Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sued Over Vista-To-XP Downgrade Fees
Krojack writes with this excerpt from Computerworld:
"Los Angeles resident Emma Alvarado charged Microsoft with multiple violations of Washington state's unfair business practices and consumer protection laws over its policy of barring computer makers from continuing to offer XP on new PCs after Vista's early-2007 launch. Alvarado is seeking compensatory damages and wants the case declared a class-action suit. ... Irked at having to pay a fee for downgrading a new Lenovo notebook to XP, Alvarado said that Microsoft had used its position as the dominant operating system maker to 'require consumers to purchase computers pre-installed with the Vista operating system and to pay additional sums to "downgrade" to the Windows XP operating system.'"
She had paid the "Microsoft tax" already, on the purchase of the PC.
Why should she have to pay another "Tax" to [downgrade to] something that works???
A pox on Microsoft...
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
This would be like suing ford or gm for not continuing to keep last years engines for sale in new cars... this is just silly.
--- no sig to see here... move along.
It should be my RIGHT to choose - ie. not to pay for Vista if I'm not going to use it. A sale is a sale, Microsoft shouldn't care whether it's Vista or XP.
No sig today...
There's a big question about whether the courts can punish a manufacturer for what businesses in the retail chain sell.
I'd like to see MS taken down several notches, but unless there's some smoking gun, I would expect it.
Put identity in the browser.
The OS she wants is Windows XP. Why should she pay for two operating systems if she's only going to use one of them?
No sig today...
And their history of anti-competitive behavior, I'm not sure this is the right case. Now if the case was making hardware makers decouple the hardware and software costs, that might be different. If MS could raise the price of XP in a competitive environment, even if they're competing against their own products, more power to them. The only element that's not right is the one that's been wrong for a long time. MS using it's monopoly position to run the OEM's and leverage their market position to freeze out competition. This case doesn't really get at that. Sounds more like someone whining they can't get XP.
But today there are a lot of good operating system choices. MS isn't the only game in town...as far as you can get past the OEM issue...not even the best game in town. If you could buy a retail copy of Windows from someone like Dell, and that cost was essentially the same as the price quoted on a new PC or laptop, then the market can really decide what the best OS for the money really is. When you don't have a choice, you don't have a market.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The OS she wants is Windows XP. Why should she pay for two operating systems if she's only going to use one of them?
You can't always get what you want. But if you try some times, you just might find that you get what you need.
I don't know if it's a weird psychological experiment you're doing, but after reading your title "Just give her Windows 7", I read your post as "and call it eleven".
Microsoft deserves every last bit of it. make it stick, make it hurt.
I'd like to see computers sold at a price and have the OS as an option. Car makers deal with optional engine types and other optional features. Why can't computer OEMs.
If you are going to buy pre-made computers with an operating system, what do you expect? The market for computers without an operating system is zero, so nobody sells them that way. You can, however, put your own together for often somewhat less than the cost of the pre-made computer.
Then you get to choose how to put an operating system on it. Usually, for most people, it is very expensive to do this because you end up paying full retail price for the operating system. Whereas the pre-made computer folks are selling you a finished product with an operating system they paid $50 for instead of $200 like you can.
However, if you have a site license, are paying for MSDN, Action Pack, Empower or any one of a myriad of other programs, you pay zero for the operating system on your nice put-together computer.
Now how many people can actually do this? Oh, maybe 1%. Do you think you are going to get anywhere selling a product that only 1% of the people in the US can actually use?
I'm no Microsoft fan, but it sounds as if $59.25 to get a completely different commercial OS, XP, isn't an egregious fee when you purchased the crummy consumer version of the newer OS, Vista.
In order to purchase the XP 'downgrade', you also had to purchase Vista Business. So the actual cost over Vista Home was closer to $150 dollars. Linux, or no OS, was probably not available as an option, arguably because of Microsoft's unfair business practices.
No, it's not like that at all.
Closer would be buying a First Class ticket, then being charged extra to move back into the almost empty coach section.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
It IS your right to choose. And when Lenovo tells you that they're selling a machine with Vista on it, and you choose to buy it, you're making your decision. I know it may sound crazy, but if you don't want a PC with Vista, you shouldn't buy a PC with Vista.
I'd be a bit more sympathetic if they didn't tell her it came with Vista, but that doesn't seem very likely. All of the machines on lenovo.com make it very clear which operating system they have installed. And when you buy a machine in a store, there's almost always a sticker on the box listing the OS, amount of memory, hard drive storage, etc.. She knew what they were selling, and she chose to buy it.
