Is Windows Worth $45?

bgelb writes "This article from the Wall Street Journal questions whether Microsoft really innovates enough to justify the enormous amount of money (nearly 10% of the cost of every PC!) it takes from consumers each year. Hard drive and chip makers innovate constantly, but what about Microsoft?"

Who actually pays?

I'm not a Windows user, but all of my friends in my networking class pirate, even the ones who are Windows enthusiasts. Of course, they all build their PCs, I suppose it is really people buying OEMs getting hosed.

Re:Who actually pays?

What do you mean by "pirate"?

Is this the Microsoft definition that says that since I don't have a license for each and every CPU that I am "casually pirating" their software?

That's just dumb. I have bought Windoze many times in many different ways ranging from the Microsoft tax to computer shows to computer software stores... if I use windows on 4 machines and I have 3 licenses why should I be given this highly inflamatory label as a pirate? Once it gets through my door I should be able to use it as I please just as any other form of "Intelectual Property."

Wow.. fair use really must be dead as the corp guys said...

Re:Who actually pays?

That's just dumb. I have bought Windoze many times in many different ways ranging from the Microsoft tax to computer shows to computer software stores... if I use windows on 4 machines and I have 3 licenses why should I be given this highly inflamatory label as a pirate?

Same reason people who download an MP3 of a song that plays on the radio every other hour get called "pirates".

Not that I agree with it, that's just how it is...

Re:Who actually pays?

I would have to disagree with this. In your example a license to use the music wasn't paid. In his he paid for a license to use Windows.

He's paid for *3* licenses, to use on *3* PCs, not 4.

Why shouldn't one be allowed to use that license on different PCs in their home?

Because the license stipulates one machine only.

Why should dowloading a song freely available to anyone with a tape recorder (or a good memory) be illegal ?

After all...one is not restricted to listening to music on any one particular device.

Heh. Yet.

The difference is that OSs typically require an install and therefore cannot be easily moved from system to system like music can (Knoppix is an exception but perhaps should be the norm).

There is no difference. The law stipulates what is protected by copyright and how. Break that law and you will be labelled a "pirate".

Re:Who actually pays?

I would have to disagree with this. In your example a license to use the music wasn't paid. In his he paid for a license to use Windows.

He's paid for *3* licenses, to use on *3* PCs, not 4.

Except, if he had the OS installed on a removable hard drive and moved it from one PC to another. Lets assume we are talking about win 98 here to avoid product activation issues.

The point being is that he (presumably) doesn't ever use more than three computers at once.

If he does it one way (with a removable hdd) its probably ok(and maybe microsoft, with 3 licences, has had more licences than it should have), but if he does it another way (4 installs) he is breaking the law.

I have problems mostly with the arbitrary way that microsoft licences stuff, and changes it with minimal notice. Internet explorer - first its for sale (I know, I bought a copy of IE 1.0 in the plus pack), then its free. Hyperthreading CPU's - how many processor licences do you need? Remember that windows NT4.0 came with a 4 cpu licence, but a hyperthreaded P4 uses up all of XP's (2) processor licences, and if you want to run even a dual processor motherboard its deemed a server. Even if it was on the same hardware. Can you install a copy of office on your laptop as well as your office machine (Sometimes you can). Oh, and yes, lets not forget the debacle of licensing 6.0 for business users, or how open source software is making microsoft drop its prices for no apparent reason.

You can say that microsoft, as the owner of the software, can charge what it chooses. I suppose so. But doesn't this say something about the value of the software? If microsoft can change the price arbitrarily, what is the true production cost of windows? Alot less than they would care to admit, and probably not much more than the cost of a linux distro. In other words, very cheap.

So when you say that someone is a microsoft pirate, yes, that is true, but dont forget the underlying legal system is unable to deal with microsoft, a convicted monopolist, leaving the average user in a position of overwhelming inferiority.

The solution is simple - and its not about breaking copyright. Get an alternative, like mandrake linux, or bsd, or just buy a mac. If the law cant stop a monopoly, then the best solution is to stop it being a monopoly by using something else.

My 2c

Michael

Re:Who actually pays?

I remember reading in an interview with Billy G, and he said Microsoft would not go after people that used the same license on two computers, as it would give them too much bad PR(not that it really matters, they are a monopoly, and I don't think there would be a mass switchout of Microsoft products if it did happen, people are too lazy to change). Even though they aren't getting paid for that fourth computer, they are atleast benifiting from it running Windows and expanding their dominance. It would probably cost too much in legal fees to go sue each and every user RIAA style, and there is really no way to tell who is an isn't, people who pirate software usually aren't dumb when it comes to covering their tracks by stopping the computer from phoning One Microsoft Way. More importantly it might just invalidate click-through EULAs if they took them to court, which ofcourse they couldn't afford to loose, it's what gives them leverage above the user.

Re:Who actually pays?

You can say that microsoft, as the owner of the software, can charge what it chooses. I suppose so. But doesn't this say something about the value of the software? If microsoft can change the price arbitrarily, what is the true production cost of windows? Alot less than they would care to admit, and probably not much more than the cost of a linux distro. In other words, very cheap

The biggest hint that windows is priced much higher than production cost would be MS's cash reserves and the number trailing zeros in Gates' net worth.

That being said, what you pay for a product only has something to do with production cost when there is real competition.

Re:Who actually pays?

Except, if he had the OS installed on a removable hard drive and moved it from one PC to another. Lets assume we are talking about win 98 here to avoid product activation issues.

That's a different (and legal, AFAIK) situation. The only exception would be OEM licenses which, I believe, are only valid for the machine they were sold with.

If he does it one way (with a removable hdd) its probably ok(and maybe microsoft, with 3 licences, has had more licences than it should have), but if he does it another way (4 installs) he is breaking the law.

That's a different situation. The software is licensed to be installed and used - roughly speaking - on one PC at a time. I'm pretty sure the fine print allows for the movable install you described initially and may even allow for multiple installs (as long as only one is ever active at once).

I have problems mostly with the arbitrary way that microsoft licences stuff, and changes it with minimal notice. Internet explorer - first its for sale (I know, I bought a copy of IE 1.0 in the plus pack), then its free.

IE has always been available for free.

Hyperthreading CPU's - how many processor licences do you need?

Licensing applies to physical CPUs. The problem is that earlier versions of Windows can't tell the difference between logical and physical CPUs. It's a technical issue, not a licensing one. You are licensed to use XP Pro on a dual HT CPU machine, even if it appears to the OS as four logical CPUs.

Microsoft's licensing is really no more arbitrary than any similar company in the industry.

But doesn't this say something about the value of the software? If microsoft can change the price arbitrarily, what is the true production cost of windows? Alot less than they would care to admit, and probably not much more than the cost of a linux distro. In other words, very cheap.

