Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Is Investigating Why Dell Is Charging To Install Firefox
An anonymous reader writes "Dell is charging customers £16.25 ($27.18) to install Firefox on a newly purchased computer. We contacted Mozilla to find out more. The company told us it is investigating the issue and denied it has any such a deal in place. 'There is no agreement between Dell and Mozilla which allows Dell or anyone else to charge for installing Firefox using that brand name,' Mozilla's Vice President and General Counsel Denelle Dixon-Thayer told TNW. 'Our trademark policy makes clear that this is not permitted and we are investigating this specific report.' Dell has responded by saying that this practice is okay because the company is charging for the service and not the product."
I'm pretty sure it's illegal in the United States. If our law is ahead of yours, you guys are in pretty bad shape!
Someone is willing to pay me 16$ to install firefox, why would the firefox terms and conditions apply to me? I'm not selling their product.
did you forget to take your meds?
And it takes time for some Dell employee to do it.
Makes sense to me.
If they charge to add Firefox, will they give a refund for leaving off Windows?
The average Dell user probably isn't smart enough to do it themselves. The people who would pay for this are the same ones who have 20 tool bars and click on every "You won" and smiley face ad they see while browsing.
Dell also charges to set up bios parameters. Big woop
Michael's got to pay for getting his eponymous company back, and he won't be able to do that just by selling computers.
Is this really on the consumer side of dells sales? I've definitely seen it on the corporate side of their "premier" website. They also charge 6$ for a bunch of individual bios changes. If you're a big company getting a fleet of PCs and IT labour is at a premium then yeah it might be worth having Dell configure them instead.
The real question is what does the "Thank You For Choosing Dell" software do?
If you're a big company getting a fleet of PC, you normally deploy images on them, so IT costs are pretty much the same to build the image, or build the image+firefox
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
First off, I dont like the idea that anyone is charging to install Firefox.
However:
A common perception about open source software is that it must have no value because it is free. This is adding perceived value, making Firefox something worth having, because it costs money. We make poor decisions as human beings, and we are swayed by our perceptions. In a strange way this is validating Firefox as a worthy browser, and there are certainly some people who will hold in a higher regard simply because there is a price tag associated with it.
just go to ninite.com and select what you want installed. Everything is installed without adware or extra toolbars.
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
You don't seem to understand the situation. Actually, that was me just trying to be nice. You clearly have no understanding of the situation. Dell isn't selling Firefox, they are selling the installation service. This is no different than if you bring your computer to Circuit City and have them re-install Windows for you. In that case Circuit City isn't charging for Windows; they are charging an installation fee.
While most of us will see this as exactly what it is, to wit capitalizing on the ignorance of their customers, it is certainly legal.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Evner better, can't we now hit Dell up for a blank PC and expect to save like $400, after all if they aren't installing all those crap bloatware programs of theirs on it, at $30 a pop..
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
wow that used to be free.
But I think dell has tools that can be used to set bios stuff. But they don't work if the image does not work with the default settings.
Do you suppose that it might just be possible that it made it to the front page because many people found it interesting rather than bothersome?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
As someone who works in a repair shop I'll be the first to say that people are idiots. Sure they can manage to install programs, they manage to install every crap tool bar and fix it software know to man. The problem is that many people can't seem to find programs like Firefox without clicking on a crap ad or going to a link that bundles Firefox with even more crap software. Don't even try to tell them to type a Web address in to find it either. They usually type it into a search bar and find even more crap. Nothing is more frustrating then telling someone to type a website into the address bar to do remote support only to find that they're typing the address into conduit.
The price is ridiculous, but I don't see a problem with them charging to do the installation. OTOH Mozilla might have the right to limit use of their icons. But GPL is GPL, you have certain rights to redistribute. That's why IceCat (formerly Ice Weasel) exists.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There are still quite a few customers out there on satellite or dial-up modem service. Firefox install image is pretty small but still probably annoying to download at 56k baud.
You have 5 Moderator Points! Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
I do have mod points, and you seem to be making yourself a tempting target. Please don't tempt me to abuse my powers.
They aren't selling the software they are selling their time to install it for you. Big difference....
