7 year warranty is actually an interesting marketing approach...
You've now sold a computer to someone, and they have a reason to come back to you (brand loyalty) for the next 7 years.
Within that 7 year period, you can try to convince them that they should buy a new computer from you, rather than repairing the old one, and you can offer a $50 discount (which you would've taken off anyways during the haggle.)
And if they really do insist on replacement parts, how much is it going to cost for 7 year old parts, hmmm? $10 on eBay for a random motherboard/cpu/ram combo? oh no, think of the replacement cost!!
7 year warranties would only bite you on the ass if you were:
1) a major vendor who makes your money on volume sales (and therefore having to deal with warranty replacement at all costs you lots of money, because of the time of the people who you're employing)
2) you stated no substitutions, in which case you might have difficulty finding the part. but really, who's going to turn down an offer of a 6 y/o computer to replace their 7 y/o computer, under warranty, at a cost of $25 to the seller? (remember, this replacement computer is something people are THROWING AWAY, as-is.)
Think about it. It's really quite smart.
Does MS give you a free choice in what hardware you run your XBox on?
Does MS let you upgrade the hard drive in your XBox?
Does MS let you replace the DVD drive in your XBox?
All of these things require a "modchip" to do.
Remember, Apple is a hardware vendor, not just a software vendor; Microsoft's origins are as a software vendor for hardware. Their relationship with Intel has proven beneficial for some time, and they've built up on the software side. But with the advent of the "Microsoft" brand mouse, that's all starting to change.
Microsoft has a long history of taking open standards and making a one-off implementation; take the Microsoft style TCP stack for example. There's all sorts of little bugs and nuances that can make it incompatible with other systems. Now look at various _hardware_ standards and initiatives they're part of, such as "Universal Plug'n'Play", which is designed explicitly for communication between different devices in your home.
With an Apple _computer_, you can change the hardware within it.
Apple did do open-box systems for a while, allowing other manufacturers to produce Mac "clones". It didn't last.
The reality is that part of the reason people buy a Mac is that they want a basic hardware platform that comes from one company. Apple's software, e.g. QuickTime, is available for multiple hardware platforms.
But the real reason that people aren't coming down on Apple? Because Apple is the underdog, Microsoft is on top, and people love to hate the guy on top; we're a culture waiting for the guy on top to fall down so we can all poke them with sharp sticks and say (Nelson/Simpsons voice) "hah hah!" Just look at the media coverage of Martha Stewart, etc.
Microsoft wants to create a platform that is used by every man, woman and child, from the day they are born, in every facet of their life.
By platform I don't just mean Windows desktop PC's... the XBox is one small step for Microsoft, one giant leap for world domination. Consider that Bill Gates' house is one of the most technology-driven pieces of real estate in the world. Imagine if 10 years from now, it was like that everywhere; running all MS software.
Choices MS wants to give you:
What wallpaper do you want? Will you use XP Home at Home, or be a rebel and use XP Pro? Will you buy a Dell, Compaq or HP computer to run Windows on? Which charity would you like to see Bill Gates donate to this year?
The Microsoft Way isn't about eliminating choices; it's about controlling all available choices.
O'Reilly has some interesting things to say, but it seems that many are missing one part of the big picture.
Open Source is as much about Linux vs. Windows as Amazon vs. Barnes & Nobles. It's not about the platform, it's about whether the software that's distributed for use by others is open source or closed source. Licenses are what dictate how it can be distributed, but as he points out, they're not the big picture...
Whether people/companies choose to release modifications they make to open-source software, that they're not distributing in compiled form, is up to them. The right to do this is inherent in the GPL license; you may make the software your own, for your own use, without responsibility to anyone. In short, no royalties must be paid for the benefit of using the software.
Are companies like Amazon just free-loading off the efforts of idealists? I believe the answer is no. What is the requisite skillset of a programmer who wants to work for Amazon? What is going to happen during that programmer's work for Amazon; it's not just a bullet point on the resume, it's experience and knowledge.
There are far greater reaching benefits than just these, including things like greater overall acceptance of Open Source concepts in the corporate world, but such things are left as an exercise to the reader. Open Source is a methodology that continues to evolve and be adopted. It's about freedom. It's about what you can do with it, not about what you can't.
