Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer: Don't Expect Simpler Licensing Soon
nk497 writes "Steve Ballmer has admitted Microsoft's licensing is too complicated and contains too much fine print, but has no plans to change it at the risk of angering shareholders — and even customers who benefit from the confusion. "I'm sure we have fine print we don't need. We're not saints," he said, adding that customers have a way of figuring out how to pay the least amount of cash possible to use Microsoft's software. "Customers always find an approach which pays us less money.""
We take advantage of MSDN, it's MUCH cheaper to pay for MSDN subscriptions for our technical staff then it is to pay for ~2/3rd's of our environment (Dev+Test). It's also nice to use Windows Datacenter licenses to pay for an entire stack of VM's.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
customers have a way of figuring out how to pay the least amount of cash possible to use Microsoft's software
Yes. It's "Format C:" followed by installing some flavor of Linux and Open Office.
buy it and you're fucked.
"Customers always find an approach which pays us less money.""
Other than piracy, switching to Mac or Linux I don't know what he means? Sounds like sour grapes. I guess he feels his paycheck should be bigger. It's a wallet not a phallic symbol.
So it's official. Everyone's a pirate, always on to lookout to pay less for more... So, in conclusion the real copyright problem (and licensing is a part of copyright) is the customer! Solution: Get rid of customers! Save Copyright! License as complicatedly as you like, never again worry about fine print or versions galore, be all you can be...
Steve Ballmer is such a whiner.. Oh poor us, customers don't want to pay us /cry. Make a product customers actually want to buy and you won't have this problem!
I'll give you a hint, their customers are not the admins who actually have to comprehend and create policy/procedure to abide by License terms. They have two primary customers.
1. The retail consumer who doesn't read EULA's and willfully violates them.
2. The purchasing manager/executive class.
Sysadmins aren't on that list.
Moreover, Mr. Ballmer is giving the implicit nod to violate the terms of the license agreements. Guess who loses on that deal? The sysadmin!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
It looks like most of the article takes small quotes from Ballmer and presumably paraphrases the rest. There aren't a whole lot of quotes form Ballmer himself. And the slashdot summary is even worse. Firstly, he appears to be referring to companies with this quote, not end user customer type peoples (emphasis mine):
But he claimed that the finer details of the licensing system give some companies the opportunity to save money. "Customers always find an approach which pays us less money," he claimed.
Here are some of the *other* quotes from the article that the summary left out.
"Every time you simplify something, you lose something that people used to save money," he added, suggesting that even minor changes to the system could hurt some of its customers.
"The goal is to simplify without a price increase," Ballmer said, adding: "Our shareholders want simplicity without a price decrease."
He added that customers donâ(TM)t want simplicity for the sake of it, claiming that the last time Microsoft tried that route, customer ratings of the firm "plummeted for two years."
Ballmer seems to also be noting that shareholders and customers want two different things: shareholders want Microsoft to charge more and do it more simply, and customers want Microsoft to charge less and do it more simply. Everyone wants it simpler, but simpler+price-decrease and simpler+price-increase are two different things. But don't read what he really said. Just assume he means the worst and let's pretend that one of the largest (the largest?) software companies has a complete idiot in charge and that EVERYONE knows he is an idiot but they keep him there anyway. Or something like that?
"Customers always find an approach which pays us less money."
No no no... *some* customers find ways to pay as little money as possible. Since Windows rarely, if ever, goes "on sale" though, most people who follow the rules just pay full price or pay the Microsoft Tax when they buy a new computer. Factor in school deals, corporate deals, etc. and you have a crap-ton of licenses being sold for the Microsoft-price (the one they agree to).
They should have enough by now to start their own country.
No shit. When was the last time Microsoft did something the customers wanted, instead of forcing them to "take it or leave it". When was the last time any Office application didn't brake file compatibility with previous versions. When was the last time you felt like you actually own a Microsoft software product, and don't have to rent it AND justify yourself every time you need to install it on a new computer? Last time some Microsoft protocol didn't break compatibility with competing, or even older own protocols? I don't know, it feels like forever.