Maybe not
That is an example how Microsoft gets the blame for the policy of the OEMs to treat their customers badly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't these users *opt* to downgrade knowing there would be an additional charge?
Not to mention that the charge is from Dell or HP or whatever OEM, and not Microsoft, but the customer opted for it.
I'm sure there's a poor car analogy for this, but I don't even need one to point out how dumb this appears on the surface. Maybe there's just something I'm not seeing?
-David
You should frequent people outside of IT a bit more...
Anybody upset that they can't buy a MacBook with an older version of OS X?
Not really because older versions of OS X are slower and less featureful versions. With Vista versus XP you have a slower version and one with certain "features" designed to make it harder for me to do things and make MS money in the process.
Of course legally the real difference is MS has monopoly influence in the market (desktop OS's) whereas Apple is only one of many sellers of desktop computer systems and laptops. With Apple a user has a viable option, whereas for OEMs buying an OS to put on computers they sell they generally have only one viable option and with that power comes requirements as to how it is used. If an end user can show MS unlawfully used that influence in a criminal way that is costing the end user of the system money, then they have a case.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that it would cost Dell more to offer a "blank hard drive" option, since with that option Dell would actually have to spend less time on those machines (not having to install an OEM copy of Windows).
I think it's the monopoly status, honestly. It changes the game a lot. I agree that normally they should be able to charge whatever they want, but we're still looking at a desktop monoculture. And if you are a monopoly with lots of government contracts, charging twice for your most popular product is a quick way to get lynched.
They got off pretty easy with the DoJ so I can't say I feel bad either.
Unfortunately, that's not an option for laptops.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that it would cost Dell more to offer a "blank hard drive" option, since with that option Dell would actually have to spend less time on those machines (not having to install an OEM copy of Windows).
Not hard-pressed at all. Without an operating system, they can't install all of the crapware. And if they can't install the crapware, they don't get kick-backs from the crapware companies for putting the advertising on all the computers they sell.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
No. The difference is that Microsoft was still selling XP. Just not to everyone, only to certain customers. Or if you really, REALLY wanted it, you could pay for both Vista AND XP. Because they abused their market control to push Vista on consumers who didn't want it by making XP cost more than Vista.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Don't judge the victims, they don't know any better. It's amazing what a billion dollars a month in advertising will do to people. "Get the facts" and other smear attacks on competition do their damage. OEM and Vendor lock help to reinforce this. With every vendor robotically chanting, "We recommend Microsoft Windows" and never providing a fair price for any other OS, people believe what they have heard from everywhere else. With the FUD, many people are afraid a LiveCD will ruin their computer and think free software advocates are wreckless subversives, terrorists of the desktop even. This is how M$ has survived the last 10 years, despite the absolute panic free software caused in their upper ranks.
It's all over now. No amount of lying can cover for Vista. Enough of the wrong words have gone into the right ears. M$ is out of money. OEMs have been burnt and see Windows7 as more of the same. Retailers are so dead, M$ is thinking about starting their own stores - oh please do! The revolt is on and M$ does not stand a chance.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You are forgetting that PC makers have to pay microsoft for windows whether their PC actually includes windows or NOT.
Those are the terms to be able to sell windows on PC, if you don't like them as a maker, you are free to get windows from another vendor. Oh, wait, there is no such entity ? tough luck ... guess you're stuck with what is called the microsoft tax.
Microsoft are within their right to no longer sell XP if they wish
Yes they are. But they're not doing that. They're forcing their new product, knowing it's crap, and then offer XP.
Update for Windows XP (KB959252)
Install this update to resolve an issue in which you receive a 0x0000008e Stop error after you install security update KB954211 (MS08-061).
2/6/2009
That's not my definition of "archaic", sorry.
If you are going to buy pre-made computers with an operating system, what do you expect? The market for computers without an operating system is zero, so nobody sells them that way. You can, however, put your own together for often somewhat less than the cost of the pre-made computer.
You can't even buy a computer WITHOUT an operating system even if you want, how to prove that the market is zero if the option is missing?
We are paying Microsoft Tax - even if we don't use their operating system. And if we do, we may pay it twice because their licensing terms screws us.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
ROFLMAO.
