago there would have been a hue and cry over such massive trade deals with Communists *gasp*. You don't hear that today.
China could change its form of government tomorrow to a representative democracy with free elections at all levels in every area, but if they tried to close down their borders with respect to trade the US would find a reason to go to war with them. The way it stands today that's not about to happen.
Of course Marx wasn't right about everything and, as I made I thought clear, I wasn't talking about his political philosophy. Marx perceived that the effect of unrestricted capitalism was that ultimately all wealth would end up in the hands of a very few rich people. And that is incorrect how? He never suggested that the economy was static; Marx wasn't stupid.
It never fails to amaze Europeans that many Americans confuse consumer goods with wealth. Many American workers have few vacations and work long hours. They find it hard to save. They may have relatively large houses and cars, but in many ways they are still bonded workers. They cannot just leave their jobs and survive without very unpleasant consequences. To an Athenian or a Roman citizen, (or to an obnoxious Brit with no mortgage and money in the bank) that's slavery. And that's without considering the inner city subclass and the illegal migrants. In the US, a form of slavery is still very much in fashion, but people are in denial about it. Unfortunately we have allowed it to be exported to this country, with bonded laborers, many Chinese or Eastern Europeans, being controlled by gangs and the Government making sympathetic noises and doing precisely nothing.
Adam Smith believed that everybody would benefit from the invisible hand of the market - well, except a load of foreigners and poor people who did not count. Marx believed that the rich and greedy would, in the end, impoverish everybody else relatively speaking. Look at the US. Look at the reduction in status and opportunity for most of the middle classes, compared with the 50s and 60s.
In the late 50s my father bought his first house on one and a half times his salary. That house now costs more than ten times the average UK middle class salary. In those days there were few gadgets, but look at those gadgets now. They are basically small and cheap ways of delivering cheap content at high prices; iPods, mobile phones.
You're being screwed by monopolists while being told you're in a free market. And if you don't like Marx, read two prophetic books by three great US science fiction writers: The Space Merchants, by Pohl & Kornbluth, and Player Piano, by Kurt Vonnegut.
Pining for the fjords
On a recent trip to China, I could not help but notice the number of people using Kubuntu. It was everywhere, far more prevalent than all the linux distros that I see here in Australia.
.