*Re*production costs (ie: banging out CDs) are very cheap. *Production* costs (ie: developing the software) are very high.

Again, Microsoft "changing the price" arbitrarily is really no different to anyone else in the software industry - pretty much everyone charges per CPU, by usage type, by support details, etc. Indeed, pretty much *any* industry that derives money from "intellectual property" does this, as it's the best way for them to milk as much money as possible out of the consumer.

So when you say that someone is a microsoft pirate, yes, that is true, but dont forget the underlying legal system is unable to deal with microsoft, a convicted monopolist, leaving the average user in a position of overwhelming inferiority.

It's the *copyright system* that leaves the average user in that position. Microsoft (like everyone else) are merely taking advantage of the system.

The solution is simple - and its not about breaking copyright.

Copyright causes the problem. Not Microsoft.

Get an alternative, like mandrake linux, or bsd, or just buy a mac.

How is trading Microsoft for Apple going to make the situation any different ? They behave in exactly the same way.

OSS operating systems are, of course, different as their development generally doesn't need to be paid for by money.

If the law cant stop a monopoly, then the best solution is to stop it being a monopoly by using something else.

This particular issue has zero to do with whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly. Pretty much everyone licenses software like Microsoft.

Re:Who actually pays?

Except, if he had the OS installed on a removable hard drive and moved it from one PC to another. Lets assume we are talking about win 98 here to avoid product activation issues.

That's a different (and legal, AFAIK) situation. The only exception would be OEM licenses which, I believe, are only valid for the machine they were sold with.

Ooo! Ooo! You opened the Can of Worms!

What exactly are "the machine they were sold with"? If I change my mouse, does it invalidate the licence? What about the harddrive or the video card? The motherboard (or maybe just the CPU)?

EULAs are nothing but attempts to indimidate and control. They have managed to twist the meaning of "copy" so that the use of the software is a "copy" (from medium to ram) claiming then that their right to limit copy is in force.

Let's hope someone does bring an EULA to court someday in front of a judge that can understand that a "copy" necessary in order to use something is not the kind of copy meant to be limited by copyright law.

After all, when I read a book, I make several intangible copies. Light reflected off the pages create a copy on my retina. My brain processing that image certainly makes many symbolic copies. I might even retain a long term copy for future reference (it's called, you know, memory).

Obviously, the copyright holders shouldn't be able to sue me. Those copies were necessary and unavoidable to even use the book to begin with. Why should software be any different?

If I buy a book, I'm allowed to read it as often as I want, where I want, and I'm perfectly allowed to let someone else read along too! I can lend it, or give it. And a bookmaker certainly could write any sort of conditions on the cover "if you read this book, you agree to foo-bar-baz" and they would be laughed out of a court.

Some time in the past, some evil business-type paid some lawer-type to go and confuse a non-tech savvy judge that being able to use what you buy is making a copy because of some technical detail. That judge got swindeled and we are paying the price.

Let's hope nobody goes to a judge explaining the evil copy that we make optically every time we read (or indeed look) at something.

-- MG

Re:Who actually pays?

If I buy a book, I'm allowed to read it as often as I want, where I want, and I'm perfectly allowed to let someone else read along too! I can lend it, or give it. And a bookmaker certainly could write any sort of conditions on the cover "if you read this book, you agree to foo-bar-baz" and they would be laughed out of a court.

Maybe this is precisely what needs to happen to highlight the stupidity of it all. Write a book that has a EULA on the front cover, and take someone to court over it. It puts the law into the realm of the understood, instead of allowing lawyers to 'abstract' it convincing a judge it's something other than what it is.

Re:Who actually pays?

Is he using all 4 PCs simultaneously?

That's how I read it (note that for an OS, "using" = booted up).

If he isn't, and the licenses aren't OEM licenses (which are tied to specific machines) then I believe he is allowed to use the same copy on more than one machine as long as no two copies are active at the same time.

He doesn't say, but I rather doubt so. Unless he's running a data centre out of his basement, I think he's morally, if not legally, justified to think he's paid for what he's using.

No argument there. Personally I think just about any non-profit oriented "copyright violation" is moral.

Re:Who actually pays?

What I am saying is why can't he purchase one license and use it on all the PCs in his home?

We're not talking music, we're talking software. The difference is in the terms. If the license says "buy one license per CPU", then you can either agree to it and do just that, or you can return it on the grounds that you disagree with the license. If everyone would simply decline the licensing scheme that systems like Windows / Oracle / etc. use, they'd go away. But, people apparently keep buying multiple licenses for multiple machines and so they stay because they're obviously making money (I'm not counting the one-license people who get OEM copies).

And, if you "pirate" the software, all you do is silently add another Windows box to the statistics without making it known that you've declined the license, which just helps Microsoft and the licensing scheme.

Unfortunately I fear this may be the case. I refuse to use any paid music download service if it restricts my right to play the music on any device that I deem appropriate.

Same here, mate. Good policy. I use MMJB to play the radio at CD quality and commercial free and that's it. Vote with your dollars. If they can't sell crappy licensing schemes and "protected" (broken) content, they won't try (or, they'll die off and get replaced by less assinine companies.

Re:Who actually pays?

You may know what he paid, but you seem to fail miserably in knowing what he paid for Whatever he paid, the EULA clearly states that it is the right to use on a single machine. You don't have to like it, you don't have to even agree to it. You should recognize that failure to comply with it is misappropriation of intellectual property.

I never see the flippant attitude here towards the GPL as I see towards M$ EULAs. Just imagine people saying, "I have the code, I can do what I want with it, even distribute binary only!" and the uproar begins.

Re:Who actually pays?

I never see the flippant attitude here towards the GPL as I see towards M$ EULAs.

Because the GPL is not an EULA. It is totally different from an EULA.The GPL is targeted not at the End User, but at the "Intermediate Developer".

The GPL gives you new rights that you didn't have before (thus it can be considered a valid contract, because you get something out of it).

Some EULAs claim they take away rights that you already had. There is no reason for a customer to agree to that license, because he gets nothing out of it (and he already had a legal right to run one copy of the software as soon as Microsoft handed him a cdrom)

Re:Who actually pays?

You may know what he paid, but you seem to fail miserably in knowing what he paid for

Perhaps that's true, but you failed miserably to understand the parent poster's point.

Whatever he paid, the EULA clearly states that it is the right to use on a single machine.

1. Is that one single machine at a time, or only installed on one machine? If I de-install it on one machine and then install it on another, does that meet the EULA? It seems to be, but it is very inconvenient. There's no operational difference with installing it on both and only using one at a time, except for the lack of the inconvenience. What about swappable HDD?

2. You are assuming EULAs are legally binding. AFAIK, that has not been demonstrated, and there's good reason to believe they aren't.

3. The conditions of the agreement cannot waive fair use rights, if they apply in this case. They might, but AFAIK it has never been tested.