Licensing issues are really just the tip of the iceberg of this Satan's spawn called Microsoft.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I said this once before and am still convinced. All this self-inflicted damage is a secret plan to have Bill Gates make a comeback, just like Steve Jobs, and "save" Microsoft. If Bill isn't initially included in this plan of theirs, Ballmer is certainly ensuring that Gates loses enough of his stock gains to force him to come back and work again. Between the goofy ad campaigns and Ballmer's "Microsoft DOES suck" speeches, why wouldn't Microsoft begin to crumble. From the inside.
He added that customers don't want simplicity for the sake of it, claiming that the last time Microsoft tried that route, customer ratings of the firm "plummeted" for two years."
Unless Microsoft sees its product as being licenses rather than software (which is entirely possible, now I think of it) this is daft. People have to interact with the software on a daily basis. They only care about licenses when they get in their way... which is more likely to happen if they don't know what they're buying.
"Customers always find an approach which pays us less money."
That's okay Steve, Microsoft always finds a way to make clunky, insecure software: There is balance in the Microsoft universe.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
As a past employee of a Retail store, I know for a fact that they always find a way to make customers pay much more then is necessary for everything they can, up to and including OS's. I don't know how many people were sold on "Media Center" functionality they never used and that's just scratching the surface. As for the Obligatory Open Source comment, our licensing is much more simple. http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing
The CUSTOMER is - and has always been, and will always be - KING ! Do what your customers demand, at a price they're willing to pay, and tell your shareholders to go scr&w themselves. If you create a happy, loyal customer base, the money will come - in truckloads, usually. Shareholders ? No way to please shareholders, ever - dumb enough to invest, dumb enough to suffer for it.
It's remarkable really. Even MS support can't tell you consistently what you actually need to be legal for a given situation. Call three times with the same scenario and get three different answers.
Talk about business risks, you're just begging to have the BSA commandos sweep in and decide that whatever you guessed (or what MS told you to do) isn't correct and you are now a dirty thief who owes a pile of cash. No, thanks!
If they're going to get all bent out of shape about license compliance, the onus is on them to make it possible to know with certainty what you must do (and spend) in order to be compliant. Given that their own support people aren't sure, I'd say they failed miserably.
Rule 1: You are out of compliance.
Rule 2; If you have reviewed your licenses and purchased additional licenses to cover any license shortages (plus additional licenses just to be safe), See rule #1.
Rule 3: If you think you understand Microsoft license agreemenents, you are either delirious or just not paying attention.
Rule 4: If you are a lawyer for Microsoft in charge of writing license agreements, see rule #3.
Rule 5: See rule #1.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
>> "Customers always find an approach which pays us less money.""
Maybe, if you simplified the licencing there wouldnt be as many loopholes, you dummy.
Anyway whats wrong with people optimising their purchasing decisions for cost? sounds perfectly reasonable and normal to me.
Microsoft's licenses takes into account your loopholes!!!!!!!!!
It.... envelops the customer with legalese!!!!
Sing it!
Envelopers, Envelopers, Envelopers, Envelopers! - Beat
Envelopers, Envelopers, Envelopers, Envelopers! - Beat
Envelopers, Envelopers, Envelopers, Envelopers! - Beat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_AP3SGMxxM
Like the US tax code, those with the resources will always pay less. Large corporations actually hire people to do nothing other than manage software licenses. Sure its great that it gives some guy a job, but other than him, who really benefits.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
Same here, until my last computer - that is.
Prebuilt consumer computers are really crappy. Take my latest HP Pavillion Quad Core as an example, after 1 month, the keyboard stopped working, after 3 months the wireless module went to wifi-heaven where little wifi things go (All wifi's goes to heaven, the movie), and after the 5th month, the DVD stopped accepting pretty much any DVD & games even though there where no dust. I'm just waiting for the next thing to break for no reason. At work it's the same thing, the pre-built one breaks down, not the ones I built - they still stand!
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
but has no plans to change it at the risk of angering shareholders â" and even customers who benefit from the confusion
Somehow, when I read that, it came out all different in my head... something more like:
"but has no plans to change it as the risk of angering the company's customers -- oh yeah, and you little people who buy their software might benefit from it too"
Remember when a company's customers were actually the people buying from them, and not their shareholders... or at least they pretended that was the case?
"I'm sure we have fine print we don't need. We're not saints..." Yes, because saints are always so clear and unambiguous, and never include sayings that aren't needed.
