How Pirated Software Impacts Free Software

jmglov writes "Dave Gutteridge has an unusual take on why people are not interested in saving money by using a free-as-in-beer OS like Linux or *BSD: because Windows is free. At least, that is an all-too-common perception, thanks to bundling and piracy. Bundling is a well-known problem to the adoption of open source operating systems, so Dave takes a look at the piracy issue in depth. His title may offend you, but his well-written article will most likely get you thinking hard about the question, 'how much does Windows cost?'"

Comments

Windows isn't free

[gilesjuk]

OEM licences are cheap, but if XP lasts for 5 or so years and in that time you upgrade your computer 3 times then you've bought OEM Windows 3 times.

Even if you buy a boxed version of Windows XP then you will still have to pay for OEM XP with each PC. This is the injustice in the way Microsoft bullies OEMs into not selling naked PCs.

Re:Windows isn't free

[ZakuSage]

I'm not entirely convinced it is -just- Microsoft's "bullying" that keeps OEMs from selling naked PCs; they don't think consumers want naked PCs. Most computer users today are... well idiots who wouldn't know how to install an OS if their life depended on it. Beyond that, most people know Windows and want to continue using it.

Re:Windows isn't free

[phalse phace]

I could be wrong, but I don't believe there's much of a demand for naked PCs. I used to sell computers and often times customers would ask me whether the computer came with any software, namely Windows (and sometimes MS Office), or not. From my experience, not only do customers want Windows to be pre-installed, but they expect it to be.

The same can even be said about a few customers who expected MS Office to be pre-installed too. "What? I'm buying a $500 computer and it doesn't even come with Office? How come?"

Re:Windows isn't free

[jmorris42]

> I'm not entirely convinced it is -just- Microsoft's "bullying" that keeps OEMs from selling naked PCs;

Think ten seconds and you will realize just how wrong you are.

First admit that us geeks here on /. and other places aren't exacly legion compared to the hordes of mass consumer electronics buyers but we ain't exactly zero either. Now thought experiment time. If Microsoft were honoring their agreements NOT to enforce illegal per CPU licensing deals what would be the reason for EVERY manufacturer to have a policy where anytime a Linux crank called em up wanting to buy a machine without Windows to just say, "OK, done. Subtract $20 from the listed price. That is the difference between a stock machine with Windows and one without after we have to manually open the carton and remove the CD and blank the drive. Order 50 and we will talk about saving ya some more." Kinda amazing that instead, after over a decade of us asking, NOT ONE SINGLE MAJOR VENDOR WILL DO IT. Dell now offers preloaded Linux but it still isn't a naked machine sold for LESS THAN WINDOWS. Even Dell's N series machines usually end up costing the same or more than the same hardware loaded with Windows when you play the coupon, rebate and daily special games.

What each and every vendor refuses to do, against all economic theory, is offer what a small but non zero minority of customers have been yelling loudly for over a decade for, to be able to buy a naked PC that is in every way exactly like the same machine offered with Windows, sold for a lower price without a preloaded copy of Windows. Always smoke and mirrors and the naked or Linux preload ends up the same or more and you can't shake a sneaking suspicion you paid the Microsoft tax anyway and they just kept the media and sticker. There are enough of us that basic economic theory says ONE vendor would have satisfied the market unless Microsoft is still illegally distorting it.

Re:Windows isn't free

[nwbvt]

"What each and every vendor refuses to do, against all economic theory, is offer what a small but non zero minority of customers have been yelling loudly for over a decade for, to be able to buy a naked PC that is in every way exactly like the same machine offered with Windows, sold for a lower price without a preloaded copy of Windows. Always smoke and mirrors and the naked or Linux preload ends up the same or more and you can't shake a sneaking suspicion you paid the Microsoft tax anyway and they just kept the media and sticker. There are enough of us that basic economic theory says ONE vendor would have satisfied the market unless Microsoft is still illegally distorting it."

Lets pretend for a second that WalMart, Dell, and now soon Lenovo have all sold or announced the intention to sell computers with Linux pre-installed (and at lower prices than their Windows brethren). Yeah, they might not be that much cheaper, just a few hundred bucks (compared to the cost of the rest of the machine which can easily be over a grand), but thats about how much Windows costs.