Even if you are not distributing your *perfect copy* of my product to others, by buying one and using two, you have deprived me of an opportunity to sell you a second copy.

But this is not the basis of law, rights, fairness, and ethics. One could say the same thing about many items. Allowing people to play the media in more than one device deprives the creators from an opportunity to sell many more copies. Allowing a car to be driven by more than one person deprives the manufacturers from selling more cars. Maximizing opportunities to sell things should never be the driver for fair use rights or legalities of licenses. It's a lousy argument and not convincing at all.

Re:Who actually pays?

You're thinking of ASCAP [ascap.com] and BMI [bmi.com].

Re:Who actually pays?

They're the copyright owners they stipulate how it can be distributed or whether it can be copied to multiple copy's. People get pissed when large companies break the GPL why shouldn't microsoft get the same people being irate for them? Don't give me that whole microsoft is monopoly deal, morals are morals. If you think its wrong to break the gpl don't go doing the same for windows.

Re:Who actually pays?

It's also morally wrong to use your "Intellectual Property" as a sword and not a shield... and it's also morally wrong to use your "I.P." to fleese every nickel out of someone for a product that has already legally paid for. If YOU are in favor of the GPL you will already know that the reason it even exists.

The GPL has neither one of these problem, thank you. I have paid for windows, and, for your information, I have a legal association with a university with an extended site license so EVERY copy I have is legal and I can run it where I want... LEGALLY.

Re:Who actually pays?

Excellent point. By the way, I'm the copyright owner of this comment, and by reading it you agree to pay me $1000. If you think it's wrong to break copyright, then please don't read this comment, but since you already have, I'll take the full amount in $20's please.

Re:Who actually pays?

Take copyright and turn it around...

Right to copy.

Copyrights are rights granted to copy something... and copying it into your mind by reading it doesn't qualify. This is why we get all into talking about fair use etc. What constitutes copying? Partial copying, quoting with attribution, backup copy for personal use?

Anyone know what the default copyright's are? Are all rights reserved by default? What rights are granted by not explicitely stating what the right to copy is.

And in closing, I think copying a slashdot comment will more likely get you bitch-slapped than sued... but that's just my two cents.

Re:Who actually pays?

Good clear examples! You have the right to use your refrigerator any way you see fit, even making back up copies (which would be prudent). The only legal problem comes if you should try and distribute copies of that refrigerator. What we need is a GPL refrigerator. GNU/Frigidaire anyone?

Re:Who actually pays?

It wasn't worth time I spent reading it, so I'm filing a claim under my state's lemon laws. Oh, yeah, I've also called the BBB about shoddy merchandise. I will be filing a class action lawsuit next week on behalf of all /. readers who may have reason to believe they were harmed emotionally, mentally or intellectually by your comments.

I've also called Random House and Webster's. Their lawyers may want to speak to you about the usage of various of the following words:

Excellent point. By the way, I'm the copyright owner of this comment, and by reading it you agree to pay me $1000. If you think it's wrong to break copyright, then please don't read this comment, but since you already have, I'll take the full amount in $20's please

Have a nice day.

Re:Who actually pays?

Bullshit.

With the Apple, IBM, Next or Be equivalents we would be considerably FARTHER than we are today. Microsoft is a sandbagger that adopts technology and sound engineering practices only when they face threat of imminent mass end user revolt. Otherwise they just abuse their captive audience.

Re:Who actually pays?

With the Apple, IBM, Next or Be equivalents we would be considerably FARTHER than we are today.

I'm not supporting the current state of Microsoft Windows, but Microsoft DOS had a critical role in the development of the modern PCs. We all owe it a lot.

Prior to MS DOS, every operating system was sold by a hardware manufacturer, and they wouldn't sell the OS without a computer. But Microsoft changed that. With MS DOS, it was possible for computers from two different manufacturers to run the same application without porting or recompiling.

MS DOS allowed Compaq to clone the IBM PC, which introduced real price competetion into the world of PC hardware, and eventually gave us the fast cheap machines we all use.

If IBM hadn't sub-contracted out their OS work to another company, computer technology wouldn't have advanced nearly as fast. (That company didn't necessarily have to be Microsoft, anyone could've done it, but Bill Gates lucked out)

Re:Who actually pays?

Prior to MS DOS, every operating system was sold by a hardware manufacturer, and they wouldn't sell the OS without a computer. But Microsoft changed that. With MS DOS, it was possible for computers from two different manufacturers to run the same application without porting or recompiling.

CP/M [wikipedia.org] ran on the Zilog Z-80, Motorola m68k, and Intel 8080 and 8086 architectures -- on microcomputers not manufactured by CP/M's publisher, Digital Research. MS-DOS copied many features from CP/M, and several early MS-DOS programs such as dBase and WordStar were ports from CP/M.

Neither Microsoft nor IBM invented the idea of a microcomputer operating system separable from a particular manufacturer's hardware. Indeed, several of the first IBM-clones (by which many would ironically include the IBM PCjr) were notoriously buggy, and many MS-DOS programs would not run on them. (CP/M programs were generally compatible on the same processor.)

As usual, the Microsoft-based copy of someone else's idea was much poorer. However, the Microsoft marketing machine -- and, more importantly, the willingness of the computing world to forget or deny the better options not taken -- have come into play.

Re:Who actually pays?

Prior to MS DOS, every operating system was sold by a hardware manufacturer, and they wouldn't sell the OS without a computer. But Microsoft changed that. With MS DOS, it was possible for computers from two different manufacturers to run the same application without porting or recompiling.

MS DOS allowed Compaq to clone the IBM PC, which introduced real price competetion into the world of PC hardware, and eventually gave us the fast cheap machines we all use.

If IBM hadn't sub-contracted out their OS work to another company, computer technology wouldn't have advanced nearly as fast. (That company didn't necessarily have to be Microsoft, anyone could've done it, but Bill Gates lucked out.

Your reasoning is correct but one niggly fact was wrong. You talk about OSs only being sold by the hardware manufacturer and you say "Microsoft changed that". But CP/M predates MS-DOS by a very long time and it was available on many personal computers from many vendors. You could even get CP/M for the Commodore 128.

While I agree with you that divorcing hardware from the software was important for the growth of the IT industry, Microsoft wasn't the first company to do it. Even UNIX could be properly seen as divorcing hardware from software; you could run UNIX on dozens of different minis (not PCs) well before Microsoft even existed.

Re:Who actually pays?

Sorry, not to be a Microsoft apologist, but if you bought that license with your machine, you didn't buy a full license, you bought the OEM license, which is intended to be used on that machine and that machine only. Because of this restriction, you did not pay the full retail price of Windows.

Many people pay much more then $45 dollars for their OS, hell, even Mandrake and Suse cost more then that if you buy it.