Slashdot Mirror
7 year warranty is actually an interesting marketing approach... You've now sold a computer to someone, and they have a reason to come back to you (brand loyalty) for the next 7 years. Within that 7 year period, you can try to convince them that they should buy a new computer from you, rather than repairing the old one, and you can offer a $50 discount (which you would've taken off anyways during the haggle.) And if they really do insist on replacement parts, how much is it going to cost for 7 year old parts, hmmm? $10 on eBay for a random motherboard/cpu/ram combo? oh no, think of the replacement cost!! 7 year warranties would only bite you on the ass if you were: 1) a major vendor who makes your money on volume sales (and therefore having to deal with warranty replacement at all costs you lots of money, because of the time of the people who you're employing) 2) you stated no substitutions, in which case you might have difficulty finding the part. but really, who's going to turn down an offer of a 6 y/o computer to replace their 7 y/o computer, under warranty, at a cost of $25 to the seller? (remember, this replacement computer is something people are THROWING AWAY, as-is.) Think about it. It's really quite smart.
Does MS give you a free choice in what hardware you run your XBox on?
Does MS let you upgrade the hard drive in your XBox?
Does MS let you replace the DVD drive in your XBox?
All of these things require a "modchip" to do.
Remember, Apple is a hardware vendor, not just a software vendor; Microsoft's origins are as a software vendor for hardware. Their relationship with Intel has proven beneficial for some time, and they've built up on the software side. But with the advent of the "Microsoft" brand mouse, that's all starting to change.
Microsoft has a long history of taking open standards and making a one-off implementation; take the Microsoft style TCP stack for example. There's all sorts of little bugs and nuances that can make it incompatible with other systems. Now look at various _hardware_ standards and initiatives they're part of, such as "Universal Plug'n'Play", which is designed explicitly for communication between different devices in your home.
With an Apple _computer_, you can change the hardware within it.
Apple did do open-box systems for a while, allowing other manufacturers to produce Mac "clones". It didn't last.
The reality is that part of the reason people buy a Mac is that they want a basic hardware platform that comes from one company. Apple's software, e.g. QuickTime, is available for multiple hardware platforms.
But the real reason that people aren't coming down on Apple? Because Apple is the underdog, Microsoft is on top, and people love to hate the guy on top; we're a culture waiting for the guy on top to fall down so we can all poke them with sharp sticks and say (Nelson/Simpsons voice) "hah hah!" Just look at the media coverage of Martha Stewart, etc.
Microsoft wants to create a platform that is used by every man, woman and child, from the day they are born, in every facet of their life.
By platform I don't just mean Windows desktop PC's... the XBox is one small step for Microsoft, one giant leap for world domination. Consider that Bill Gates' house is one of the most technology-driven pieces of real estate in the world. Imagine if 10 years from now, it was like that everywhere; running all MS software.
Choices MS wants to give you:
What wallpaper do you want?
Will you use XP Home at Home, or be a rebel and use XP Pro?
Will you buy a Dell, Compaq or HP computer to run Windows on?
Which charity would you like to see Bill Gates donate to this year?
The Microsoft Way isn't about eliminating choices; it's about controlling all available choices.
O'Reilly has some interesting things to say, but it seems that many are missing one part of the big picture. Open Source is as much about Linux vs. Windows as Amazon vs. Barnes & Nobles. It's not about the platform, it's about whether the software that's distributed for use by others is open source or closed source. Licenses are what dictate how it can be distributed, but as he points out, they're not the big picture... Whether people/companies choose to release modifications they make to open-source software, that they're not distributing in compiled form, is up to them. The right to do this is inherent in the GPL license; you may make the software your own, for your own use, without responsibility to anyone. In short, no royalties must be paid for the benefit of using the software. Are companies like Amazon just free-loading off the efforts of idealists? I believe the answer is no. What is the requisite skillset of a programmer who wants to work for Amazon? What is going to happen during that programmer's work for Amazon; it's not just a bullet point on the resume, it's experience and knowledge. There are far greater reaching benefits than just these, including things like greater overall acceptance of Open Source concepts in the corporate world, but such things are left as an exercise to the reader. Open Source is a methodology that continues to evolve and be adopted. It's about freedom. It's about what you can do with it, not about what you can't.