Evolution: love it or leave it
Pardon? Dell is installing Firefox on a customer's machine before shipping it to them. How is that any different from my installing it on a customer's machine *after* it's shipped to them? What if the customer ships their machine to me, I install Firefox, and then ship it back?
.
Dell is desperate for revenue at this point, and when companies are desperate for revenue they do customer-antagonistic things.
It is indeed interesting -- because it is controversial. Is there a more interesting part outside of the controversy that I am missing?
Which is against Mozilla's TOS. Not allowed to charge for installing FireFox.
How hard is that to understand, and why do you keep trying to weasel out of it?
Once this crap hits the fan, Dell may well be singing a different tune when it becomes apparent it isn't worth the publicity. I may be wrong, and you can give me all the reasons why, but consider this: It bothered enough people to make Slashdot's front page. Flame on.
There's no such thing as bad publicity.
As a service, this really does make sense. It takes time and knowledge to configure a computer. A lot of people are lacking in one, or both, of those departments. The price also makes sense when it comes down to installing an individual piece of software. It takes time to do so. For businesses, time is money.
On the other hand, consumers really ought to look for better deals. You can tell someone what you need and pay them by the hour to get a system that is tailored to your needs. If you need a bunch of stuff done, it'll cost much less. It will also be done according to your requests, which is something that Dell isn't equipped to do.
My gawd, are there no moral people/ companies left in this world?
You can't use trademark to prevent people from referring to your product. If you are, in fact, installing Firefox on the machine, you can say so, no matter what their policies say. This is "nominative use".
I just checked how much Microsoft Office Home and Business costs when put on a Dell computer - 179 USD, right there on the Dell site, for a desktop computer. It costs 219 USD at Big Box Mart and Microsoft itself
So uh... yeah. They're charging for free software. It's just taking advantage of the ignorant. Who might be your grandma. Or a firefighter. Or a grocery store cashier.
It is ridiculous, the charging for every little thing .
customer service has been tossed out the window. in favor of less services for more money strategies.
I know there is business bastards and spread sheet nazis who say this is the way it needs to be done and will reason that time is money and that the end user needs to pay for that time . It is the only way businesses can sustain them selves.
But i disagree with this. they should not even be wasting the time and energy in creating a model for such extra charges and services. and instead focusing that energy on bettering their product.
This goes for every company out there . instead of finding ways to nickle and dime their customer base they should be focusing on quality products followed up with quality customer service and product support .
These standards should be included with all products, other wise we end up with the same ol race to the bottom where everything is generic and there is no quality or support for the product .
Customer service is not expensive when you have a quality product .
If companies would return to creating quality products and focus on differentiating them selves from one another with options, services, and products. they wouldn't have to try and find "creative" ways to gouge money out customers for services that are of little benefit.
Now that we are in an market filled with race to the bottom products the companies have forced them selves into a postion where they can longer offer quality products with a good profit margin. They now rely on acquiring their profits from cannibalizing their product to the bone and reselling those services and components at a annual fee.
Thus why every thing is becoming so expensive and short lived.
Music the Paint dancefloor the canvas your body the brush
Which is against Mozilla's TOS. Not allowed to charge for installing FireFox.
How hard is that to understand, and why do you keep trying to weasel out of it?
Because it isn't enforceable? What legal theory allows a company to prevent somebody from reselling one of their products? Their rights were exhausted in the first sale, which they made for $0. As long as what they're installing is genuine Firefox without modification, I don't see how they can keep them from calling it Firefox, since that is what it is.
Perhaps that's why GP posted as AC.
Based on what, though? The trademark policy - not that this isn't a license - states:
As I understand it, the emphasized parts are where Dell possibly runs afoul; They 1. tie the distribution of FireFox to the service of installing it - but I'm not sure if 'service' is to be interpreted in that manner here, and 2. collect personal information as part of their sale - though if I'm selling Linux distribution DVDs for $2, list FireFox as one of the things as part of the distribution, and obviously collect physical mailing addresses in order to send to them and keep them around in case of a shipping mishap.. I may also be running afoul. Thanks, legalese.