Nobody forces you to buy a computer with Windows on it, yet. If you don't like Microsoft's practices, buy a computer with no OS, or build your own. The vast majority of people would rather pay extra and not have to worry about loading the OS manually. And those who know how to load an OS also usually know where and how to build or buy a system without an OS.

Re:Who actually pays?

This violates the Fair Use and First Sale doctrines. Corps make it common practice to toss legal language into contracts knowing that it can't/won't be enforced. This is one way those with a clue like to abuse those without one.

Don't take is the next gospel just because it's in a contract or license.

Re:Who actually pays?

No, but Microsoft's terms with hardware vendors have, for years, assumed that all machines sold by said vendors would have a Microsoft OS on them. Consequently, even machines which did not ship with Windows already had a Microsoft license paid for. That was one of the big deals at the antitrust trial, as a matter of fact, given that it discourages hardware makers from supplying alternative OSes (why pay twice?) So, in effect, Microsoft DID force users to buy computers with Windows on them, even if they didn't have Windows on them. Those agreements may still be in effect, I don't know.

Re:Who actually pays?

Funny, the college I work at has the Academic Alliance thing... so our students get like just about anything MS has for $25 total, but only if they are majoring in the ITE fields.

Re:Who actually pays?

Their differential pricing model in general hints at monopoly abuse - by this I mean the fact they can charge different prices for 7 different versions of Windows (XP Home, XP Pro, the various Server 2003's), which ultimately aren't very different under the hood, combined with the fact that they'll practically give software to anyone with a good enough excuse (governments, universities, the third world...). Clearly their mark-up on Windows is pretty huge, given that they don't need to be making lots of money on every single copy.

Re:Who actually pays?

That has nothing to do with being a monopoly. Practically every hardware/software vendor in the world does the same thing.

Sun and IBM, for example, price their hardware and software all over the map depending on what type of customer you are. Everyone gets a different level of "discounts" or slightly different SKUs, depending on the audience/purchaser, even though it's all the same under the hood.

Re:Who actually pays?

That's how it works with everyone. I needed to buy a Dell server once. They only one they had that they would spec with the hardware I wanted was a job that had lots of unnecessary shit, like support for 4 processors. So I faxed the quote to Gateway along with what I wanted. Gateway was happy to design me one with the same specs, but not all the extra shit for a grand less. This then went back to Dell with a note that I'd buy it if they didn't do better. Turns out Dell COULD actually accomadate my needs with a lesser server and get everything I wanted in it, and at about $300 less than Gateway.

It's also interesting how nice Microsoft is to us where I now work. It's a university engineering department and as such has lots of UNIX in additon to Windows. MS gives us excellent terms on all their software, with compilers and the like being free provided they are used for research only.

Likewise Sun is very competitve price wise as both IBM and Dell have been frequent to point out how they could not only meet our Windows needs, but our Solaris needs too, and one system can run both OSes.

It is simply the way of a capatalism.

Who actually pays? We do.

> That has nothing to do with being a monopoly.

I see where you're going with this, but I don't know if its that clear cut. For instance, three weeks ago I was talking to one of our NOC guys at school and essentially they're going to phase out Novell because MS is giving them so much free software (upgrades to XP and server2003) they can finally shift to AD and drop Novell.

Now how is MS able to pay for this generosity?

1. They abused their monopoly and are arguably paying for this kind of thing with their ill gotten gains.

2. They're just a good company. *snicker*

I'm leaning towards 1. Novell has money and doesn't want to lose customers either, but they can't afford to supply an entire 20,000 person campus for 2 or 3 grand.

Re:Who actually pays? We do.

They can afford to give it away. As someone else wrote, it is also a tax break for them.

But it is also advertising. Students at the school don't see novell at all anymore, they see Windows and AD. They get used to this, they learn it. When they graduate, they know it. They go other places and ask why it's not there or help to bring it there because they know it.

With the Microsoft Campus Agreement, campuses license Windows and Office at a flat fee based on the Full-time enrollment equivalant. At our campus of 6000 students, it works out to cost about $8/student/semester. That $8 gets then the OS installed (9x/ME/2k/XP), and the Office Suite, and a couple of other things, like Visual Studio. When they leave the school, they get to keep it as well. Yeah...we pay for it, and the students pay for it, but for what is basically $16 a year, they get the OS and office suite with free upgrades. On the other hand, the amount the campus pays has gone up a couple times.

Re:Who actually pays?

Indeed, and I have long publicly held that $45 is right about the fair price for the retail version of the "greatest" version of Windows. Rather less for the "lower orders" and OEM versions.

Particularly over the past few years when the legal street price for a functional OS has been $0. All Microsoft is really selling these days is value added above that which is available for free, and that added value shrinks daily.

The same goes for pirated versions as well, were XP Pro $45 retail and XP Home $25 I dare say you'd see 90% of the pirate market dry up over night and Microsoft revenues either hardly dip at all, or perhaps even rise slighttly.

Those who would still pirate it at those prices are those that will pirate it anyway, notwithstanding price.

Any company that can, at those prices, cry that they're only making about 90% clear profit on their wares had best not cry to me. I shall likely be entirely deaf to their entreaties, knowing, as I do from personal experience, that squeezing 20% overall profit from commercial trade is doing rather well, both by one's self and by reference to the profit margins of others.

Take GM, for instance, who must deliver to you a car for the same profit margin that MS makes on Windows+Office, and who must invest billions of dollars in research, regulation compliance, manufacturing facilities, distribution channels, liablility etc, in order to deliver that car to you.

Microsoft's vauted "R&D" costs are peanuts compared to what it takes to make a simple change to an existing auto design, let alone the cost of designing and certifying a wholely new model. Their manufacturing costs are virtually nil, as are their distribution costs.

This is why they have been able to gather their unparalleled vast fortune in only a couple of handfuls of years, and why they must now resort to extraordinary actions to maintain their sales, even though their vast fortune would allow the company to live quite securely ad infinitum without conducting any overt commercial trade whatsoever.

Yes, for Windows XP Pro $45 seems fair, to a bit less than fair, as a retail price.

Let's say $19.95 for Office.

KFG

Re:Who actually pays?

"Piracy" (or whatever you want to call it) is a real problem here in Poland. I honestly think most people here would prefer to own a legitmate copy of Windows. However, when a retail copy of Windows XP Pro costs more than your monthly apartment rent, it's hard to ignore the $5 copy available at the local open-air market.

And, FWIW, a retail copy of the latest Office Pro costs about 20-25% of the average yearly salary here.

This is one thing (of many) that I really hate about Microsoft. They don't adjust their prices based on the local economy (at least they don't do it here). Many other products sold here seem to have their prices adjusted based on the local standard of living. Not Microsoft software.

I think this is a great potential growth area for free/open source software: make quality software available to people who simply cannot afford Microsoft. For most of us here on Slashdot (I suspect) $45 US is probably our latte budget for the week. For many families here in Poland, $45 US (~170 Zl) is their grocery budget for a week or two.