I never understand why people pay this idiot any attention, nor why shareholders continue to tolerate his "leadership." Yes, Microsoft continues to make a ton of money, and they pay a quarterly dividend and paid a big special dividend a few years ago. However, their share price has gone nowhere in 11 years. He should get "status quo" tattoo'd on his forehead, and perhaps "chair goes here" on his ass so he can remember where it goes after he's done throwing it.
Part of the reason that several of my past companies/clients drifted away from Microsoft was due to the incredibly complex licensing. You can do XYZ for this price, but only if you have up to N seats. After N+1 seats, you pay using an entirely new cost schedule (could be higher...could be lower)....etc. It got to the point where our "Microsoft sales rep" literally had to periodically visit us and attempt to explain how we could do a project with their tools while not running afoul of some obscure CAL fee that nobody even knew about. Combine that with the never ending upgrade merry-go-round and it is easy to see why companies just throw up their hands and look for a way out.
The champions at obfuscated contracts are the telcos. The whole point of their contracts is to make it near impossible to figure out how to minimize your cell phone bill. My wife's cell annual (business) phone bill dropped by thousands when a knowledgeable and honest salesperson clued her in. AFAICT, there's only one such sales person in our town (150,000 pop.).
I agree with the many other posters who say the only way to save money on Microsoft licenses is to use Linux. Just like cell phone contracts, there's no way a mortal human can figure out Microsoft's contracts.
Now the DoD is going to pay Microsoft to develop a new networking protocol for them (http://defensenews-updates.blogspot.com/2009/10/lockheed-martin-awarded-31m-research.html).
Wonder what licensing fees MS will charge for the "Military Networking Protocol" (https://www.fbo.gov/download/afa/afa738a71c6cbdf8024d54ec5e141a1a/2008_10_28_mnp_baa_final.pdf) or whether they'll even allow FOSS apps to license MNP?
Just like any other business or government body, the lowest bidder gets the contract. When the P4 came out, Dell stopped making good quality PC's and focused more on low bidder parts fulfillment.
Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
"We're not saints." -- Steve Ballmer
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Bing = Bing Is Not Google!!!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I, for one, am impressed with this new approach Microsoft is taking. Maybe with Apple's engaging in deceptive and anticompetitive marketing methods, Microsoft saw Apple taking tricks from their play book, so it was time for a new plan.
As you're probably aware, Microsoft has long since peaked. The only place they could go was down - and they have been, what with Vista being an epic fail, Office 2007's ribbon with no menu alternative alienating users, and the "vista compatible" debacle. Microsoft is desperate. Maybe they finally realized this: when all else fails, they could try the honest approach. That's right: honesty is Microsoft's new policy, to distinguish themselves from Apple.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
"Customers always find an approach which pays us less money." If that were true, wouldn't all of Microsoft's customers already be using Linux? (They still use Microsoft because they believe the costs of rewriting applications and retraining users exceed the cost of licensing the latest releases from Redmond.) I'm not even sure that customers even do a decent job of calculating Total Cost of Ownership, since they frequently neglect the potential cost of security holes, as well as the cost of not saving copies of all your licenses and then getting a visit from the BSA.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Stockholders tend to not care about 10 years down the road. They want their money now. If you are in MS shoes and you are being pressured to return to prior levels of financial growth despite being squeezed by Apple, Google, Linux etc., then the easy way out is to squeeze more licensing fees out of existing customers who's tool stack is based around MS products. They almost *have to* pay. The downside is that resentment is building which will start to bite back down the road. They ran out of logs and are now burning strips of cabin.
Table-ized A.I.
You know what fine print they don't need, probably can't enforce, and their support staff (or connect.microsoft.com) implies that you violate when they ask for workarounds when reporting an issue with their software?
In the section "SCOPE OF LICENSE" it actually says you can't work around limitations. Not sure when this was added, but it's in Office 2007, Visual Studio 2008, Silverlight, and who knows what else:
You may not: work around any technical limitations in the software
I have no idea why any license would specify that the user is not allowed to work around technical limitations. For one thing, there's not really any way to tell if a user is working around a limitation. And if users are working around a limitation, the software maker probably wants them to do that, rather than have end users just sit and complain that they can't do something because of some limitation. On top of that, these are applications that provide gigantic macro/scripting infrastructure and SDK's for automation so that you can build workarounds for any limitation in the software.