But, what legal standing does the trademark policy have?
'Nominative fair use' may apply; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
Sounds about right. You can't say you're including FireFox without literally saying 'FireFox'.
It's just the name.
This one's more problematic. As you mention:
However, that's a matter of interpretation. When I first read the story subject I thought "Why wouldn't they be?". When I read the summary I thought "well that's ridiculously expensive (it's just an option in a dropdown, even at the back-end that instructs the builds which image to use), but surely they can charge whatever they want."
Consider if this option was for free. Would you still think that there was 'some kind of deal'? What if it actually went the other way around, and choosing FireFox dropped the price by 16 quid? (That's when I'd expect some sort of deal, similar to deals with the usual shovelware.)
Even after reading TFA.. I can see what Mozilla is getting at, and it's undeniably damaging when a user goes "it costs me 16 quid to get FireFox!?", but I'm not so sure their legal recourse is through trademark law.
IANAL, though. Should it go to court (which I suspect it won't - plenty of options to avoid that scenario), it will be interesting to see what judgment this results in.
So uh... yeah. They're charging for free software. It's just taking advantage of the ignorant. Who might be your grandma. Or a firefighter. Or a grocery store cashier.
Which is not illegal, you know. I'm perfectly within my right to sell bottles of air to anyone willing to buy - provided that I pay my taxes, and don't advertise it as anything other than what it actually is. I'm not obligated to tell my customers that they can get identical air for free elsewhere.
The only potential angle here is the use of Firefox trademark, but even that is dubious so long as they refer to it in the context of "service of installing X".
the sort of user not smart enough to do it for themselves likely wont know what firefox is
They probably think it's some sort of anti-virus or computer protection program.
Mozilla gives away the code and a lot of the assets, but they keep the icons and names (Firefox is Trademarked).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They are not charging for the program. They are charging for the service of installing/configuring the program. What is wring with that?
If people think they are over charging then they can negotiate the charge away or buy from somebody else.
Do you think that Dell should offer the service of installing the software for free? Do you work for nothing?
I can think of ONE purchaser who would pay $100, and they'd buy 100,000 copies at $100 each.
Origin pc does this exact same service for free. And with any browser.
The main thing in trademark law is likelihood of consumer confusion. The first thing the reporter did was ask MOZILLA about the deal. When Mozilla said "wtf", the reporter asked Dell. If a tech reporter thought it looked like implied affiliation, some customers probably will to. You can't use someone's trademarked name to falsely imply affiliation.
If you sell a Coke at your garage sale, nobody is going to think that Coca-Cola Inc is involved in that, so there is no problem.
It looks Mozilla made a deal with Dell to sell Firefox.
Given Mozilla is dependent on the goodwill of the free software movement, there are actual damages from that false implication of affiliation. Because "likelihood of consumer confusion" figures prominently in trademark law, that's one reasonably strong legal argument. I'm not a lawyer, I just play one in court. Actual lawyers may express better arguments too.
$27.16 for a Firefox install is a nice cash cow. After the initial download (the slowest part, at least it is for me) installing a new version of Firefox might take me two minutes to copy the tar archive onto a system, uncompress it, untar, and clean up. That comes to about $815/hour for that "service". Most lawyers don't charge that much. Dell ought to be a little ashamed of themselves.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
They probably think it's some sort of anti-virus or computer protection program.
I'm still waiting for someone to come out with a malware app named "Foxfire". Considering how often I hear people call Firefox that they would lock up a nice number of PCs before anyone had it figured out they were downloading the wrong application.
We also charge the customer if we install Linux for him. If the price is reasonable is in the eye of the customer, but installing and configuring Linux has the same hourly rate as installing Windows.
I work in a repair shop too. Here's an example of one machine we had in and a customers ability to install EVERYTHING. http://i.imgur.com/FrEpEPO.jpg
Yes, more toolbars than actual browsing area.
..later at the dell stronghold :
.. the hardware business is in tatters .. Lets get back to old tricks" ..
.and all that changed.
"Comarades
_______________________
. I was against capital punishment . I saw a guy selling IE to some uninformed folk
You just wait and see. I predict Dell will do the smart thing and settle out of court.
