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."

11 of 624 comments (clear)

  1. But then ... by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:But then ... by athdemo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Highly doubt you'll ever see Apple putting OSX out for the x86 market. If they do that, Dell could push out a bunch of mac clones for way cheaper than Apple themselves offer. They wouldn't be as pretty, but it wouldn't be in Apple's interest anyway. The people who want OSX right now have to buy a Mac, too, and that's how they like it. (Well, you can pirate osx86, but you can pirate everything)

  2. hard to parse much? by XaXXon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Was the triple-negative really necessary?

  3. Re:What about Macs? by kyrhash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

  4. hmm by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:Help us government, because we can't win? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > "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).

  6. Re:Help us government, because we can't win? by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:why ship with no system installed? by EXMSFT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're not stupid. The average consumer doesn't want to install their own OS. The average consumer cannot install their own OS. The author of the post makes several assumptions that the average consumer is just as much of a tech-loving, curious prosumer as he is. They aren't.

  8. Re:Help us government, because we can't win? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  9. Re:What about Macs? by Tsagadai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A computer manufacturer also can't support every single OS out there.
    Of course they can. All they have to do is make their hardware work to a set of common standards. That's why so many different operating systems work on different hardware already, the manufacturers' made there hardware open and follow standards and guidelines. It's pretty simple really the only reason they don't is they are producing a shitty product or they are lazy. There is a 3rd reason that they are deliberately making their hardware uninteroperable but that is another issue.
  10. Not about Linux! by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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