If you really are a die hard computer geek, there is a good chance you won't even buy from a major vendor but just build your own machine. And many of the rest of them want a dual boot machine so they can play games that are only available on Windows. And despite what we say around here, Linux has never been big on the desktop, which is what these computers you are speaking of are sold for. It is primarily used on machines like servers (where you can easily buy it preloaded). Thus the minority of users who will buy a naked or Linux PC is very, very small indeed.

And the cost of selling machines without the standard OS is not non-zero. They have to pay to support them, install them (in the case of Linux preloaded machines), sell them, stock them, and then deal with all the cranky old ladies who didn't understand what they were buying and accidentally bought a computer without an OS. So actually economics states that it is not necessarily a profitable idea.

Price model

[Bombula]

The guys at M$ are pretty smart. There's a good argument that Windows is too expensive, and that if it was cheaper more people would buy it and that would both discourage piracy and boost the company's profits. But consider the article's point in that context: if Windows was cheaper, it would get rid of the piracy that is staving off Microsoft's REAL competition: freeware.

Maybe this is just tinfoil hat stuff, but could this all be part of Microsoft's strategy? Are they that smart?

OSS is not free.

[micromuncher]

Not sure why there is this pervasive myth that OSS is free. First, it costs people time to develop and contribute to OSS projects. Not all OSS is successful; a lot expects that others will contribute to grow the usefulness of the software.

Then there is the configuration and maintenance cost. It costs people time to install and maintain a Linux OS loaded up with software. Support isn't always free for applications. A lot of OSS software I've seen pushes the "Here is the *tool* free, now pay us to train you, and/or make it work for you."

Call me flamebait or a troll. I just don't think piracy equates to free. A lot of people know that copying Windows (or software of choice) is theft. The problem is the perceived value of the software, and OSS has a similiar perception issue...

Re:OSS is not free.

[nurb432]

Execpt that piracy isnt theft, and OSS is free to the USER, which is what the discussion is about here. Its not about development 'costs'.

The fact you can buy support doesnt mean you have too.

windows vs linux

[ianare]

Yes, windows is free for many people, whether pirated on bundled. However, it is the pain and grief (the viruses, the malware, the ridiculous restrictions, the evil DRM) that is caused by using windows that will make people want to switch, not a diffrence in retail price. And people seem to be switching, however slowly.

Re:windows vs linux

[shellbeach]

Switching to another SO is hard for anyone. But for my mom who barely know how to write a email imposible. If your mother can barely write an email in Windows, chances are she'll find linux no more daunting.

Seriously, I hear this all the time: "I can't switch to Linux, I don't even understand Windows!" ... to which my response is, "If you don't understand Windows, what have you got to lose??"

Re:Very true....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's one of the common problems. (I'm the AC from the parent post) My wife did not have the OEM CD anymore, if she ever had one. The XP Home license sticker is still on the machine, but now it runs Win XP Pro in another language (it's English now)

I'd be willing to bet that Microsoft, the BSA and the court systems are going to rule this installation "pirated" and I can't blame them. However, what was I to do? This machine was reinstalled way before Ubuntu became viable. (I reinstalled it in 2004 or so, I think...)

Many new computers don't even come with CDs anymore: the waiter in my favourite restaurant has an Acer and one day we came to talk about his computer. A quite nice system but he has tons of problems. I suggested a reinstall, but he doesn't have the CDs. I'd say I'd help him if he finds the CD. I'm not going to hand out copies of my Corporate Edition CD to other people. I don't want it to get blacklisted by Microsoft.

Re:Wow!

[jmorris42]

> Ummm, that's not exactly an insight. Any story here about software in China mentions that point.

The point was that is isn't just China. And it is a good point, but one I have realized for years. It's why I don't make a big issue of the free beer aspect in discussions. Because Windows is free, almost nobody ever sees a line item on a ticket for a Windows license. It either comes preloaded or bootleg.

Which is the big point the linked article got wrong. Microsoft would never officially make Windows free for home users because it would hose the preload arrangments and they are THE key to maintaining the monopoly. The second problem with the piece is the assertion Microsoft can't acknoledge the benefits of piracy, they have in the case of the third world and China.

Linux must be better than Windows on the merits, disregarding the stocker price. The Thinkpad I'm typing this on came preloaded with XP Pro. It hasn't accumulated a day of runtime in the four years I have been using it. Guess that says how value I see in it.

I kept it just in case I needed to update firmware or call for tech support and they wanted to insist I show the problem exists in Windows. At some point I figured I had better boot over and let it update to SP2 so as to avoid being a menace to the Internet if someone ever used the Windows side. After which it now silently updates the firmware in the Cisco WiFi card at every boot and now I have to remember to reflash it back before shutting down anytime I let XP start. Big disincentive to NEVER boot that turd.

Re:Very true....

[jawtheshark]

Isn't something "Terminal" often a big bad virus/malware infection? For many people it is and they do not know how to back up their data. USB disk or not.... I have heard of people that lost the first three years of their childs digital photos due to a "computer failure". I bet it was a big bad virus infection and they just replaced the machine without even trying to save it.

Look, I've found a P-IV 1.9GHz/512Meg RAM in the dumpster a while ago.... Completely functional.... W2k fully infected.... A clean Linux install and I was working with it again. Sure, it isn't the fastest machine, but it's nothing to spit at either. The W2k license sticker was still on it too....

But yes, I agree that it was bad advice from the tech to avoid mentioning backups. However, people have gotten used to losing data due to "Terminal Computer failure" or when buying a new system. It's just how computers are supposed to work... at least that's what they think.

Re:Very true....

[StikyPad]

Everything has a cost. Linux generally costs me a lot of time -- more time than it's worth to me. If it ever becomes massively popular, I'd install it again, but as it stands there's little incentive for me to use it, and plenty of disincentive: from compatibility issues and poor hardware vendor support to the general PITA of learning the nuances of a particular version of a given distribution. The slow pace of change and universality of Windows may make things boring, but (to invoke the car analogy), there's something to be said for having the same set of controls everywhere and knowing those controls well, even if they aren't ideal (and Linux is far from ideal anyway in many respects, IMHO).

I do like the robust nature of Linux, the ability to have multiple logins, and the endless possibility for customization, but those aren't things I need as much as the virtually endless array of high quality Windows software, vendor support for hardware, and the relatively limited Windows versioning that makes troubleshooting much, much easier. There's never a need for me to try to have multiple versions of compilers and libraries installed side-by-side; if I'm having a problem with a Windows application, it's never a peculiarity of a particular distribution (or version of a distribution) to blame*, and obviously there's never a need to reboot into Windows to use some application that doesn't have a Linux equivalent, or to play a game. I'm not wealthy, but I definitely have very limited time, which makes the decision easy for me.

* Obviously there are issues with applications and major version changes in Windows, but it's typically much less of a problem, and an infrequent occurrence (albeit thanks in no small part to the unintended consequence of a glacial release schedule).

office is a better example

[bwy]

There is definitely a valid point to be made about the circumstances surrounding "Free Windows." For me, though, Office is a better example. Consider the facts: Office is pretty much never part of an OEM pre-load unless you pay for it. So everyone is aware of how much it costs.

You can buy a $350 Dell and then add $150-$400 for Office. I'm not sure if non-students qualify for the $150.

Yet the fact that so many people "require" you to use Office makes me think they assume it is free, which can only mean that everyone pirates it. For example, I was interviewing for jobs once and submitted my resume as a PDF generated with OO. They kicked it back and said they needed it in Word format so they could index it properly. I know OO saves in Word format, but I don't trust it for someone as important as a resume. Without a test machine with Office, it is hard to know what formatting/conversion defects might appear that would make me look like a dufus to the prospective employer. (Now cue the "you shouldn't work at such a stupid place anyway" comments- you're probably right!)

Also I've heard some schools require kids to do work in MS Office at home. Are they really telling parents they have to go out and spend $150-$400? Or do they THINK they're telling parents and kids to use something they already have? If they already have it, how many of those are pirated copies.

So yeah, if it suddenly became impossible to pirate office, I really think that at a minimum, schools would change their tune.

I'm not a MS basher, and try to stay pretty objective. But the fact that we, as a society, have convinced ourselves that we HAVE to use Office and make our own policies enforcing it's use... well, it drives me nuts! It is such a cliche by now, but still so valid- most people don't use 10% of the features in Word or Excel.

Re:This may be a "grey" area ...

[Winckle]

And you don't get the vendor specific apps. Downside?

Re:Not true

[rudy_wayne]

"People don't want Linux not only because Windows is free, but because Windows is much better."

This is the unpleasant truth that nobody wants to admit. Linux is free and yet every day, millions of people all over the world use pirated Windows instead. On a level playing field (Linux = free, Pirated Windows = free), people overwhelmingly choose Windows. If Linux was anywhere near as good as Windows it would be far more popular than it is today.

You can claim that Linux is better. That's your opinion. Just like people used to swear that Beta was superior to VHS.

The author of the article repeatedly claims that everyone should switch to Linux because it's "almost as good as Windows". Unfortunately it's not. When the best applications aren't available on Linux, that's not "almost as good". When you have to carefully pick and choose your hardware because only a few have Linux drivers, that's not "almost as good".

I've tried to like Linux. I really have. Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu. But it is vastly inferior in all the ways that matter. And the actions of millions of people all over the world shows that they feel the same.

hardware and software are cheap compared to time

[bcrowell]

For many people, both computer hardware and computer software are cheap compared to the time they spend using their computer, dealing with computer hassles, etc. For someone who's a professional graphic designer, for example, the price of a nice mac with a big screen, and copies of all the Adobe stuff, are just tax-deductible fixed costs of running their business. For people like this, the most important consideration is maximizing their productivity. If they're already used to Photoshop, then switching to GIMP isn't likely to make them any more productive. Ditto for switching from Windows to Linux.

Since it's all about time for professional users, any time spent screwing around and getting the dang thing to work is a disaster. I'm not sure whether Linux is significantly less usable than Windows or MacOS X at this point; the question probably can't be answered because it involves a lot of value judgments, lifestyle choices, and personal issues like technical and educational background. But what I'm absolutely certain of is that any computer is a lot of hassle to set up and maintain. Slashdot users may consider that hassle to be a kind of fun, but that's not the case for most people. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that Windows, MacOS X, and Linux are all about equally full of hassles. Well, the person who is already running Windows has already worked out the hassles with Windows. It's going to take them a huge amount of time to work out all the new and different hassles of a different OS.

Now that was all about professional users. The article's points about cracked software are mostly relevant to students and casual users. To a student, it may really make financial sense to spend a weekend obtaining and installing a cracked version of Photoshop, because he simply doesn't have the money to buy a legal copy. The thing is, it's very common in the retail world for businesses to offer different pricing to people who have different personal priorities about money versus hassle. Airlines sell first-class tickets, but they also sell economy tickets. Supermarkets give their best prices to people who have membership cards and who are willing to clip coupons from the Sunday paper. The existence of cracked copies of Windows is another example of the same thing. Microsoft is very happy that a broke college student pirates Windows, because the student doesn't have the money to pay for a legal copy, and if he wasn't using bootlegged Windows, he might get in the habit of using some other OS.

Re cracked software, I think there's another phenomenon that the author of TFA isn't cluing in on. Commercial software tends to exploit users. For example, I've bought Mac software (Mathematica) that wouldn't work on my new Mac because it had a later version of MacOS; their response was that I needed to buy a new version of the software to work on the new OS. In the same era, I bought some Mac music software with a copy protection scheme that involved inserting a special floppy every time you wanted to run it; I bought a new mac, which didn't have a floppy drive, and the software company told me I needed to buy an external floppy drive in order to keep running the software. A very common experience is that you buy software, find out that certain functionality is broken, and are forced to pay for an upgrade in hopes that it will fix the bug. The whole computer hardware and software industry runs on principle of the upgrade treadmill: software companies arm-twist you into buying new versions of software, which then won't run or don't perform acceptably on your hardware, so you have to buy new hardware. One response to this (my response) was to switch to Linux. But a completely different, and not so unreasonable, response is to fight back by pirating your software.

Re:Very true....

[schon]

Everything has a cost. Couldn't agree more.

Linux generally costs me a lot of time -- more time than it's worth to me. Funny, I'd say the same about Windows.

When it comes to installing, Linux is much simpler and faster (and thus cheaper). When it comes to configuration, Linux is (again) easier and faster. Software installation? No contest (try comparing MS Office with OpenOffice packages.)

Then you have to factor in administration and update headaches (Linux is a one-stop-shop, updating in the background, whereas Windows update does the base OS, but then I have to update all of the other software manually.) Not to mention anti-virus and other associated headaches.

Even with a "$0" price tag, Windows costs *much* more than Linux.

Re:Very true....

[markov_chain]

The posts in this thread remind me why I like Linux so much. Look at all the trouble to deal with anti-piracy stupidity. Sure, Linux users will go back and forth about editing arcane configuration files but this stuff is asinine.

Re:Very true....

[arth1]

If it's anything like the Acer Laptop I just bought, there's an 8 Gig partition at the beginning of the drive.

There's at least two problems with that approach:

1. It won't just restore Windows, it will wipe anything else you have put on it. I.e. it's worthless for those who use both Windows and another OS.
   
2. It won't work if the reason why you need to reinstall is that the disk is borken.
   

It is also very hard to upgrade the disk on a system like that, but, of course, the manufacturer and Microsoft would both prefer that you buy a new laptop...

Back to the original post, I think it is dead wrong, and that Windows is bundled makes it worse than a perception that it's free. People feel they have paid for Windows, and feel they should use what they have paid for. I am certain there are people who don't want to blow away their $300 OS for a free OS, just because they feel they have paid for it, and they don't want to appear as fools who pay for something they do not use.

Re:Very true....

[totally bogus dude]

I recently re-installed my laptop to give it to my parents. It came with XP Professional, but I couldn't find the installation disc (if it even came with one). So I just used the XP Pro image I happened to have lying around. This required a VLK of course, so the key on the sticker on the laptop doesn't work. Just used a keygen to get it to install.

So, that laptop would be classified as running a pirated copy of Windows, just because they still try to prevent you "stealing" their software by limiting access to the shiny discs (and because I was too lazy to download an OEM image so the key would work). Furthermore, I don't have to activate this version of Windows, so yet again: the pirated version is more convenient than the legit product.

Re:This may be a "grey" area ...

[Poppler]

Codecs are a big deal too - for example, a clean install Windows XP is not capable of playing DVDs.

Re:False pretenses...

[SL Baur]

That article was nothing more than a perfect example of a classic Dvorak troll. Read through the rest of the comments here. I think the article is dead on.

I've spent most of the last 4 1/2 years in the 3rd world and I may have seen a legally purchased copy of Microsoft Windows once, but I'm not sure. Many of the posters here are confirming that the same kind of copying goes on in the developed world too. Philippine internet cafe folks have to be able to run games because their strongest market is children playing games.

In regards to home users, not really much do discuss; most believe that MS Office is part of the OS and don't know where apps start and the OS ends, this will be a tough group to educate If that's the case, then any Linux distro would do just fine and there would be no need for any education. My mother did fine for years on a Linux box I set up (in 1998) and she was and still is computer illiterate.

Re:Very true....

[Eivind]

True. With proprietary software you frequently get a lot of stress, even when using completely legit software, dealing with problems DELIBERATELY put there by the manufacturers. Like games that don't want to play because you've got some piece of software installed that *could* allow you to run the game without the CD. (notably daemon-tools prevents quite a few games from running, *unless* you run them trough daemon-tools, ironically.)

Re:Very true....

[schotty]

A company I consulted for was in a real pickle -- they had the licenses for most but not all of the software. Some whitebox systems were using pirated or cloned keys of existing software or just flat out pirated stuff. I advised to either pony up the cash needed for the licenses or go FLOSS (OpenOffice, Zimbra, etc.). They chose the latter route, but took a bit. A pissed off employee that overheard the conversation got to the BSA before I could even start making an image of a server to do Zimbra, and roll out the whole company on OpenOffice (Parallel installs with MS Office on the LEGAL copies). Microsoft and another company that did proprietary stuff were pretty damn cool about it all. They asked for proof of how long. They told them to talk to me. I verified a guesstimated time and the response was simple. Since you are using it, something needs to be paid. But since management was unaware of the previous tech's misdeeds and your advice that was heeded (they didnt get 2 hours from talking to me to the BSA's contact call), that the cost will be nominal. And it was. What was nearly $5000 was a mere $2000 and it all went away.

Intent does play a part here. Don't try to skirt responsibility and don't cheat the system. In my case the previous tech's name was given out to the BSA and presumably MS is going after him/her civilly. He was the criminal here.

Hope this adds some insight to the topic here. Not a clear answer, but something to ponder.