Nah, that's one of those joke pictures where someone installs all the possible IE toolbars.
It's the oPeN SoURce and freeware aspect that maybe confuses people to see a problem here.
What if Firefox was a commercial, closed source program, and Dell was selling this service? People would just think the installation as a basic consulting service and not notice anything special about it.
That sounds like a bargain. Provided they do a thorough job (e.g. by keeping Firefox updates coming, by ditching any other browsers, by keeping updates from installing other browsers.) How much money is the installation of Firefox worth to you? Question remains whether Dell's job is actually any good.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Nope, that's a 100% genuine screenshot taken from a customers machine. It's an extreme case, yes, but shit like this does happen.
You are misinformed. It is completely enforceable under copywrite law. Firefox may be effectively a "$0 priced browser" but the logo and trademark are not licenced under any open source or creative commons licence. Your rights to have it or redistribute Firefox using it are, in fact, completely up to the discretion of the Mozilla Foundation.
Sure, they can restrict copying the logo itself under copyright law, though I'm not sure if this wouldn't qualify as fair use (they're not using it to make copies of anything they aren't already entitled to make copies of other than the logo itself, so this is a bit like nominative use). Also, if they just download the logo from Mozilla every time they install it I'm not sure it would even qualify as copying at all.
No matter now many of your down-modding astro-turfing sockpuppet accounts mod me down for saying it, that won't change the fact its true. You can lie all you want, you can deny it all you want, but something very similar has happened in the past.
Not sure what makes you think I'm a sock-puppet - I've been posting here for ages.
Debian patches Mozilla, which is why they avoid using their trademark. Trademark law certainly allows companies to restrict the use of their trademark when a product is modified, which makes perfect sense. If I take a Ford Focus, strip it down, and turn it into a dishwasher, then it isn't a Ford Focus any longer, even if it is much more reliable.
I guess we'll see what happens.
what first sale? Mozilla is licenced. like it or not thems the IP rules.
Citation? That is, citation to a law passed by a legislature, not to something written by a random corporate lawyer?
The whole point of the first-sale doctrine is that you can't control what people do with your copyrighted work once they've obtained it from you legally, other than prevent them from making copies of it.
In this case, the first thing the reporter did was contact MOZILLA to ask about the deal they had with Dell. The reporter figured the Mozilla had made a deal to sell Firefox through Dell. That sounds like an implication of affiliation, and a false one. It arguably makes Firefox look bad, as though they are doing something that many of their users and developers would object to. Almost like a false flag operation, making it look like Mozilla is involved. That's not allowed.
You don't need a deal with a company to sell their products. Do you think that every store in the country that sells Brand X Widgets has a contract with company X allowing them to do so?
That isn't how trademark law works. The fact that some people don't understand how trademark law works doesn't change it.
It looks Mozilla made a deal with Dell to sell Firefox.
Where is such a deal announced? The only people who think such a deal exists are those who somehow think you need permission to sell a company's products.
If I go buy a shrink-wrapped copy of MS Windows for $100 at a local store, and post online that I'll install it on your PC for $200, there isn't anything that MS can do to stop me. Their rights to their product were exhausted when I paid $100 for it, as long as I only install it on a single PC.
If Dell downloads 1 copy of the Firefox installer and runs it on one PC, then I don't see how there is anything Mozilla can do about it. Maybe they can argue copyright issues if they deploy it via imaging of hard drives/etc, but I don't see how trademark applies unless what they install isn't actually genuine Mozilla Firefox.
Given Mozilla is dependent on the goodwill of the free software movement, there are actual damages from that false implication of affiliation. Because "likelihood of consumer confusion" figures prominently in trademark law, that's one reasonably strong legal argument.
If they're installing genuine Mozilla Firefox on the computer, then there is no confusion. The consumer thinks it comes with Mozilla Firefox, and it in fact does. The affiliation is that they can download it from Mozilla's website just like everybody else.