Re:Who actually pays?

I can afford Windows, but I still choose Linux. Why would I want to pay for an inferior, insecure product when I can get Linux for free?

Re:Who actually pays?

Because it runs Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Microsoft Exchange/Outlook, Macromedia Dreamweaver, Miranda IM, Microsoft Internet explorer (yes, it is still neeeded sometimes, good as FF is), Opera, Steinberg Cubase, drivers for any hardware available and most games you would like to play.

Not saying these are reasons not to use linux, just mentioning some of the stuff I miss when I choose the "alternative" option when I boot my box.

Re:Who actually pays?

OK you convinced me. Mac OS X answers all the needs. Runs the mainstream stuff and has the *Nix underpinnings.

Re:Who actually pays?

The "Apple Tax" hasn't been $2000 for quite awhile now. Macintosh is what WinDOS wishes it will be when it grows up someday. That's certainly worth paying a premium for. Although, that "premium" ends up being $350 at most (giving the PC the greatest benefit of the doubt).

Mac OS is a prime example

Actually, you just raised a prime non-Linux example of what the parent was talking about. I work in the publishing industry, and despite the fact that most of the graphic designers in this industry use Macs, many, if not the majority, have still not switched fully over to Mac OS X because of a single application: QuarkXPress. It took Quark years after the release of Mac OS X to come out with a compatible version, and even though one is available now, that doesn't mean all the associated plug-ins, add-ons etc. have been ported yet (since they couldn't start until Quark got off its ass).

My main desktop machine at home is a Mac, and I haven't so much as fired up Classic in months, if not over a year. Every page layout designer I know sure does, though. Even though most of them agree that Mac OS X is "better" in every way (at least on current hardware), they're going to keep using the crappy old OS too, because it's the only way they're going to have access to the applications they need to get their work done.

P.S. Macs don't run Visio; they don't run Access; they have Entourage instead of a proper, modern Outlook; and if you're into such things, they can barely run more games than Linux can.

Re:Who actually pays?

I suppose it is really people buying OEMs getting hosed.

Not at all. Most OEMs get it massively discounted, for something like $1 per machine. It's one of the major leverages Microsoft have had over the OEMs.

Basically if an OEM is pissing MS off by, say, negotiating with another OS inventor, then they pull on the leash and threaten with making the OEM pay the normal $45 price. $45 is a lot to OEMs who are constantly trying to undercut competitors in order to maintain market share.

Just ask Be Inc who couldn't get a single major OEM to even consider BeOS. Even IBM suffered from this as they struggled to get OS/2 onto the consumer/coporate desktop. Hell, Linux is free yet no major OEMs properly push a machine pre-setup with Linux. Or are you going to tell me there never was a desktop market for any of those (or other) OSes?

Only recently have OEMs started to flaunt a little disregard for the desires of Redmond because of all the Antitrust hoo-haa. But now that all the states have been bought... I mean, have reached settlements, things will soon return to normal.

Re:Who actually pays?

You actually think OEM's pay Microsoft $1 per machine? And you actually think Microsoft has $61 billion in cash by collecting $1 per machine?

The WSJ numbers are OEM quantity numbers. MSRP for Windows is a lot higher (same for all the other components as well). It is true that Microsoft will massively discount for their friends; but $45 is the DISCOUNTED price.

Re:Who actually pays?

It's true... I work for a small OEM and we get slapped for $80 for a single OEM license of XP Home.

Re:Who actually pays?

Not at all. Most OEMs get it massively discounted, for something like $1 per machine. It's one of the major leverages Microsoft have had over the OEMs.

I worked for a major OEM for several years. I don't know where you got your figure (but I can guess...), but it's wrong. OEMs pay about $45 per license. The price hasn't changed for years. It used to be $45 for WfWG, about $50 for NT 4 and the same for 98 and up. And that was back when MS was strong-arming exclusive contracts.

We had to consider the cost of every component that went into a PC, down to the screws. So even back when a hot computer was Pentium 166, that $45 was a chunk of change. You can bet that it's virtually intolerable today.

What really made us grit our teeth, though, was that we paid $45 to $50 for a copy of Windows, but we were responsible for all of the manufacturing costs, from the media to the packaging. We had to contract our own mastering, printing and packaging services. So, while we paid Microsoft their money, we also had to pay Phoenix another few bucks for the actual media. And when a new version of Windows came out, we had to pray that Microsoft would actually get us a master soon enough so that we could ship systems with their OS on the announced release date.

At the time, we were the second largest build to order PC company (behind Dell). I'd hate to think of how things would have been if it was a tiny outfit.

Not a dollar. Not even close.

-h-

Re:$45?

OK - if you have questions maybe you should RTFA first, where it explains that $45 is a BEST GUESS of how much Microsoft is charging for the OEM version of windows.

Seriously, this is about as straight-forward RTFA question as you can get..

Re:$45?

If it was worth a dollar every time some Windows user asked me a question that made my nose spontaneously start bleeding and then followed up by saying "What do you mean you don't do Windows? I thought you were supposed to be good with computers!" (Which more or less spontaneously forces me to make THEIR nose start bleeding) Windows would cost ME a hell of a lot more than $80 or $90, and I don't even USE the goddamn thing.

Re:$45?

"I thought you were supposed to be good with computers!"

"I am, it's Windows that isn't!"

In a word...

No.

It isn't even worth $0. I don't want it near me.

No, really, I'll get a restraining order.

Re:In a word...

And even the $45 amount thrown out in the article was a guess (by the author's own admission). It's probably closer to ~$70 (my guess).

Re:In a word...

Not a chance its that high since their preinstallation members can get it for $70 in quantities of 10. An OEM is probably paying around $40, I think that 45 is a very reasonable guess

Re:In a word...

I think this shows how much of Microsoft's success depends on being preloaded onto computers. The home version of XP is $200 [microsoft.com]. And thats with no Office. With Office, the combined price is $600US [microsoft.com], more than the cost of some full computers.

Thats a pretty good indicator of how important OEMS are to Windows. I haven't ever got 80% off for buying in bulk, much less 93%. If it wasn't for OEMs choosing peoples OSes for them, Windows would be losing a lot of market share fast.

Re:In a word...

Well, I say you're getting warmer, but, truth be known,
I wouldn't accept a Windows CD for less than $100.

You gotta pay me to keep that coaster safe.

Re:In a word...

I have just finished a six-month consultancy with a substantial beige-box OEM in Taiwan. They pay US$52 for XP Pro licenses bought in bulk lots.

Consumers do have choices

If consumers don't like paying for Windows they can buy a Mac, use Linux, or pirate it.

There are choices for consumers and if they refuse to vote with their wallets, I have little pity on them,.

