Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Countering the Arguments Against Unbundling Windows

Posted by kdawson on from the package-with-a-live-cd-and-wrap-with-a-bow dept.

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."

8 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. 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."

  3. 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.
  4. Re:What about Macs? by markdavis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is even easier than that. Manufacturers should be even allowed to PRELOAD MS-Windows and not include any other OS, if they want. As long as it is UNLICENSED. If the customer wants to ACTIVATE the preloaded MS-Windows, let them pay for it separately (for the activation code), and not through the hardware vendor.

    In this way, people who want MS-Windows have it. They have it quickly. They have it easily. They have it customized by the OEM. But people who do not want (or need) it, do not have to pay for it and are not pressured into it by the OEM. They don't have to order "special" models.

  5. 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.
  6. Re:Help us government, because we can't win? by Ian+Alanai · · Score: 5, Funny
    Nope, you don't need everyone in the Linux camp handing out hard drives like Scientologists hand out Dianetics.
    ...
    Really, all you need to do is set up a Linux PC company and run it kinda like the way Apple does..

    I thought you said they should not run it like a cult.

    --
    Whichever way you look at it, it's true. I'm not.
  7. 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