... it is a custom build. What would firefox rather they do? Not offer it? Fork, calling it something else and erode Firefox's market presence? Or give them some free publicity. This strikes me as cutting off their nose to spite their face on the part of Mozilla.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Yes, its not the same situation, its only similar, as I stated, however the important point that you're missing is that its *against their TOS* and they can revoke use of their copyright for any reason they like honestly, but most likely will for issues of violating their policies or harming their image.
An OEM charging customers to deliver a custom suite of software on a mass-market retail computer - shocking!
I can't believe Dell is charging money to install a third-party application on a brand-new computer! I can't believe Dell is charging customers more if they they want something other than the standard product they offer... Where will this all end? /sarcasm
Who would even think to request Dell install a trivial third-party app like Firefox on their new computer, and who, upon making that request, would be surprised/upset that Dell wanted to be compensated for that requested additional effort?
Ken
If you sell a Coke at your garage sale, nobody is going to think that Coca-Cola Inc is involved in that, so there is no problem.
If a single person thinks it looks like implied affiliation, some customers probably will too.
br. See what I did there? You don't get to claim perfectly non-stupid people in one case, but not the other.
"His name was James Damore."
Are you sure that the bad publicity wont swing the other direction?
Mozilla hates Dell so much they want Dell customers to continue to use Internet Explorer, rather than Mozillas own product.
"His name was James Damore."
TFA says when the reporter saw it, they asked Mozilla about the deal. Only after Mozilla said "what the hell... We didn't know about this" did the reporter ask Dell. So at least to the reporter, there was in fact consumer confusion, which is the primary test under trademark law.
You low how commercials and labels so often indicate "not affiliated with ..."? There is a reason for that. Had Dell labeled it "Installation of Firefox, a free browser not affiliated with Dell" that would be different.
Note that in your example, if you posted on Craigslist, "I will install Windows for $200" it is unlikely that a) anyone would think Microsoft was involved in posting your or and b) that it would do Microsoft any harm. Thus, you'd be allowed to use the Windows trademark since it wouldn't result in consumer confusion.
Ps, I do understand your point of view too, and that's a reasonable argument. I'm just saying Firefox also has a reasonable argument because it's about "likelihood of consumer confusion" and in this case we know it did in fact cause consumer confusion.
Both the reporter thought Mozilla was involved and also people posting here said they saw the headline and got mad at Mozilla. Out of our very small sample, we know more than one person thought it was Mozilla's doing, and it hurt Mozilla's reputation.
You might wonder much likelihood of confusion is allowed under the law. Google "moron in a hurry" for the answer. If you're selling cans of Coke at a garage sale, only a moron in hurry would think for a second that your sale of warm Coke was endorsed by Coca-Cola, so that would be allowed.
If the UK is anything like the US, there is no case for trademark infringement merely because someone is selling a service and refers to the product they service. Nominative use of a trademark is generally considered fair use (e.g. it is generally legal for someone who is selling parts for Ford cards to say we sell Ford parts in their advertisements even if they aren't officially affiliated with Ford) provided you don't give the impression that you are officially sanctioned or affiliated with whoever owns the trademark.
Are you unable to read the article where the relevant bits of the TOS is posted?
I just checked how much Microsoft Office Home and Business costs when put on a Dell computer - 179 USD, right there on the Dell site, for a desktop computer.
OK, so what evidence do you have that Dell doesn't mark that as $150 for software and $29 for installation, on their accounting system?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
1) There is no evidence that they internally account for software as you say. It's speculation.
2) There IS evidence that they are charging for free software.
3) There IS evidence that they actually give a discount for installing software versus buying it from them separately: You can actually buy Office Home and Business directly from Dell for 219 USD. So they're actually giving a discount when they install it, as they only charge 179 USD in that scenario.
What does the evidence show? Seems clear to me.
Nope. Stupid people get what they deserve.
I disagree. To take advantage of computer illiterate users is a moral wrong. Do you take advantage of the mentally impaired? Where is the line drawn in the tech business?
Not quite sure how comparing the OEM price that Dell can sell something for to the retail price at "Big Box Mart" translates into Dell charging for free software.
