That doesn't explain that the hardware would be cheaper without the crapware, they've just removed the cost of the Windows license as per the EULA, something i believe they have removed, which makes perfect sense given the crapware cannot be run if Windows isn't included therefore those software vendors will be unlikely to pay the OEM if the software isn't included. Surely you don't think OEMs include the crapware for free so how much is it?
They should just sell some with _nothing_ installed, then the end user can do what they want if they know how.
Having Linux pre-installed somehow impedes that?
People who want to run Linux will know how to install it or will be able to read the instructions.
It's hardly as though anyone who wants to install their own operating system is going to be bamboozled just because there is an operating system already on there and if that operating system is Linux then the cost issue is gone too.
Are you seriously suggesting that someone not buy any computers because they don't want any of the ~99% that come with OS X or Windows?
No he's suggesting that if you're one of the few people that don't want Windows or OSX then you go to one of the few manufacturers (well even HP offers systems with FreeDOS instead of Windows) that offers alternatives to Windows and OSX or you build your own.
If your any-operating-system-phone was real, then in the EU you couldn't force a customer to buy the phone with an operating system on it and charge them the extra for it.
My N900 can run Android yet the Finnish members of the EU that made and sold it didn't give me the option of getting it without Maemo.
The difference between a steering wheel and an OS is that you can still run the laptop without an OS and install your own.
That's not a difference at all, you can still run the car without a steering wheel and install your own. Of course for the most part a car is useless without a steering wheel in the same way a laptop is pretty much useless without an OS.
forcing the OS to be in the purchase with a laptop is called tying, and it's trumped by laws and generally illegal worldwide.
Where? What laws explicitly state this? I have a feeling you're severely misinterpreting something there.
This is not about the OEM selling "naked," to use a Microsoft term, machines.
This is about being able to get a refund for the already installed Windows which is going to go unused.
In that case why can't i do that with all other products? I want a refund for the rims on my car, i don't need them as i have other wheels i prefer to use. Also on my linux box i never use the 'windows keys' on my keyboard, i should be able to get a refund for those right? Since i've gotten used to using Ctrl+Click to right click on my macbook i don't need the right-click button on my aftermarket mouse, should be able to refund that too yeah? If i feel i'm paying extra for features I don't need then i won't buy a product that has said features, in the case of windows i'll buy a system that doesn't have windows, say a HP with FreeDOS.
Why are you missing the obvious point that the crapware subsidizes the hardware you've bought?
If you didn't want to buy Windows then you shouldn't have bought Windows, if you buy a product you can't just go back and return pieces of that product for a refund. What you should have done is gone to a manufacturer that sells a system without an OS or with a free (cost) OS like this or you could have gone here but they have the same problem i suppose, though it's not Windows. Many companies, including Best Buy, Lenovo, Dell and HP have tried selling computers with Linux pre-installed and they had lacklustre sales, it's a niche market so it's catered to by niche manufacturers, supply and demand.
I wonder if i could get a refund for iMovie, iPhoto, GarageBand, etc...?
Lenovo does not have a free choice. They can either refuse Microsoft's thuggish demands (do not sell linux or we will cut off all supplies of Windows to you), or they can give in to Microsoft's thuggish demands. They have no power.
Really? Dell and Lenovo have both sold systems pre-installed with Linux in the past and they just didn't sell, comparatively no-one wanted them.
Your ISP does not see the information you transmit if it's encrypted, or email, chat, etc.
Facebook CAN see the messages you send, even if your communication to and from facebook is encrypted.
So you're saying an intermediary can see information if it's not encrypted? Thanks captain obvious! If you want to use Facebook and want to prevent Facebook from reading your messages then encrypt your damn messages!
On Optus in Australia you can get an iPhone 4S on whatever 24-month plan you want for $26 per month, which ends up at $624 over 2 years. At the moment they are subsidizing that with a $20 per month handset credit so you're only paying $6 per month for the phone so it's $144. The iphone 4 is $5 per month on the $29 per month plan, so it's $34 per month for 24-months with total cost of $816, that includes phone service and data.
In the short term, I'll probably opt for a BASIC voice-and-text flip-phone of some kind, because I can't afford (nor stomach!) spending $600 on a PHONE whose MAIN purpose is to MAKE CALLS when I can get a $70 model that will take care of that primary function just fine for now.