Re:Consumers do have choices

There are choices for consumers and if they refuse to vote with their wallets, I have little pity on them,.

Patience young one. This is a Wall Street Journal article, not a computer focused article. This is just a sign that Wall Street is waking up to the fact that Windows isn't worth the money they've been spending. Ever since Microsoft released XP with these new tighter contracts, businesses who hadn't previously cared about alternatives now care. We've already seen some Microsoft replacing going on, this article is probably a harbinger of more.

Re:Consumers do have choices

This is just a sign that Wall Street is waking up to the fact that Windows isn't worth the money they've been spending.

The real assessment is much more sobering to those of us in the software industry -- this is just another bit of proof that the general perception nowadays is that software should be free, or damn close to free. No one groans about $600 for an LCD monitor, $200 for a hard drive, or $250 for a new video card every two years, but $45 for tens of millions of lines of code that is the single most important element of the PC (how great is that PC minus software)? Whoa, that's just unacceptable!

Consider this a win if you're blinded by your anti-Microsoft rage, but the reality is that this is yet another step towards the caveman mentality that only physical objects that you can hold in your hands have value. Of course I realize that's the going philisophical argument in these parts, so I'm preaching to the wrong crowd.

Re:Consumers do have choices

The average consumer purchasing a cheap $500 Dell or E-machine does not have as great a choice as it seems. Only Walmart has been offering cheap PCs without Windows lately, whereas everything from the low end Compaq/HP, Dell and Gateway machines that are more popular have one and only one OS installed on them.

"Buy a Mac," while it is a good solution for some people, doesn't work as well for those on a budget. Pirating windows is not a legally friendly option, and it wouldn't save Joe Sixpack any money if he's buying a new Dell anyway. As much as I think Linux should become more widespread, I'm not sure if the masses are quite ready for it yet.

The issue is not that Windows costs money, but that there is no choice in the matter for the average user when they buy a new PC.

PenguinComputing.com

I have purchased three PCs in the last four years with Linux preinstalled (one a laptop). I have purchased PCs with FreeBSD preinstalled. Don't tell me you can't find these on the web, numerous vendors are in this market.

Re:Consumers do have choices

If consumers don't like paying for Windows they can buy a Mac, use Linux, or pirate it.

There are choices for consumers and if they refuse to vote with their wallets, I have little pity on them,.

Easy for you to say, but most people only know what is on display at CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, WalMart, etc. As soon as the big OEMs with retail distribution stop giving in to Microsoft exclusion deals (I forget the economics term, when a monopolist refuses to sell its product to a middleman if he sells competitors' products too). Dell employees came out of the closet and told the world about these deals, we know it goes on. Do you really think any OEM will stand up to Microsoft and risk losing Windows? Only WalMart has been able to do this, one juggernaut battling another...

Re:Consumers do have choices

I forget the economics term, when a monopolist refuses to sell its product to a middleman if he sells competitors' products too

The term for that practice is, "Felony."

Schwab

Re:Consumers do have choices

Or "Strategic Partnership".

Re:Consumers do have choices

Easy for you to say, but most people only know what is on display at CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, WalMart, etc.

Point of information: CompUSA stocks macs and mac products. And, many malls are starting to see an Apple store pop up. Go into your local University store and you'll see Apples all over the place and Linux. Go into best buy and you'll see Linux. Order a PC from walmart.com and you can get Linux based PCs. The future is coming, and it is wonderfull M$ free. <grins/>

Re:Consumers do have choices

Regardless if you like them or not, weither they need your money or not and weither you have pity or not for MicroSoft, no software developer should be punished by pirating their work.

If you dont support MS, then fine. Don't buy their product. But using their product (pirated or otherwise rented where legal), you're just indirectly supporting them by telling your friends and relations that it's OK to send you MS -formated documents (Word, XCell etc). You're not accomplishing much, in a show of disapproving their products or business model, by using their products.

The best protest you can make is categorically not using their stuff, and returning send documents to the sender and asking them to save it as an open format (RTF or PDF to name just two).

I don't use any MS product--even those that came with my Macs (including but not limited to Explorer) for this precise reason. For those very rare occasion where I simply can't escape it, I resort to an open source product that can read or convert said documents.

Act, on your beliefs.

Not to support the evil empire, but...

...does that mean I should pay less money each year for a QT license if they don't release a bunch of new features? ;)

$45?

Windows may take $45 dollars per year, but trust me... it certainly takes a lot more, when you factor in all of those lost papers, doomed databases, and the dozen hours each of us loses from meddling with its problems.

Re:$45?

If that was the case, Apple system 8.5 would have been priceless. I remember many times browsing the web with netscape 1.1 while writing a paper and having netscape crash, sometimes I was lucky and could type "G F" in the debug window but the most time it trashed the systems memeory requiring a reboot. Those were the days.

Today nothing ever crashes, my work box has uptime of two weeks(win2k), our servers(solaris and red hat linux) never go down along with our sql servers(win2k server). If you getting crashes, i'd point fingers at hardware. I've had problems in the past with bad hardware(VIA Chipset + Creative Labs SB Live) or bad hardware drivers(VIA chipset before 4 in 1 drivers).

Stability determined by drivers and hardware

I agree what what you say! And Microsoft by far as to support the largest combination of drivers and hardware... so of course they have the most problems.

I think everyone wants but does not realize that modern OS is not 'hardware proof'. They don't test drivers and hardware, they just assume they work... and fail badly when they don't. FreeBSD 4.9, Redhat Linux 9, Windows XP -- all the same. In some respects, Windows XP is actually doing more to adress the problem - the crash reporting component helps Microsoft narrow down which 'real world combinations' are problem. I wish they were more in sharing the results... but that is more a 'corporate America' problem than anything...

Article Text (Lee Gomes's Portals column)

(I'm posting the text because the online access will go away in 7 days for non-subscribers)

Do We Get Enough In Innovation for What We Give to Microsoft?

It's 2004; do you know where your computer dollars are going?

One can learn a lot about the computer industry by looking at the breakdown of manufacturing costs in an average desktop PC, as compiled by iSuppli Corp., a market-research firm. Excluding labor and shipping, and leaving out the costs of a monitor, keyboard or mouse, the typical desktop PC these days costs the Dells or the H-Ps of the world roughly $437 in parts.

The biggest portion of that -- 30%, or $134 -- goes to Intel for a Pentium processor. The disk drives, including whatever CD or DVD is installed, cost around $104; the RAM memory is $54; and the remaining hardware items -- power supply, case, circuit boards -- total $100.

The final 10%, or $45, goes to Microsoft for the Windows operating system.

Because these prices are never disclosed, the figures here represent best guesses. But you can start to see the contours of the computer industry in that bill of fare. Specifically, you begin to understand how Microsoft could amass its $61 billion in cash and other assets. It's easy when you collect nearly 10% of the cost of every PC that's shipped, while having no manufacturing costs of your own.