Sure they don't charge you $30 for each of those programs but then they also have to charge you $50 for the lost revenue they get from the program company to put that bloatware on your computer. ;-)
People, please stop selecting every option when you buy a computer. And stop installing everything you can find onto your new laptop. Whenever a friend or family member brings me a newly purchased Dell computer to look at, I spend no small amount of effort removing numerous programs that Dell, by default, thinks that every computer needs. Then I spend another 30 minutes removing various things that they or their offspring have installed, because it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Them: "I just bought a new computer and installed some of my software on it. Now it's not working right. Can you take a look at it for me?"
Me: "Sure. Wait, did you just buy this computer in 2013?"
Them: "Yes."
Me: "Why does it have TurboTax 2001 installed?"
Them: "What if I need to open my 2001 tax return?"
Me: "When is the last time you opened your 2001 tax return?"
Them: "2002."
Me: "Is this Napster? Did you install Napster on this?"
Them: "Yes."
Me: "Arrrggggghhh!"
Andrew Borntreger
Champion of cinematic disasters
Some people live too far from the CMTS and DSLAM because they make their living growing the food that you eat. What should they use instead of dial-up?
tl;dr, Firefox is MPL.
Just like Best Buy will charge you $29.99 to set up your game console: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Geek+Squad%26%23174%3B+-+In-Store+Gaming+and+Customization+Setup/8835497.p?id=1218016228965&skuId=8835497
I think they do an in-home install for $100 or more!
1) There is no evidence that they internally account for software as you say. It's speculation.
Not really. We know for a fact that they charge labor to install Firefox. There's no way around this - the numbers are what they are.
The null hypothesis should be that things are the same - the onus is on the claimant to prove a difference. Besides that, they certainly have incentive to structure their offerings to maximize their profits - giving it all to Microsoft doesn't do that.
Office Home and Business directly from Dell for 219 USD.
That's a different product. Retail (even download) is always more expensive than OEM in the Microsoft ecosystem. I'm spec'ing a Windows 7 PC and the retail price is $379 while the OEM price (from Lenovo) is $50.
Bruce used to say that HP gets Windows for $14 a copy.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
They think a persons labor should be free or something. Or is FF so advanced now it spontaneously appears on a computer?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'll vouch for that, my MIL's computer looked almost exactly like that the last time she complained about it being slow. Granted, the teen/tween age nieces had been on their installing lord knows what as well, but there were at least 8 toolbars.
The TOS don't actually say that. They talk about "distribution" but it isn't at all clear that installing software is the same thing as distributing it. No, let me put that another way: installing software is *not* the same thing as distributing it. If the law doesn't recognize the difference, it should.
But it does silently undo previous moderation you've done in the thread.
No one knows if this is a bug or a feature.
Some people pay a mechanic $25 to replace a burned out brake light. Nothing new here. Move along.
You seem to be imaging that someone at Dell said to themselves "how can we trick people into giving us extra money". It's much more likely that some important client phoned up and asked Dell, "Please put Firefox on the computers we're about to buy from you." From what I've gathered of Dell's procedures - and I'm not dealing with them directly here, so I could be wrong, but FWIW - they can't sell you a special option without putting it into their purchasing system first. From there it could easily wind up on the web site, either accidentally or just because someone thought to themselves, "Well, this client wanted it, maybe other clients will too." That's probably why it was only on this one model. That was the one the original client was buying.
I don't think the reporter was at all confused, just looking for a story. YMMV.
Was it made crystal clear to the Dell purchasers that the browser is available as a free download? If not, it's a hinky way of doing business. Whether or not Dell's innocent here isn't in question. Did they attempt to deceive the people who purchased from them? "Accidents" don't happen in large tech companies. Anything that is part of a tech business was designed by intelligent humans, and done deliberately. Getting caught and coming up with explanations afterward is a b.s. move, same as with individual people, and if you deceive in small ways it makes a person question what else is being done.
Did it need to be? Why would you check the box if you don't know what Firefox is? Is there any evidence at all that *anyone* ordered this by mistake?
> "Accidents" don't happen in large tech companies.
Large tech companies don't make mistakes? Ever?