If the main purpose of it were to make calls then such devices would never have evolved to where they are now. It's pretty clear you're living in the past, even if you consider it just to be a communications device there are far more mediums for communication than the old feature-phones were ever capable of (email, skype, facebook, twitter, etc...). But of course they aren't even just communications devices these days, they are also entertainment devices, capable of high resolution imagery and HD video, they have large storage for music and the major platforms have a multitude of games available. Then there's all the productivity applications available.
But i suppose if you're not going to get with the times we'll all just stay off your lawn grandpa.
No, it can't. The source of the money isn't the thing that matters.
I tend to agree, for example if a startup enters a market and offers their product for free because they have enough VC to do so until their competitors drop out of the market that is the same thing, the only difference here is that those funds didn't come from a VC firm, they came from a monopolist. So if google set up a VC firm and did this with Maps as a separate entity would that be illegal just because google has a monopoly on search? And what does this mean for all the Android software they give away for free?
That's not necessarily true. If a company is generating massive revenues from a dominant product (in this case web search advertising), using that revenue to fund development of a free product in another market can be viewed as an anticompetitive abuse of monopoly position.
In the United States, antitrust laws were established to combat business practices very similar to this. Standard Oil would open an oil shop in a new town, sell their oil for extremely cheap until all the other shops had closed, then raise the price when they were the only player left (this was their business model). While I am not claiming that Google is being as nefarious as Standard Oil, but what they did is effectively the same.
The problem then becomes deciding what google are allowed to charge for their product and how flexible that can be. As well as if you have only one competitor in the market does google have to match that competitor's price no matter what they do or charge more and why can't they charge less? Google has a monopoly in search which funds Android so should they be forced to charge for Android because of the existence of OSes like Symbian, webOS, WP7, etc?
The problem is not having too much money, but using that money to give products away, driving competitors from the market, then charging for it once they are in the dominant position.
The issue with that is in this case they began charging because the user-base was taxing their load too much, they became too popular and could no longer afford to offer the service for free.
I'm not saying they haven't done the wrong thing, but it's pretty difficult to set any hard and fast rules to actually govern this.
What exactly does Sony legitimately rewriting busybox have to do with GPL enforcement?
Yeah, they're rewriting it to sidestep the GPL, but so what? That's their prerogative.
Correct, but the issue pointed out in the blog is not really with Busybox at all, it's that the SFC acts on behalf of the copyright owners of Busybox and can leverage violations of Busybox code to get companies to release kernel code that violates the GPL. If they aren't using Busybox then the SFC has no case against them because they aren't violating the license of code copyrighted by people represented by the SFC, so the blog post calls for kernel developers to contact the SFC for representation so violations can still be pursued.
I don't know why you say that? Any decent heuristic algorithm is all about building in a good bias (or prior), and solving simplified models of the real world, which is the essence of those supposedly human-only behaviors.
I don't think you've taken the comment in context, the fundamental difference is that we have to build algorithms to introduce 'human error' or cognitive bias artificially, a computer cannot reach a conclusion until you tell it how to reach that conclusion.
Computers also do lots of things that are not foreseeable outcomes of the input (i.e. there's no way to get the answer other than to perform the full calculation).
Thus, when we try to replicate our cognitive abilities we end up with algorithms that are completely intractable. I think this is in a large part due to computer scientists tendency to approach things with an engineering perspective instead of a biological perspective.
It's because we try to replicate those cognitive abilities on systems that are fundamentally different. Computers aren't subjective, they don't make assumptions, they don't estimate, etc... and even if they do those things they do them in the exact way humans have told them to do it.
Are you serious? You really think the entire cost of a device comes down to the sum of its parts? No costs involved in packaging, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, R&D, software development, profit, etc...? The iphone 4S is estimated at having a BOM totaling $188, but anyone with a shred of intelligence knows that there's much more to developing such a thing than simply buying those parts.
Slashdot Mirror
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_refund
go ahead and read. This isn't exactly new.
That doesn't explain that the hardware would be cheaper without the crapware, they've just removed the cost of the Windows license as per the EULA, something i believe they have removed, which makes perfect sense given the crapware cannot be run if Windows isn't included therefore those software vendors will be unlikely to pay the OEM if the software isn't included. Surely you don't think OEMs include the crapware for free so how much is it?
Because the other products do not have a clause in the EULA to return it if you don't want to use it.
Hasn't that been removed now? In which case it would be fine?
They should just sell some with _nothing_ installed, then the end user can do what they want if they know how.
