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.'"
If Microsoft were letting OEMs sell either version of Windows for vaguely similar prices, it'd be okay. The issue is that they're effectively giving away Vista, while charging for XP. Now companies often can give things away as loss leaders, but monopolists are more constrained in whether they can undertake that sort of activity.
This case is somewhat unusual because most of the lawsuits regarding dumping are e.g. giving away IE to kill Netscape, not giving away one of your products to try to kill one of your own other products. But it's possible that Washington state business law (vs. federal anti-trust law) has something that reaches that.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
From the article: "They have been forced to pay substantially more to acquire the Windows XP operating system than they would have to pay in a competitive marketplace," the complaint read. A competitive marketplace? Seriously? This person could have purchased something else. She could have bought a computer with Linux. What did people expect? A "competitive marketplace for Windows XP?" Companies take products off the market or replace successful versions with newer, "better" versions. Microsoft wanted to quit selling and supporting XP. Was Vista "better" than XP? Most people would say "no," but that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft can still shoot itself in the foot and sell something else.
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. On the other hand, had I bought a more expensive version of Vista for my business (which I have not done), I would expect that Microsoft would throw in XP for free, maybe so I could run some legacy software for my business that was not completely tested or compatible with Vista.
This makes about as much sense as someone buying a coach ticket on an airline complaining about not getting free drinks like First Class. The alcohol really isn't the issue, even though it may seem that way.
Make love, not reality television.
Actually, where I work we paid 3x for Windows to run Linux on a machine. 1 for Vista, 2 to change that option to XP, and 3 we have a site license for XP.
Granted some of this was due to stupidity of people here, but the shear fact that we even had to pay beyond our site license for Windows to run Linux makes the phase "Microsoft tax" more than just a saying.
I completely agree with this.
Where is all this "modular operating system" i heard so much about? All the kickass features they went on about? The "change" we all wanted?
So much for that, yet another case of Microsoft's poisoned food.
When i saw Windows 7 Beta, all i heard was "VISTA VISTA VISTA VISTA" echoing in my head over and over.
Screw Microsoft, they can go to hell now, i am sticking with WinXP for now and fully switching over to Linux later on, i've had enough of their bullshit.
If they'd simply pulled the plug on XP totally, and said, "that's it, we aren't going to sell XP any more, because it's old and we don't want to be lumbered with the after-sales support forever", then that might be a legitimate manufacturer's decision.
But they didn't do that, because they didn't want to lose the netbook market. So they said that netbook manufacturers could continue to buy, install, and sell-on XP, but laptop manufacturers couldn't. When you say to a company, "We have a product, we're selling it to other people, but we refuse to sell it to you to work with your products, because we now want you to buy a different product from us", then that starts to get dodgy.
It's a bit like if a car-seat manufacturer has two ranges of car seats, their older smaller range and their new wider deluxe range. They want manufacturers to build the wider seats into all new luxury cars that can take them, but if they discontinue the older range, they'll lose the section of the market that supplies cars where the newer seats don't physically fit. So they continue to sell both ranges, but tell manufacturers that they are "banned" from selling the older seats fitted to the larger cars, even if those same cars have been sold fitted with those same seats in the past. That level of interference is getting into "illegal restraint of trade" territory.
The question is, how much control should a dominant component manufacturer have over how their products are used? Should they be allowed to micromanage what people do with their products with these sorts of restrictions and conditions? If a product has already been certified for XP, should they be allowed to then tell a manufacturer that they can still buy copies of XP, but they're are no longer allowed to preinstall them on those particular machines because new MS policy is that those particular customers should be buying something else? Even if this upsets both the suppliers and the customers?
Now to me, it sounds like MS are probably legally in the wrong here (as they have been so many times before when it comes to OEM contracts). And they probably know that they're in the wrong, but figure that the stakes here are so high that they'd rather break the law and worry about the consequences later ... after all, none of their suppliers are going to want to sue them for fear of unofficial retaliation.