At that point, at least one of the following must be applicable:
1) there isn't anything left that could even vaguely classify as a limitation (and you paid a lawyer to write this in the EULA for nothing)
2) you paid a bunch of programmers to add extensibility features into your software that your end users aren't allowed to use
3) you also forgot to tell the product support team that anyone who calls in with a workaround has violated the terms of their agreement and needs to return the software
I guess at this point, the licensor should decide if the goal as a company is to sell and support software or to create overly restrictive and unenforcable license agreements, and quit wasting money on either the lawyers or the developers and support staff. As a licensee, I would probably just ignore all the B.S. so I can get my work done, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Microsoft to go all Metallica/RIAA and crack down on users violating their insane, counter-productive EULA. That is, unless my work is writing a book on workarounds to the lack of UTF-64 support in VBA that's keeping me from supporting the native character set of half the countries on the third planet from Alpha Centauri. Which it isn't, by the way.
He added that customers don't want simplicity for the sake of it, claiming that the last time Microsoft tried that route, customer ratings of the firm "plummeted" for two years."
Is talking about Bob?
No, serious question. Maybe he's referring to a licensing situation that I am unaware of.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Ditto here, from experience. My home brews just keep on going, and going, and going, while the pretty store bought machines that the wife likes fall apart. I don't buy the most expensive, highest quality parts either - just good, solid items with good reviews. The wife finally took a stab at her own home brew machine, without asking my advice. The result was only very slightly better than a store bought, because she didn't know which numbers to look at, and didn't take the customer reviews into account. Ehhh - she's learns slowly, but I think she's finally convinced that she should ask my advice next time around.
Step one: google for overclocking forums, visit them, and see what all the super nerds are using for mainboards. Choose popular mainboard that you can afford, then choose the fastest CPU you can afford for that architecture. Load it with memory, and proceed from there. Together, we've been burnt by a cheap mainboard more times than all other components combined. The uber-geeks have those boards figured out two days after the prototype hits the news! Using any of their top 10 favorites guarantees a good solid machine that will last a long, long time.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
>He added that customers donâ(TM)t want simplicity for the sake of it, claiming that the last time Microsoft
>tried that route, customer ratings of the firm âoeplummetedâ for two years.â
Hmmm...was that Microsoft Bob or ME?
--- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
I'll sell you a customized desktop system using SuSe, Ubuntu, or Fedora Linux at $150.00 per seat. If you prefer, I'll sell you a site license that permits you to install and use as many copies as you want for $1,000.00. WOW! What a huge savings. Anyone is free to take me up on this offer.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Step one: google for overclocking forums, visit them, and see what all the super nerds are using for mainboards. Choose popular mainboard that you can afford, then choose the fastest CPU you can afford for that architecture.
Absolutely correct. I also search the game/DVD copying forums to pick out the best optical drive.
I don't really care about copying that much, but the drives they like the best seem to be able to read everything without any issues, and do so at the highest possible speed. You also learn that the most expensive drive is rarely the best...there are a lot of $30 DVD writers that are close to the best you can buy.
I didn't understand this part of the agreement...I (Steve Ballmer) will personally kick a puppy for every copy of Windows Vista sold.
I have had easier licensing for TWO PLUS YEARS!
Yep... I use Linux, and none it of requires me to install spyware on my system just to install and use the OS.
Calling your customers crooks to their face, true or not, is not good business.
Thanks to your crap I was forced to use an OS which is far better and more secure to start.
Thanks!
1311393600 - Back to Black
Stop over charging for your software, and perhaps more people would buy it instead of pirating it.
but has no plans to change it at the risk of angering shareholders
Customers, Steve. Its all about the customers. Shareholders come and go, but customers need attention.
Take a lesson from Detroit. Build crap and your market share evaporates. Turn things around, start building quality and it will still take a generation to get those customers back. Sure, Detroit didn't have proprietary format lock in working for them. But customers are getting educated about that. Even if MS switches to all open formats, the memory of the old days will keep customers scared away for years to come once they've left.
Have gnu, will travel.