Having Linux pre-installed somehow impedes that?
People who want to run Linux will know how to install it or will be able to read the instructions.
It's hardly as though anyone who wants to install their own operating system is going to be bamboozled just because there is an operating system already on there and if that operating system is Linux then the cost issue is gone too.
Are you seriously suggesting that someone not buy any computers because they don't want any of the ~99% that come with OS X or Windows?
No he's suggesting that if you're one of the few people that don't want Windows or OSX then you go to one of the few manufacturers (well even HP offers systems with FreeDOS instead of Windows) that offers alternatives to Windows and OSX or you build your own.
IMHO this could be a candidate for antitrust, as the car makers are locking third party companies out of an effective monopoly with this action.
No, because they only have a monopoly over their own product, naturally, no car manufacturer has a monopoly in the car industry.
If your any-operating-system-phone was real, then in the EU you couldn't force a customer to buy the phone with an operating system on it and charge them the extra for it.
My N900 can run Android yet the Finnish members of the EU that made and sold it didn't give me the option of getting it without Maemo.
The difference between a steering wheel and an OS is that you can still run the laptop without an OS and install your own.
That's not a difference at all, you can still run the car without a steering wheel and install your own. Of course for the most part a car is useless without a steering wheel in the same way a laptop is pretty much useless without an OS.
forcing the OS to be in the purchase with a laptop is called tying, and it's trumped by laws and generally illegal worldwide.
Where? What laws explicitly state this? I have a feeling you're severely misinterpreting something there.
This is not about the OEM selling "naked," to use a Microsoft term, machines.
This is about being able to get a refund for the already installed Windows which is going to go unused.
In that case why can't i do that with all other products? I want a refund for the rims on my car, i don't need them as i have other wheels i prefer to use. Also on my linux box i never use the 'windows keys' on my keyboard, i should be able to get a refund for those right? Since i've gotten used to using Ctrl+Click to right click on my macbook i don't need the right-click button on my aftermarket mouse, should be able to refund that too yeah? If i feel i'm paying extra for features I don't need then i won't buy a product that has said features, in the case of windows i'll buy a system that doesn't have windows, say a HP with FreeDOS.
If crapware subsidizes hardware, why is it cheaper without the crapware?
Like where? You're not going the clearly ignorant route of buying the product in pieces and equating that to an assembled product are you?
You might want to learn about your argument there.
Please do tell.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Why are you missing the obvious point that the crapware subsidizes the hardware you've bought?
If you didn't want to buy Windows then you shouldn't have bought Windows, if you buy a product you can't just go back and return pieces of that product for a refund. What you should have done is gone to a manufacturer that sells a system without an OS or with a free (cost) OS like this or you could have gone here but they have the same problem i suppose, though it's not Windows. Many companies, including Best Buy, Lenovo, Dell and HP have tried selling computers with Linux pre-installed and they had lacklustre sales, it's a niche market so it's catered to by niche manufacturers, supply and demand.
I wonder if i could get a refund for iMovie, iPhoto, GarageBand, etc...?
We shouldn't be forced to pay for a software licence just because we want to buy a piece of hardware.
You do that whenever you buy a phone or a tablet.
Link for citation.
Lenovo does not have a free choice. They can either refuse Microsoft's thuggish demands (do not sell linux or we will cut off all supplies of Windows to you), or they can give in to Microsoft's thuggish demands. They have no power.
Really? Dell and Lenovo have both sold systems pre-installed with Linux in the past and they just didn't sell, comparatively no-one wanted them.
Your ISP does not see the information you transmit if it's encrypted, or email, chat, etc.
Facebook CAN see the messages you send, even if your communication to and from facebook is encrypted.
So you're saying an intermediary can see information if it's not encrypted? Thanks captain obvious! If you want to use Facebook and want to prevent Facebook from reading your messages then encrypt your damn messages!
There's a reason for that - Microsoft Office runs on Microsoft Windows. Imagine that!
Microsoft Office also runs equally well on Apple OSX.
On Optus in Australia you can get an iPhone 4S on whatever 24-month plan you want for $26 per month, which ends up at $624 over 2 years. At the moment they are subsidizing that with a $20 per month handset credit so you're only paying $6 per month for the phone so it's $144.
The iphone 4 is $5 per month on the $29 per month plan, so it's $34 per month for 24-months with total cost of $816, that includes phone service and data.