Mac Pro: comes standard with 2 x 1GB sticks of memory - 800MHz, DDR2, ECC. Let's try 2 extra 1GB sticks of memory. Apple price? $500. NewEgg price for 2 x 1GB sticks of Kingston 800MHz DDR ECC memory? $67. So only 650% markup there, after all, Apple's gotta make money somehow, right? What with them being competitive on hardware pricing and all, like you say. 16GB, 4x4 GB. Apple price? $4,300! Sorry, I'm still crying with laughter at your claim about comparable pricing. NewEgg? $604. Still, it's better, only 610% markup. Let's not even look at the 32GB option, Apple only wants the price of a new car for that...
Oh, but "everyone" knows, you don't buy memory from Apple, right? How about hard drives?
1TB SATA 7200rpm hard drive. The Apple price? A steal, at only $450. Aww crap, there I was thinking I could get one from NewEgg for under $100! Oh, wait, $99 IS under $100! Score!
Let's try a video card. ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro. Wow, Apple's almost competitive there, $130, versus $55. First we've seen with under 200% markup!
Maybe I'm not being fair, the Mac Pro is a "workstation" class machine, after all. Let's try the MBP.
Let's jump from 4GB to 8GB. Tossing aside 2 2GB modules for 2 4's. Apple: $1,200. Confusing, as they're only $360, even without the subsidized cost from the 2 x 2 you were going to get anyway. Let's be charitable, and call it $250.
Hard drives, 256GB solid state drive, same story, $750, though same drive at NewEgg is $540, and you're not subsidizing with a 320GB drive already, which realistic vendors only want $70 for.
So to cut a long story short, tell me again how Apple isn't overpriced.
The standard response to this is that OS X is worth it.
Being someone who is platform agnostic and generally uses many platforms, I don't agree.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
What you think is totally irrelevant.
Courts in more than one country have decided that Microsoft is a monopoly, therefore in those countries they are legally a monopoly and are to be treated as such.
RTFA. Lenovo didn't provide a breakdown of the fees, but Dell did: their charge was $20 for installing XP *instead of* Vista, and $130 for providing a Vista license (which the user didn't want) as well.
This is a situation where the car was built with no engine, and the work required for installing either engine is the same, and there's zero warehouse costs for the engine, and the car manufacturer wanted and asked the engine manufacturer to keep the right to install the 2006 engine, but the engine manufacturer said they were only allowed to install the 2008 engine even though it had lower fuel efficiency and significantly reduced the car's performance and maneuverability.
So Microsoft should be forced to sell XP indefinitely and provide support for it indefinitely?
So we should be allowed to force companies to sell products that they don't want to sell? Its their choice to sell what they want to sell. I don't care if they have a government-defined monopoly. There's way too many opportunities to switch to another OS. If MS is pissing you off, go for a Linux or go for a Mac (though I'd rather you didn't).
MS said well in advance they'd stop selling XP. You have no right to complain that you can't buy it after that point in time. She could have purchased a laptop with Ubuntu and purchased her own copy of XP from newegg or something. She was in no way coerced to do anything.
I use Windows and Ubuntu. I have my issues with MS and I want to try out a Mac, but the cost of entry is too high to justify buying one just for fun. No one is forced or coerced to buy any OS. If they don't know any better than they should try educating themselves about it. Ignorance is NOT a defense.
Sell computers with whatever you want installed, but require an activation key to be typed in in order to use it. Sell the activation key for an extra fee at checkout. If you don't activate, you're free to wipe your computer and use it as you wish.
Kind of like when you get a new credit card in the mail. You need to call an 800 number before you can use it.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Yes, because the average consumer can afford $1000 for a laptop and...what $2500 for a desktop that actually has an expansion slot? The reason Apple is hip is because it is expensive, same reason as Ferrari. I live next to a college with a good 75% Apple to PC ratio, and while they can't tell WHY an Apple is good or WHAT makes it hip, they can tell you down to the last penny how much it costs. When have you seen that with a Windows user?
In fact now it has become a pissing contest with the "Macbook Pros" VS the "Macbook Airs" with both thinking they are better than the other. Trust me, if they sold Apple computers for the same price as Dell they would go down in flames just as Porsche nearly went broke when they tried to sell a cheap sportster. Why? Because it ruined the exclusivity and thus the "cool factor" of owning a Porsche. That is why Apple will never sell "to the masses", because it will kill their high margin business selling to those that buy for the name, like BMW and Mercedes Benz.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Well lets take this a little deeper. Microsoft was convicted of illegal activity based on the deals they did with OEMs. It's a valid compliant, when you consider the popular choice is probably popular because of criminal activity.