So this customer has decided, look, this is complete s**t - I should be able to buy the current software that I want on the machine that I want, without my supplier saying that they aren't allowed to do that because of some arbitrary rule imposed illegally on them by MS. So she figures, (a) it's unlawful and unfair, (b) someone should do something about it, (c) the laptop manufacturers won't, (d) she has the receipts that prove that this illegal behaviour by MS has cost her money, and (e) if it's illegal, and she's provably been damaged by it, then she's in a position to take a stand and sue, and maybe have the court ruling force MS to stop breaking the law (as she sees it).
Eric Baird
It wouldn't hurt to offer a wiped hard-drive as a purchase option. Even if 1% of people would use it, it would cost extremely little to implement, and it would definitely not hurt other sales.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Okay, I want Windows 98 on my computer. I'll sue Microsoft to get it too.
The difference here is that there was not anywhere near the percentage of people that preferred 98 over 2000 as there are that prefer xp over vista.
Also back when 2000 came out, it was very easy to still obtain a machine bundled with 98se, for a long time.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
First of all, I can see that the m$ trolls are out in force trying to press everyone's hot buttons.
It's more than a little obvious how wrong this is. As has been pointed out already, the cost of the MS Vista OS is already rolled into the cost of the computer (aka, ms tax). If MS Vista is not the OS you want, you should not have to pay to have the MS OS that you DO want. Especially since it's still available, ie XP. The cost of the OS has already been applied to the product. The fact that the retailer was stupid enough to pre-install Vista knowing how much people have spurned it is evidence of their own short-sighted ignorance. They should have to eat that extra cost of labor to remove Vista and install XP. And if MS is forcing them to bundle, then this suit is even more justified.
Further, the original intent is to purchase a new computer, not a new OS. MS is trying to force people to switch to Vista and this is just another attempt. The customer should choose which OS (if any) they would like installed.
If I'm going to buy a new computer and the only way the computer can be purchased is with win-D'ohs already installed, I will not buy it unless they discount the cost of the OS, the labor to install the OS, and the cost of all the paper work they must do to satisfy MS's requirements. Otherwise I buy a computer somewhere else.
The car analogy that was used is not appropriate. When someone wants to buy a new car, they go looking for the most recent production-year cars. If they'd rather have an older model, they can easily get last years models by buying a used car. They aren't being forced to buy the recent production year. And by the way, they don't have to pay full price for the older car. Maybe nobody should have to pay full price for an old OS.
This worn-out OS bundling strategy proves once more just how worried MS is. Now they're just desperate.
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
Thank you. I was all set to defend the GP for knowing how not to use the word "myriad." I set out to find proof refuting your Wikipedia citation, and instead learned that I've been an ill-informed snob where this word is concerned for years. Seriously -- thanks.
I am not left-handed, either!
the market for computers without an operating system is zero, so nobody sells them that way
Not true... we have a site license with microsoft for Windows XP and Vista. If a manufacturer *requires*
us to pay them as well, we've bought it twice.
Also, we buy lots of Dells with their DRAC cards (remote console, power, and other independent monitoring/control) just
because we want a server with that feature, but we never need an operating system to go with it. (even if we did, we have site licenses for redhat linux, Microsoft windows variants, Sun solaris x86, etc... we'd be pissing money away if we accepted a bundled OS.)
This certainly differs from the average household user, but many of those household users already OWN a license to Windows XP. They need not buy another one, but I'd recommend it just to have someone else go through the pain of initially installing it onto modern hardware.
The difference is when Lenovo is not allowed by Microsoft to sell you XP, even though they can still sell it to business customers and it's quite obviously available from Microsoft (otherwise you wouldn't be able to buy XP period). It's Microsoft pushing it's new product on a market that did not want it by coercing machine sellers to not sell anything but Vista, and charge more for the permission to put XP on it.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
It amazes me how easily people in the U.S. accept abuse. "... businesses in the retail chain" sell what Microsoft gives them to sell. Microsoft has a virtual monopoly. Microsoft is able to force abusive practices.
Microsoft DELIBERATELY released a KNOWN-BAD operating system. Why? To make more money.
Read the story on Slashdot about the email sent by top Microsoft executives. They KNEW Vista was troublesome.
And, they've done it before: Windows ME and DOS 4.0 are only two examples.
Microsoft 'Vista Capable' Settlement Cost Could Be Over $8 Billion
HP's Fury At Vista Capable Downgrade
Confidential Microsoft Emails Posted Online
You cannot put together your own laptop at home and then choose the operating system.
I've done it a few times. Maybe YOU can't, but I can.
By threatening to withdraw XP from OEM sale entirely (and we've another deadline next month, I believe) they've pushed many OEMs to switch their product line entirely to vista, despite strong demand for XP from their actual customers.
By withdrawing XP they've made OEMs switch to using downgrade rights on vista instead; Vista Home Premium and Vista Ultimate are the only versions of vista with downgrade rights (to xp pro) in the licence, so home premium (the rough equivalent of xp home, price wise) cannot be downgraded to xp home.
The OEM licence programs costs are often mostly the 'upgrade' cost to vista business rather than the XP side of things; something that could have been entirely avoided if microsoft had allowed dowgrade rights in vista home premium too, or even just kept selling XP.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Intel 2.2-3.6GHz or AMD 1.8-2.6GHz with 1GB to 2GB of RAM and 80-320GB of HDD space and a Geforce 6200 or the AMD equivalent.
Sorry that I can't put it in nice list form, but ever since Slashdot went "web 2.0" I haven't been able to make lists. I'm a repairman not a web designer, dammit! But I work with both home users as well as SOHO and SMBs and I can tell you that the home users are at the above. Most of the SOHO and SMBs are actually running a little less than that because as long as the software required to do business works they simply see no ROI for buying new hardware. As I was telling a SOHO customer today I truly believe for most home users and small businesses we have already passed the "good enough" stage with computers and more and more folks are going to be fixing what they have instead of buying new.
And MSFT forcing Vista has helped with my business since nobody around here wants it. Thanks MSFT! I have a customer who is about to throw $120 at me after having thrown $50 to recover his files because 4 hours of trying to run Vista with a 2GHz AMD with 1GB of RAM and he said "I'll pay whatever, just make this damned evil thing go away and make XP come back." so I found a former customer who has a brand new copy of XP home sitting in a drawer for $70 and with another $50 for me to throw it on he will finally have his Windows XP. Of course Walmart won't give him his money back for Vista Home Premium(He asked if I could sell it and I told him none of my customers actually WANT Vista) so he paid over $100 for a doorstop. But that's what happens when you don't listen to your repairman. I told him to avoid Vista like the plague, but would he listen? Nope. Sometimes lessons are painful.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The market for computers without an operating system is zero, so nobody sells them that way.
Curiously, I bought one that way just a few weeks ago. It was offered with Vista-SomethingOrOther preinstalled, but the shop also sells it without Vista and knocks euro100 off the price (I opted for them installing a second 1TB disk instead of the discount).
Then you get to choose how to put an operating system on it.
Simplicity itself. It took about 1 hour for a largely unattended install from CD of Ubuntu 8.10 64bit (plus formatting time for the disks). This included getting updates over the network (we have a fast link). Ubuntu recognized and supported every bit of hardware, including the dual monitors on the graphics card.
Now how many people can actually do this? Oh, maybe 1%.
Don't underestimate people, or the ease of installation of modern Linux distributions. The majority of people between 15 and 50 could probably manage quite well, and a decent fraction of those between 50 and 70. Of those aged 70+, it might be 1%, I'll grant you. To get a PC connected to internet, no further configuration would be needed after installing Ubuntu.
Since I have a home LAN with server, network printer, and a few PCs, I had to do some post-install steps - add more users & groups (easy), configure NFS (not particularly challenging) and install HPLIP, which automatically found our network HP printer/scanner/fax and set up the new PC to use them. These steps would have been necessary on any OS, and would not have been any easier.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
they can tell you down to the last penny how much it costs
It's a lot easier to keep track of one company's pricing than 10, especially when they only have 5 or so different models on the floor.
All I can say is, try using OS X before you assume the only thing Apple has going is polish. There's no good reason to judge a computer system based on who's using it rather than its technical merits. Reading the pro/anti-Apple posts on here makes me think we're back in the days of people flaming each other over BBS because someone had a Commodore and someone had a Tandy.
Anyway, how can you say that Apple doesn't sell to the masses? It's not like it's this boutique product that only 2,000 people have ever used. They have close to 10% of the market.