In the short term, I'll probably opt for a BASIC voice-and-text flip-phone of some kind, because I can't afford (nor stomach!) spending $600 on a PHONE whose MAIN purpose is to MAKE CALLS when I can get a $70 model that will take care of that primary function just fine for now.
If the main purpose of it were to make calls then such devices would never have evolved to where they are now. It's pretty clear you're living in the past, even if you consider it just to be a communications device there are far more mediums for communication than the old feature-phones were ever capable of (email, skype, facebook, twitter, etc...). But of course they aren't even just communications devices these days, they are also entertainment devices, capable of high resolution imagery and HD video, they have large storage for music and the major platforms have a multitude of games available. Then there's all the productivity applications available.
But i suppose if you're not going to get with the times we'll all just stay off your lawn grandpa.
Well to be fair, it depends on what the definition of "is" is...
That depends on your definition of 'fair'.
No, it can't. The source of the money isn't the thing that matters.
I tend to agree, for example if a startup enters a market and offers their product for free because they have enough VC to do so until their competitors drop out of the market that is the same thing, the only difference here is that those funds didn't come from a VC firm, they came from a monopolist. So if google set up a VC firm and did this with Maps as a separate entity would that be illegal just because google has a monopoly on search? And what does this mean for all the Android software they give away for free?
That's not necessarily true. If a company is generating massive revenues from a dominant product (in this case web search advertising), using that revenue to fund development of a free product in another market can be viewed as an anticompetitive abuse of monopoly position.
What does that say for Android then?
In the United States, antitrust laws were established to combat business practices very similar to this. Standard Oil would open an oil shop in a new town, sell their oil for extremely cheap until all the other shops had closed, then raise the price when they were the only player left (this was their business model). While I am not claiming that Google is being as nefarious as Standard Oil, but what they did is effectively the same.
The problem then becomes deciding what google are allowed to charge for their product and how flexible that can be. As well as if you have only one competitor in the market does google have to match that competitor's price no matter what they do or charge more and why can't they charge less? Google has a monopoly in search which funds Android so should they be forced to charge for Android because of the existence of OSes like Symbian, webOS, WP7, etc?
The problem is not having too much money, but using that money to give products away, driving competitors from the market, then charging for it once they are in the dominant position.
The issue with that is in this case they began charging because the user-base was taxing their load too much, they became too popular and could no longer afford to offer the service for free.
I'm not saying they haven't done the wrong thing, but it's pretty difficult to set any hard and fast rules to actually govern this.
What exactly does Sony legitimately rewriting busybox have to do with GPL enforcement?
Yeah, they're rewriting it to sidestep the GPL, but so what? That's their prerogative.
Correct, but the issue pointed out in the blog is not really with Busybox at all, it's that the SFC acts on behalf of the copyright owners of Busybox and can leverage violations of Busybox code to get companies to release kernel code that violates the GPL. If they aren't using Busybox then the SFC has no case against them because they aren't violating the license of code copyrighted by people represented by the SFC, so the blog post calls for kernel developers to contact the SFC for representation so violations can still be pursued.
I don't know why you say that? Any decent heuristic algorithm is all about building in a good bias (or prior), and solving simplified models of the real world, which is the essence of those supposedly human-only behaviors.
I don't think you've taken the comment in context, the fundamental difference is that we have to build algorithms to introduce 'human error' or cognitive bias artificially, a computer cannot reach a conclusion until you tell it how to reach that conclusion.
Computers also do lots of things that are not foreseeable outcomes of the input (i.e. there's no way to get the answer other than to perform the full calculation).
And they do them based on a defined set of rules.
Thus, when we try to replicate our cognitive abilities we end up with algorithms that are completely intractable. I think this is in a large part due to computer scientists tendency to approach things with an engineering perspective instead of a biological perspective.
It's because we try to replicate those cognitive abilities on systems that are fundamentally different. Computers aren't subjective, they don't make assumptions, they don't estimate, etc... and even if they do those things they do them in the exact way humans have told them to do it.
How about realizing that it's a money grab.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4210649/Kinect-s-BOM-roughly--56--teardown-finds-
Are you serious? You really think the entire cost of a device comes down to the sum of its parts? No costs involved in packaging, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, R&D, software development, profit, etc...? The iphone 4S is estimated at having a BOM totaling $188, but anyone with a shred of intelligence knows that there's much more to developing such a thing than simply buying those parts.