Most technology companies that do well justify the money they make by saying that is what is required to fund innovation, that were it not for all the profits they were accumulating, the industry would be standing still.

The claim is suspect. The disk-drive industry, for one, manages to release drives with ever-larger capacities while often barely breaking even. And the technical challenges they face are among the most formidable, involving squeezing more and more bits of data onto ever smaller portions of a rapidly spinning magnetically charged platter.

Intel is no stranger to big profits. Analysts estimate the Intel CPU costs more than a comparable product from rival Advanced Micro Devices. What about the added charge? Think of it as an Intel tax on each PC.

Even if you're not an Intel shareholder there's arguably a benefit associated with that tax. Intel is like a research-and-development operation for the entire semiconductor industry. The manufacturing processes it uses for its latest-generation Pentiums are the most advanced in the world and cost billions of dollars. Eventually, though, these processes become widely available to everyone in electronics. This is one case where trickle-down economics seems to work.

That leaves Microsoft, and the question: What does the world get for the 10% Microsoft tax on every PC?

No one could ever say Microsoft is sitting idle. That was clear last week at a Research TechFest the company held at its Redmond, Wash., campus. Microsoft has an advanced research operation that employs about 600 people all over the world. These are some of the smartest people around, and they don't work on specific Microsoft products, but rather on long-range ideas, usually matching their own interests.

The TechFest was like a science fair. Researchers set up booths, and the managers of Microsoft's many products milled around, looking for useful ideas they could deploy in future products. The number of people doing the milling was in the thousands.

But is the innovation from Microsoft commensurate with the awesome resources it has been given? The average Microsoft customer probably wouldn't say so. Indeed, the advances the company lists for its new products all too often involve fixing shortcomings of earlier products, such as security and reliability in the case of its operating systems, and ease of use with its Office suite.

In fact, you can argue that genuine innovation is the last thing monopolists want, since it threatens to upset the very applecart that made them rich in the first place.

When asked which research from its labs has made its way into M

perhaps...

if you had an option to either pay it, or buy a PC without an OS. that it's forced upon you when you buy a PC (via OEM agreements) isn't fair regardless of the cost. I bought and iBook just because I wouldn't pay for Windows, since I would never use it. Yes, I pay a little for OS X, but it's something I may actually use (via MOL in Linux).

CBV

The majority actually do just that

Though they usually do opt for Windows as well. I looked at percentage of PC sales a while back and was confused. The numbers from all the big (and a couple not so big) manufacturers added up to around 50%. WTF? Was the data screwed up? No, turns out that still about 50% of sales are at local stores, or chains that do custom builds like CompUSA. The big OEMs have made huge inroads, and of course have the largest singular percentage slices, but they are NOT the only option, or even the most popular.

So ya, if you don't like the OEMs sticking Windows on there and not giving you an option, go to the mom and pop shop and get your computer there.

The alternative is MacOS or Linux

So either you get users pissed off that they have to spend MORE to get similar functionality, or you get them bitching about how user-unfriendly Linux is (though free).

Not much of a choice between all three, really. What there ought to be is a free OS that is as comfortable an environment as MacOS and supports as much software as Windows.

They say I'm a dreamer, but my heart's of gold...

Re:The alternative is MacOS or Linux

'unfriendly' is such an ugly word. We prefer the term 'user-indifferent'.

Re:The alternative is MacOS or Linux

No no no. Linux is most certainly "user-friendly." But it's very picky about who its friends are.

$45? Yes.

I'd pay $45 for Windows. I'd pay $60 if they let me not install most of what I don't want.

Re:$45? Yes.

To paraphrase:
How much is it if I install Windows?
$45.
How much if I don't install Windows?
You can't afford it.

Only $45???

Not sure about the math, but last I checked, Windows cost a lot more than $45.00. Then again, if it only cost $45... as in I could go to the computer store and buy it for $45.00... then perhaps it would be worth it. Then I could take the money I normally have to spend on Windows and use it to buy VMWare instead (vs finding keys for it on astalavista.com) and then I could still have my Linux system with my Windows via VMware config all for a more *reasonable* price.

This post is a sarcastic attempt at irony and humor and not meant to be an admission of guilt for software piracy that would lead to the BSA knocking on my door.

The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers [nccomp.com]

Does it matter?

Does it matter if MS is innovating or not? They still get the 10% in the form of the "Microsoft Tax" whether they innovate or not. When I bought my Dell (which I won't do again, now that I've learned how to build my own from scratch), it came with Windows XP. I then upgraded to Red Hat Linux 9 (OK, technically I changed...), but MS had already got their bucks out of me for WinXPH. Mayhaps FTC should get involved in this (again)?

Re:Does it matter?

Why just look... http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features. aspx/precn_450n?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd

Well, what do you know? A Dell machine with Linux on it, and another with FREE DOS. Just because you are an uninformed consumer who can't be bothered to look for a machine configured with the software you want (from the same vendor no less!), don't waste the time of the FTC.

Re:Does it matter?

Buy from the Dell Business site, rather than Dell Home, and you can get machines without an OS. There are some great bargains on the low end Poweredge 400SC servers.

Not Microsoft

It seems to me that essentially what Microsoft does is wait for someone else to come up with a cool new idea and take the risks of making sure it works, and then implement the same concept themselves in an integrated fashion so that the lazy and/or uninformed will just use theirs. I think a prime example of this is ICQ, which of course was followed by MSN.

Re:Not Microsoft

A better example is the middle scroll button. I saw them working in Taiwan mice about 3-4yrs before MS made them. Special drivers so you could scroll in ALL apps. When MS came out with theirs, the scroll only worked in its NEW office and IE programs. They couldn't even retrofit the functionality into its basic windows widgets despite owning the OS.

Usually..

Usually I would be the first in line to bash Microsoft, as would the vast majority of the slashdot group.

However, I do have to give them credit for Microsoft XP, being the best thing they have done in a long time, and for allowing me to use a form of Windows that can actually have a nice interface if you tweak with it a bit.

And for making a Windows that is easier to install, and doesnt crash quite so often, as Win98, WinMe, Win95, ad nauseum did.

So basically Microsoft needs to just wait, work on Longhorn, make it stable and release it once it is completely finished, with much much more stability and Bill Gates will just have to wait before becoming a quadro-gonzo-bobillionaire.

Re:Usually..

So basically Microsoft needs to just wait, work on Longhorn, make it stable and release it once it is completely finished, with much much more stability

That's a bit of problem though, because a lot of the timelines are now starting to place Longhorn at around 2008. That's an awfully long time for Microsoft to be sitting on their hands really.

Yes, there are plenty of promises of wonderful new features in Longhorn, but then MS was promising a OO filesystem in "Cairo" the update to WinNT that was perpetually delayed and never quite arrived. As long as Longhorn is several years away they can promise all the amazing innovations they like - we have to wait to see what they actually deliver

Jedidiah

I've done my part!