Note also that the product in question is one sold almost exclusively to, you guessed it, large companies. So I guess it was impossible for anyone to order this by mistake, so there's no problem, right?
Note also that the product in question is one sold almost exclusively to, you guessed it, large companies. So I guess it was impossible for anyone to order this by mistake, so there's no problem, right?
I was assuming that it was Ma & Pa types this was being done to. (Yes, I know what happens when you 'ass-u-me' something after not even RTFA). I'm shocked large companies buy from Dell, actually.
Did it need to be? Why would you check the box if you don't know what Firefox is? Is there any evidence at all that *anyone* ordered this by mistake?
> "Accidents" don't happen in large tech companies.
Large tech companies don't make mistakes? Ever?
Overbilling isn't a "mistake", unless your'e caught at it, of course.
As I just said above, I admit to not even reading TFA and taking TFSynopis as true. If it's large companies that were charged, fine. If it was done to individuals buying from Dell for their own personal use, that might be considered undue taking advantage.
In my experience, their business products are well-designed (in the sense of being robust and convenient to work with) and moderately reliable, certainly more so overall than any of the smaller, generic manufacturers we've tried over the years. We have had some bad batches from Dell. But I'm not sure how much competition they've got; HP is the only one I can think of at the moment, and I don't think they can offer us comparable pricing. But I don't work in purchasing so I'm not really up to date with this stuff.
Yes. Once you actually read up on the facts and realize that there is absolutely nothing controversial whatever about it, it is interesting how may people knee-jerk reacted to this non-issue.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Oh. I agree with you there. It certainly isn't going to change the "fact that it is true", but not for the reason you seem to think. You see, it would have to be a fact that was true first, and it is anything but. Now off you go little falsely condescending ignoramus ...
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Great. Could you also predict the weather for us. We were hoping to have two completely useless predictions from someone like you who is not nearly educated on either subject to form a valid analysis.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
OK. You just don't seem to be understanding this at all. Stop thinking Dell charged for Firefox. They didn't. They followed the standard FOSS model, and charged for services. The customer could not have had Firefox installed for free. They are a business. If they didn't pay Dell to put it on, they would have to pay their IT employee(s) to put it on. Either way, the customer is going to pay someone to install Firefox. Again, they aren't "buying" Firefox when they do that. They are compensating whomever performed the service of software installation.
Everybody has their panties in a bunch over, quite literally, nothing.
As far as any personal consumers, there are exactly two types:
1) Those who already know Firefox is freely available if they want to do the install themselves.
2) Those who don't know nearly enough about Linux to install it themselves.
(Note that the two are mutually exclusive)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
No. But it is almost impossible to imagine that someone could be so thick in the head as to not get why a large corporation would rather just pay a nominal fee to have Firefox installed at the factory rather than having to open up their own post-purchase assembly line and pay their employees to install Firefox on every one of the 300 computers they bought this week.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Since copyright laws exist, and since Mozilla owns the copyright to Firefox, and the only terms they allow you to download or use Firefox is within the terms of the TOS, if you want to download or use it, you have to abide by it.
Are you really that stupid that you cannot understand that?
Consider my panties to be now, 'unbunched'. :^0
I am no fan of Dell's, but this is about facts not emotion. The simple fact is that there is nothing that neither Mozilla nor any other company, NPO or for profit, with any product FOSS or proprietary, can dictate what services a service company may perform. You seem to think that Mercedes can make it illegal for anyone but their technicians to change your oil. They can't do that for the same reason that an author cannot dictate that a person may not charge a fee for the service of reading his works to the blind. If you stopped running on like a dog without a clue you would realize all of this.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
OK. I just read this after I posted a perhaps harsh reply. I applaud you sincerely for having the presence of mind to look at it and come around rather than fighting it tooth and nail. That is a rare quality on Slashdot indeed :-) *
:-)
* I certainly can't always pull it off
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
If you're a big company getting a fleet of PC, you normally deploy images on them, so IT costs are pretty much the same to build the image, or build the image+firefox
...And it would be entirely reasonable for a company to pay Dell $6 per PC to enable PXE boot, AHCI, Vt-d, or whatever on all those systems in advance.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling