Slashdot Mirror
Countering the Arguments Against Unbundling Windows
An anonymous reader sends in a link to a blog posting by Con Zymaris arguing for competition regulators to force the unbundling of Windows from consumer PCs. The argument takes the form of knocking down one by one the objections raised by "unbundling skeptics."
"GASP! Windows won't be FREE!"
So many people only use Windows because they think they didn't pay for it. That's why they have such a low expectation of quality - when it crashes they say - Well, I didn't pay for it, so its not like I can ask for my money back."
Unbundle it and let the competition flow. I can see Apple doing a big push for OSX as an aftermarket product. Also, Novell's openSUSE 10.3 is a keeper.
Was the triple-negative really necessary?
From the Article: "What about the Apple Mac? Shouldn't that also have the OS X operating system unbundled? No, for two reasons. Firstly, the Apple Mac is a product with hardware and software from a single vendor. If Microsoft wanted to sell a Windows PC that it itself made, then this also wouldn't be a problem. It would substantially tick off Microsoft's hardware OEM partners, but wouldn't be a problem from a competitiveness perspective. In fact, if that happened, there would be a substantial acceleration of hardware partners adopting alternative platforms, like Linux. Secondly and more crucially, the Apple Mac doesn't have 95% market share, and the immense leverage that such market share delivers unto Microsoft. If Microsoft Windows only had 5% of the market, then there would be no pressure to unbundle it from consumer PCs. We wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place."
Sure us nerds can sit in our ivory tower and say that people would like Linux (or other alternatives)because they won't know the difference. But the truth is: people don't want to do backflips for an operating system in order to make it work the way they want. Windows just plain works for the vast majority of people. I guarantee that the unbundling of Windows from PCs in the EU will have no effect on Microsoft's sales just because people will use what they are comfortable with.
The game.
> "I would think that if Linux was that much better than Windows, that consumers would demand Linux powered PCs. If you build it, they will come."
Most people don't even know about the possibility of alternatives. To them, a PC is any computer that runs Windows, same as, for a long time, the Internet was Internet Explorer or AOL.
The cost of an OEM Windows license is a large portion of the cost of a new machine, compared to any time in the past. For the cost of Windows and Office, you can buy 2 or 3 computers with no OS, and install linux. the problem is, the consumer is not given a choice, so we don't know how many would take the opportunity.
Since that choice never happens, software developers develop for the Windows platform, ensuring lock-in.
Of course, now that Novell's openSUSE can run Windows in a window in a VM, there's more reason to buy a new machine with linux, then move your old copy of XP or 2k to a virtual machine on your new box, rather than paying the Microsoft tax a second time (and yes, you can move your license to your new hardware, despite what Microsoft tries to FUD. Just make sure you remove it from your old hardware at the same time).
Most people don't even know about the possibility of alternatives. To them, a PC is any computer that runs Windows, same as, for a long time, the Internet was Internet Explorer or AOL.
You miss the point. Buy a thousand motherboards, chips and cases, put Linux onto them, then walk into computer stores and sell them. There's nothing that precludes you from selling Linux PCs of your own brand.
Surely, someone could sell Linux PCs, preloaded off the Internet, or even through a catalog. At one time, Michael Dell built PCs in his dorm room and sold them over a catalog. Instead of trying to get the government to force Mr. Dell what to sell, why can't you sell what you think should be sold.
Please, spare me the excuses. Microsoft has no monopoly power over you, if you sell Linux powered PCs.
This is my sig.
I read tfc but I guess I'm stupid. I'm all for unbundling, but why can't I pick an OS and have Dell/Hp/whoever install it for me before shipping? I don't think the avarage consumer wants to install their own OS.
Actually, I think you're missing the point - competition only works when there is no pre-existing monopoly that got there via illegal means.
We depend on the government to step in to protect us from predators who use illegal means to gain control of a market, same as we depend on them, via police and firemen, for local protection from robbers and fire.
Extreme situations call for extreme measures - unbundling sales of the OS isn't anywhere near extreme. To turn your argument on its head - if Windows is so good, it should have no fear of being able to compete in a truly free marketplace, solely on its merit.
Free competition scares the crap out of Microsoft, because it can't win. Where its forced to compete, it loses market share - just look at the embedded, server, and cluster markets.
It isn't. No matter how you try to cut it - geekiness is ingrained into the culture.
Look! This text is on a different line.
I used <br> tags.
Slashdotters are so used to doing things in a technical way that they disregard the very real usability issues that surround Open Source. If I put text on a different line in this textbox I should not have to know or care about the br tag. This is FOSS's greatest barrier to adoption in a nutshell.
Shh.
I guess it opens another can of worms: what constitutes your own branded OS? If Dell buys the rights to use the Windows source code, makes some superfluous changes, and calls it DellOS... can they bundle it? Are you going to start regulating the source of the OS source code now?
There are better ways to break the MS monopoly if you are so inclined - break off the company's OS division, for instance. Or, force the company to license its code. Or, split MS into two companies with identical product offerings. Each of these is a one-time move that would probably remedy the situation, whereas the solution in TFA would require constant regulation.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
1) Microsoft is a convicted monopoly. Apple is not.
2) Microsoft has a hugely bigger install base than Apple does.
3) Microsoft does not make computers or bundles of hardware/OS. Apple does.
Forcing Apple to play by the rules that should apply to Microsoft doesn't make sense; not now, anyway.
These articles that talk about how Microsoft is shoved down our throats read more like Geek fan fiction than actual good policy. Its as if the writers fantasize about a way to show people Linux is the one true Operating System, and the only way is to take away the convenience of using Windows. No manufacturer is FORCED to bundle Microsoft XP or Vista with their hardware. They have the option of not including an operating system at all, or also selling Linux versions. The reason this is not more prevalent is that there is no demand for it. If there were wide demand for pre-installed Linux boxes, they would be out there all over the place. I can recall quite a few Linux boxes that were sold as ultra-low cost alternatives to Windows boxes and they failed in sales quite badly. One of them that comes to mind was sold at ALDI. Microsoft may have unethical tactics, but to force changes on the way computer manufacturers bundle and sell their equipment is an exercise best left to communist and socialist countries where the government knows better than the consumers and businesses in the market place. There is no barrier to computer sales that I can see. If I wanted to, I could sell a director_mr brand computer tomorrow. BUT BUT no one would buy it you might say. That is because the demand for computers is being met adequately by the marketplace. If you really think there is demand for pre-installed Linux boxes then sell them, and become the next Dell or Gateway or HP. Forcing Dell or Gateway or HP to be what YOU want them to be by changing the laws and making them become that is VERY inefficient and foolish.
... without the regulators taking sides...
Attempting to stop a convicted monopoly from dealmaking that excludes competitors or allows them to collect money per PC regardless of the OS isn't a matter of regulators "taking sides". It is stopping said monopoly from abusing its position further, and actually giving competition a chance to thrive in an area despite the monopoly's best efforts to exclude.
Who claimed they did want to install their own OS, and what does that have to do with bundling? Bundling is unrelated to pre-installation.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
actually, the evidence seems to suggest that advanced users of windows have a more difficult time switching than novice users. A novice is used to clicking through menus and trying to figure out the buttons, whereas a more experienced user already knows shortcuts and practiced movements. So, given a stable install and a novice-friendly distro, grandma may actually be more successful with Linux than the experienced gamer just my $0.02 would make a great study, any graduate students in need of a thesis?
"The craziest part is, you obsess over Dell PCs, and Dell's are the biggest stock part PCs of them all. They don't do anything special - stock motherboards, stock CPUs, stock graphics cards. There's nothing Dell puts into a PC that you could not put into yours when you sell it."
All my PCs are self-built (laptops excepted). Been like that for years and years. I have never owned a Dell or a Gateway.
"There's absolutely no reason a consumer could not benefit from that offering, and its not Microsoft's fault that you Linux people are too big of pussies to actually sell your own offerings."
Actually, now that Christmas is coming, I plan to give away a few hard disk/openSUSE install combos as small presents. I know a few people who are running windows on hardware thats 2-3 years old, and could use both the extra disk space, and the stability of linux. They'll be able to continue running Windows via a VM (no longer a need to dual-boot) until they get used to the new setup.
There's tons of Windows users out there who are only a hard disk away from running linux. They get to keep all their old data, they don't have to shell out big bucks for the latest bloatware, etc.
If every linux user did this for just 2 people this Christmas, Microsofts' stranglehold on the market would be over in a year.
If Windows had a package system like rpm for its internal parts. If you're setting up a server, don't install the gui. If it's a gaming machine, don't bother with all the database stuff. For a development machine, install everything. Windows would actually be a lot more interesting and useful.
"Naaaah" - Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber
Quite an interesting topic, but I prefer arguments that are contrary to the position opposite of that which counters the arguments against unbundling Windows. Or to put it another way: for unbundling windows. I know it's not quite a triple negative, but it's very unclear and I see this type of writing all the time in slashdot head-lines. If you're against someone who is not for undoing something, then just say you're for undoing something, or against doing something. Reduce it to its logical minimum. Why not use "Countering The Arguments For Keeping Windows Bundled", or "Countering the Bundled Windows Apologists"?
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
A minor aspect of the article's proposal that I like is the requirement that the manufacturer include an MS Windows recovery CD. Some manufacturers don't do that, even though you are paying for MS Windows. The last HP machine I bought had no CD. Instead, it had a hidden "backup partition". That's okay if you just want to reinstall the system after it has been corrupted, but useless if the drive dies or you decide to replace it with a larger one.
Unless people consistently mount /home as noexec, malware will be a problem for Linux or OSX as soon as the get market share (based on Firefox I would say 10-20 percent is the magic number).
.rc files or whatnot, it is plenty useful as a mail relay, or a pop-up maker.
Once something gets into a users
Virii in the traditional sense probably won't be as bad, but do they even exist anymore?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
points.
The ideal situation is where every PC vendor must sell the operating system as a paid option for the PC. This helps people decide if they really want to pay for it, and doesn't force many people to pay for software they are going to rip out anyway. Selling a bare PC with both Windows and Linux on separate media is bad for the consumer, bad for the OEM (more tech support calls, etc), and so forth.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Again, the question isn't about competing with Microsoft. Microsofts' model is dying - who wants to compete with that? Then you'll be worried about the next linux-like thing to come along and eat your lunch.
Boy, I wish I could die like Microsoft. They have double digit growth in both revenues and earnings per share, and are set to pass 50 billion dollars in revenues this year. For all of this talk about Google competing with Microsoft, Google's revenues remain a paltry few billion a year.
Yeah, that sounds like dying. Boy, I hear them death rattles now... Microsoft, on the verge of shutting down... except for that "oh we made 50 billion dollars this year part". Microsoft makes more in one month than all Linux distributions -combined-.
This is my sig.
Did you read that article at all? It says, the proportional cost of bundled software climbed from 5% to 50%
.NET, for business applications development
Ah, but what's the proportional value of the software? See, you need to think more like a salesperson. Cost is irrelevant. It's the value that is added. And, look at all the value Windows adds to a PC..
a) You have Direct X 10, for games. And, there are a ton of games for Windows.
b) You
c) You have a pretty good web browser. Yeah, IE has its flaws, but it works pretty good for most people. That is, I can go to the baseball site, get the scores, and it works.
d) You have interfaces to a whole bunch of consumer appliances, from digital cameras and video players, and more.
e) Vista has a really cool sound model that I am eager to play with.
f) Unicode (UTF-16) is built in from the ground up. NTFS stacks up well against Reiser and ExtN for most applications. Remote Desktop and Terminal Services for Windows work really well...
This is my sig.
Why does every unbundling argument always seem to boil down to forcing end users to install the OS from scratch? An unbundled option can be:
1. Preinstalled Windows
2. Preinstalled Linux
or
3. Blank Machine
It only needs to be another line-item option in the system configuration. OEM blows the correct image and includes a Windows CD + Sticker for Windows customers, and a Linux CD for Linux ones, and nothing for the blank customers.
Come on, this is trivial. Just have the assembly tech plug the drive into a fixture, hit the correct image choice, and bingo-bango, it's ready.
Astroturf bingo number 3, claimed for B26.
God this is stupid! This isn't about lack of choice, it's about whiny nerds upset that the world doesn't work the way they want it to. What's the problem now? Linux adoption not fast enough for you? I've got two computers on my desk, neither of which have windows on them, and neither of which EVER had Windows on them. There is no need to "unbundle" Windows from computers because you can already get computers without Windows.
This won't harm Microsoft, it will harm PC manufacturers and resellers, who will bear the entirely of the market disatisfaction with the unbundling. People will still buy Windows, only now they will be paying Microsoft full price for it.
The big hurdle you whiners need to get over is that Windows has 90% market share because people have voluntarily chosen to buy Windows or PC with bundled Windows. It may not be the choice you would have made, but that give you no excuse to government and its police to impose your will on others. IF this is that important to you, get off your high horse and go out and buy a computer without Windows on it. Sheesh.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
But here is where we get into the Catch-22: no bundleware vendor wants to build a product for a platform that has a small install base. Linux's install base cannot grow if it cannot compete. It cannot compete if people can buy a PC with MS-Windows for a "nominal price", which they can only because bundleware is made available for MS-Windows.
It's a simple matter of complex programming.
That's a great answer if you're more anti-MS than pro-consumer. The pros and cons of unbundling for a consumer don't change whether the vendor has 1% of the market or 99%.
Unbundling windos is not about Linux. It really isn't.
It's about opening up the market to other competitors. Another Beos? Another OS/2? There is no reason why there should be only two OS available for computers, one of them only managing to still stick around because it's free (in both senses).
There is no operating system market. Unbundling windos is about re-creating that market. Innovation (not only in features!) only happens in a free market. That's what this is all about.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
IF, and this is a big IF, Microsoft was forced to charge full retail price only, they would sacrifice the tiny retail market in a heartbeat and reduce the price to same as the existing OEM prices.
Okay so people are saying "Put Ubuntu on it", "No, put OS X on it", "No, put Fedora on it".
Either it comes with an OS bundled, or it doesn't. If it does that OS is getting users in an anti-competitive way, if it doesn't users won't have a clue what to do with their computer.
Also face it; there's no way computers with an OS other than Windows is going to be sold by default, because everyone expects and is familiar with Windows and understands Windows applications.
People freak out enough over Vista, which other people say didn't have enough changes; imagine someone handling a new OS with all different software that won't run their old software. Forget it, come back in a decade after a long weaning process and maybe the "debate" will be worth a look.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);