Comments similar to yours from our competitors bring nothing but cheer to my heart. Fortunately for our shop, Free software meets our needs practically from top to bottom. Not only does it meet our needs but it exceeds them in ways Microsoft can't. Not just in pricing but in functionality and flexibility. The interesting thing is, most or our competitors' infrastructures could be ran similarly but through a combination of sheer ignorance and the inability to ween themselves from the MS teet, they continue to needlessly spend millions on restrictive licenses while we invest the same money in things that actually add to the bottom line and help us grow. Consequently, in the recent economic downturn, we've thrived while some people I used to know in this business have just flat out gone under.
Not saying that Free software is for everybody because it isn't. You must have actual competent IT staff to wring the every last bit of value of it. A crew of MCSE's aren't going to cut it. We, with the help of a certain hire several years ago, saw the light and changed from being a complete MS shop over to Free software with very little problems. And it either meets your needs or not. But I'd be willing to bet that just about any outfit has some slack and could stand to save a few bucks on licenses somewhere.
First sale doctrine says you can. The EULA is moot.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Ballmer does appear to be an idiot. Under his watch, we've seen the Xbox with its expensive warranty, the lovely Zune, Office 2007, and Vista. I consider these failures that I'm not certain would have occurred if Gates was still in charge. Okay, I'm sure at least Vista made a boat-load of money and therefore can't be classified as a failure as far as the markets are concerned, but that's only because of their market position. Ballmer won't be able to get this free ride forever as other alternatives slowly gain traction in the market.
From what I've seen, Ballmer tries really hard, but he's just not that great of a CEO. Just my opinion.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
This starts with the RAM - I want ECC RAM for reliability. That alone disqualifies 99% of pre-built PCs.
Add some specific requirements like a fanless midrange GPU (because the fans on those tend to be REALLY crappy), and there is probably not a single pre-built box in the market that really suits my taste in PCs.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Even if you want Windows, it's nice to get the MS disc without the Bonus Crapware/TrialWare. Or even get a disc at all. :P
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
I believe (and, believe me, IANAL, so I could be wrong) that the phrase "work around technical limitations" is meant to describe things like disabling activation, enabling services that are present but turned off in the cheaper versions, eliminating the time limit in a trial version, circumventing DRM, etc.
The only customers of a publicly traded company are the shareholders. The consumers are a natural resource to exploit.
When I went to school, I told them I didn't want to do Windows, but wanted to learn Unix admin. They said it was "much to complicated for a novice" and I "had to learn Windows first to understand the basics". Translation: they didn't have a Unix curriculum.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
The Xbox (great success...they make money off of licensing anyway), the Zune (love mine), and Office 2007 (awesome once you get used to the new UI) are all great products. Vista lead to the paring down of the Windows kernel, resulting in the leaner Windows 7. I'd say MS isn't doing too bad under Ballmer.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Ditto here, from experience. My home brews just keep on going, and going, and going, while the pretty store bought machines that the wife likes fall apart.
They definitely can, but don't necessarily. I've had my share of dead components in homebrew machines over the years, that's for sure, and from reputable manufs. I've had ASUS and Intel boards just conk out. Not often, not all the time, but it happens, and it's no less annoying then, either.
Mmmm - yes, you make a point. But, I'm not certain that we understand each other's points, fully. Yes, Asus is a reputable mainboard company. One of the best boards I've ever owned is an Asus. It's already 7 years old, I've upgraded the BIOS twice, added peripherals that weren't supported when it was new - it's a great board. BUT - the wife's semi-successful homebrew is based on an Asus K8N board. It isn't as high quality as my SK8V, it was built for the abandoned socket 754, and most importantly, you won't find it in any overclocker's forum archives as an overclocker's dream. (In fact, it is marginally over clockable, but onboard video and the CPU both suffer from heat stress, and freeze up with a stock GPU and CPU coolers in place.)
So, I stress, don't rely as much on brand name, as the reviews in the over clocker's forums. If Mad Gamer posts about the outstanding stability of Asus model XXxX when overclocked at 5 Ghz, buy it. The wildly overclocked board that lasts him 6 months to 1 year will probably last for ten years in more normal service.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Vista, blech. xbox and zune hardware I have no experience with. Office 2007 was actually pretty decent, IMO.
Windows 7 is looking to be pretty good so far.
I'm not a fan of Ballmer... but I have a hard time believing the stupidity and idiocy that people attribute to him. From his educational background, he seems to be decently smart/intelligent, too. Especially when so much is taken out of context from the open-source-we-want-to-kill-microsoft people. Just like proprietary-we-want-to-kill-open-source people taken open source developers/leaders/companies out of context in quotes, too...
I agree you on product quality, and I use Macs, iPods/iPhones, and iWork (when I can), but Ballmer reminds me of any other arrogant and out of touch CEO out there, and is just a spokeshole for a collective of people who actually create cool things when they have near unlimited resources. I give him little credit but what the heck, give him all the blame, after all, that's what he is paid to do.
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
Stop over charging for your software, and perhaps more people would buy it instead of pirating it.
They should keep overcharging to encourage their customers to look for cheaper and better alternatives.
They have no intention of making it more simple. Case in point: I often see computers come in for repair that need a reinstallation. Where this is the case, we go ahead and reinstall from a disk we hold here providing there is a valid certificate of authenticity on the case or the customer can provide one. Recently, Microsoft stopped allowing the validation of that. The disk we were installing from would still accept the certificate of authenticity number on the side of the case, but then failed to activate. Microsoft's explanation for this is that you can no longer reinstall windows from ANY disk except the one originally supplied with the machine (convenient for Microsoft if, like many computers these days, it didn't actually come with physical disks but instead allowed the user to create "rescue disks" if they could figure out how) and that if you no longer have or never were provided with the original disk that came with the machine, then you have to buy a completely new license from scratch. This is a complete rip-off. If someone has a genuinely installed Windows, then they have bought the license to use one copy on one machine at any one time. This means they should be allowed to reload that one copy from any source should they suffer a machine crash, and should not be tied exclusively to the actual physical disk that may or may not have been supplied with the machine. The real reason MS licensing is so complicated is so that MS can move the goalposts whenever they see an opportunity to make money. The reason it's so complicated is to hide every new initiative to rip off their customers.
So those evil customers dont want to overpay.. go figure.
The licensing doesn't have to be so complex... Really it doesn't. its all designed to screw you out of as much as they can.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I recently purchased a netbook. At the same time, they sold me Windows XP OEM with a separate contract.
This contract was the EULA for windows and it clearly says within it, that "the SOFTWARE" (windows) is an entirely separate product.
It is a potential anti-trust violation to forcibly sell 2 products and not offer them separately (or offer individual refunds). Windows is offered separately, but the hardware is not.
Fortunately, the EULA states clearly that: I can request a refund for the software portion (windows).
Unfortunately, the manufacturer (a big one) will not honor the contract that I purchased and instead requests that I return both the netbook purchase and the windows purchase when I only rejected (requested refund) for windows.
The funny part is... that this corporation has an ethics page that clearly states that they will not do this:
=== quote ===
Red Flags - Potential violations of antitrust and fair competition laws (page 22):
"Agreements with customers or suppliers that ... condition the sale of a product on an agreement to buy other products?"
=== end quote ===
Source: corporate ethics page: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/ethics/index.html
Source: corporate ethics document: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/csr/sbcbrochure.pdf
THE REAL QUESTION:
Why does microsoft show no concern that most (all?) of their manufacturer's refuse to follow the lettering of the EULA contracts, even when not following the EULA in this way could be an anti-trust violation?
IMO: because Microsoft doesn't supply that EULA.
Let me repeat that: THE EULA FOR OEM WINDOWS IS BETWEEN YOU AND THE MANUFACTURER (Dell, HP, Sony, etc).
So, I think that all legal risk (aka: potential anti-trust violation) is offloaded to the Manufacturer. ie: no risk to microsoft. Even though... I'm certain Microsoft must be aware of this reality.
Just follow the instructions in the onscreen EULA in order to reject the licensing "agreement" (when was the negotiation?) and then claim your money back.
Then install Linux or whatever else you want.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Microsoft and the manufacturers can't have it both ways.
If they are pretending that an EULA is legally binding (big if) then they must accept that some people will not want to use Windows and will want a refund.
Very simple really.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I think that was "Microsoft Bob", and yeah - it didn't take the world by storm ....
Well, I tend to not buy boards for their "overclocking", though I get where your mind is on the thought process.
I tend to research and buy no-frill boards that review well (i.e. the last one I had that was rock solid until it flat out failed was an Intel D975XBX2).
Ironically, the systems that end up lasting the longest I end up eventually giving away to friends (i.e. - not a homebrew, but I got a used Thinkpad with a P-100 in it back in 1997 which I gave away 10 years later to a friend -- battery didn't work anymore, but the thing still ran win98 enough for Diablo II to work).
> If not, how exactly is installing 'some linux distro' and open office a way to pay the least for Microsoft software??
Because it's one of the ways to pay $0 for Microsoft software (which is, I hope, the least you can pay for it).
Or have you got some way to get paid for using Microsoft software without having to buy it? Maybe you're hosting Win7 "parties"?
"Being a grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation"
I see what you did thar!
One difference between the pre-built machine and the homebrew machine is when something does fail, you don't have to know anything about computers to get support on a pre-built machine. If it's under warranty it's taken care of. If you built it from components, the components may very well be under warranty but you'll have to determine which component is bad. Single computer households have a difficult time with this, especially when it's something like CPU, motherboard, or power supply. They don't have spare parts to swap in to test.
Open source software isn't always an alternative. I worked for a company that did software for the print industry, and there simply wasn't an open-source competitor. It's not like all you need are the basics. We supplied software that knew how to estimate print jobs, schedule the shop, manage inventory, handle shipping, all closely integrated.
Yeah, there were companies who said "no thanks, we'll roll our own". Perhaps they used open source. Didn't matter, because usually they showed up at our doorstep, a few years later, after discovering that having open source disconnected systems here and there throughout their company, written by someone who then decided to move on, really wasn't the way to go.
"I'm sure we have fine print we don't need. We're not saints,"
I think my head just exploded
I see the problem, you bought an HP laptop. Those things are absolute crap and have been since the end of the P3 era, possibly before.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
Just assume ... EVERYONE knows he is an idiot but they keep him there anyway. Or something like that?
More like: assume that its hard to fire a founding partner of an empire, even if he's useless. Humanity has a long tradition of decorative nobility and royalty. When your king of the hill you no longer earn authority with continued results, you just rest on your laurels until nobody cares anymore. Poor Steve, he'll just never live up to his past. He should work on something more important than his ego.
Not sure you can lump all pre-built PCs into one category.... I have a HP Pavillion Quad Core and it's the best machine I've ever owned. No issues whatsoever. And it was cheaper to buy than build the same spec machine myself.
Just sayin'
Gates in charge wouldn't have changed anything. MS is simply a drunken mummy blindly running into things, incapable of serious strategy. Software complexity left Gates in the dust long before he realized he was in over his head and left. The only job he had left to do that he was capable of was kicking a few asses when something was late or so screwed up a 5 year old could have set it straight.
A board that can tolerate being overclocked is likely to be under very little stress when running at its intended speed... A board that crashes as soon as you overclock it is already likely to be very close to it's limit...
That's why cars with big lazy engines generally tend to last much longer, they're under a lot less stress.
Same applies to a PSU too, if you run it close to it's max output it will be less efficient and burn out quicker.
A Thinkpad P100 is a fairly old machine (when systems were generally made to a higher quality) and the thinkpads themselves are fairly highend... Pre built machines can be extremely reliable if you buy highend ones, but you will pay a premium for them.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
So basically what he's saying is that between making the customer experience easier and extracting more money "per customer" the answer is always #2. I call monopoly. Any company that actually has to compete to sell its product cannot just choose #2 every time in order to satisfy "the shareholders."
When the bottom line is no longer fundamentally tied to the quality of the customer experience, we (not Microsoft) have a problem.
My school didn't offer any Windows development courses.
thinkpads themselves are fairly highend...
Were, it seems. The words I hear on the Lenovo versions are not particularly glowing.
shareholders want Microsoft to charge more and do it more simply
If he really believes that then he really is an idiot. What the shareholders actually want is for Microsoft to make more money, which can in some circumstances be achieved by lowering prices if the lower prices increase sales sufficiently.
One difference between the pre-built machine and the homebrew machine is when something does fail, you don't have to know anything about computers to get support on a pre-built machine. If it's under warranty it's taken care of.
WTF? An apostrophe-savvy anonymous coward? I must be hallucinating!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?