I think their estimates are off a little. $45 for a copy of Windows seems a little bit underpriced. I know an OEM installer, and he says that every copy of Windows they get (and they have to get multiple ones) costs on the order of $99. Granted, he's not a _big_ OEM builder, but he's still an OEM builder.

He also has a monopoly on the area's new PC market, but that's okay.

I've paid a Microsoft tax on two of my 11 PCs. Five of the others are too old to run Microsoft software, two of them are relics that will never leave my house. One is incapable of running any Microslut OS and it would be preferable if it stayed that way. One is a hunk of silicon which I didn't pay microslut taxes on. One other, my Quadra 630CD, runs a Microslut OS, but I didn't pay the taxes on that one, AAPL did way back when. (consequently, that thing runs Windows 3.1 on its 486/66 processor better than my native 486/66 did, with less RAM)

10% of the cost of every new PC?

It's a lot more than that, when Dell is selling it's low-end machiens for around $399. XP Home costs over 25% of the cost of that new PC. Pro is almost half!

Re:10% of the cost of every new PC?

"Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day.

Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Hard to compete with free

Closing line of article >> "Of course, Microsoft's research group is still young, and its best years may still be ahead. They had better be. PC taxpayers might start rebelling."

Might start?

I am pretty sure that the trend of "OS-less" or free *nix preinstalled PCs is not going to lessen. I have bought many, many "mini-pcs" based on the micro-atx form factor over the years to use as a distributed server grid in some of my colocation cages to control Lucent MAX-TNT servers. They came with some noname distro of linux... and were cheap as dirt and worked just fine.

With more big name PC vendors taking this approach.. It will be very interesting to see *just how many* consumers really want Windows when the choice is put in their hands.

Yeah but...

what are they supposed to do- release feature patches every month the same way that hardware makers release revised editions and incremental models? Would you trust a microsoft patch which upgrades the filesystem? I'm not talking about a new media player or email client but some patch to the actual OS.

I would rather wait for a new OS version than add another card to the teetering tower (ok, XP ain't *that* unstable ;)) so at least the whole system has been tested to be compatible with itself. If everyone else has a similar attitude then I guess the best we can do is wait the 1-3 years between versions and be grateful for what we get. One thing microsoft doesn't need is more pressure to rush their software to market.

Laptops...

I recently was on the hunt to purchase a laptop. I had no use for Windows as Linux suits all my needs. I went immidetly to the pro-Linux shops: HP, IBM, Dell.

I was very disapointed to find out that not ONE of the vendors would sell me a laptop without an operating system. ESPECIALLY IBM! I eventually gave up and went with my first choice which was IBM.

I guess my point is, sometimes you don't have a choice. You're stuck paying the MS tax.

Daniel

45 $

To everyone who's saying that the 45$ price is way out of touch with reality... READ CAREFULLY... The 45$ is what the WSJ is guessing that the computer manufacturers (eg: HP/Dell/Gateway) pay microsoft due to custom liscencing agreements. We may not be able to buy windows for 45$, but the computer makers wouldnt stand being charged full retail price when they use so much in terms of volume. Read carefully the article and the subtleties you will soon understand.

The Microsoft Monopoly

I have always wondered what the world would be like if a company with
better technical leadership had been handed the PC operating system
monopoly by IBM oh so many years ago. Perhaps it would not have been
possible for that company, whoever they might have been, to achieve the
level of domination that Microsoft achieved because such a company might
have put too many resources to the task of technical innovation and left
the business (i.e. monopolization) side of things to falter. It is quite
possible that the only company which could achieve the kind of dominance
that Microsoft has achieved would be one which, like Microsoft, cannot
innovate or excel technically, because it would take too many resources
away from the business side of things to focus on the technical.

I guess this would mean that the companies which achieve monopoly status
are by definition technically inferior? This would certainly seem to be
the case ...

Some people would argue that Microsoft is not a monopoly because it does
not in fact have 100% complete control over the operating system market.
But Microsoft does have a monopoly in one *very* important market -
operating systems capable of running Microsoft Windows software. You
see, I think that the fact Microsoft's operating system's are the only
ones which literally trillions of dollars worth of software can run
on means that Microsoft is by definition monopolizing an absolutely
enormous market. While it may sound flippant to say that Microsoft
has a monopoly on Microsoft operating systems, I think there is something
really important behind this. No one company should be the producers
of a commodity which so many other companies depend upon to sell their
product. It's not healthy for the market and it's certainly not to the
benefit of consumers.

Re:The Microsoft Monopoly

This is important--and it is why wine is such an important program. I know many people don't like it, but as long as MS continues to restrict other companies' ability to run a fully compatible OS, this is a valid concern.

As an interesting aside, how long do you think it would take to get COMPLETE compatibility with Windows under linux if MS opened the source code? Three days? Five maybe.

This is the exact reason that MS will never do that. Because as long as Adobe, Macromedia, and most of the big game shops don't release native versions of their software on linux, MS will continue to have a powerful monopoly.

IF OpenOffice EVER is as good as MS Office in the ways it counts (usability, userfriendly), then we will another step toward lessening MS monopoly power.

My big concern is that people like norton, TurboTax, and the gazillion and one other 'useful' commercial app makers will never jump off the MS bandwagon. As long as this is the case, then there will be big issues.

As a note, Pampered Chef uses some type of VB app for their consultants. It's windows only, and is one of the BIG reasons I can't ditch windows.

Another reason is companies like SPSS and SAS. If you can show me a stats app that is as easy to use and as powerful as either that runs natively under linux, I will be shocked.

These are just a few examples of apps that need replacing before Linux is ready for primetime.

Perhaps a repository is in order to list all the apps that need replacing, and possible alternatives--if one exists, PLEASE let me know.

No, but...

No, but Microsoft is worth 45 stories on Slashdot every month. That has to count for something.

Bring it on ....

$45? Yeah ... It's worth that much to me. Easily. It lets me run the apps I need. $45 isn't really all that much. Heck, that's like one semi-nice dinner without wine.

Great Article

This is the most on-target article on the subject I've seen in a long time. The only thing he didn't emphasize enough is that there is a deference between software research and hardware research. The sort of research that Intel does CAN'T be done by small companies or people working at home (for the most part). Intel, IBM, AMD and a very few other companies have the capital to do these kind of hardware innovations, and they may be helped a bit by government funded universities etc.

Software research can be done at all levels, by individuals, small companies, groups of individual working together. There is, and always will be Open Source software. I can't forsee there ever being an "Open" architecture CPU, that could be manufactured on a small scale (it would be a great thing if there was though!).

Microsoft's day are numbered unless they find a new business model. I don't hate them, love them, or feel sorry for them, thats just the way it is. A free economy will eventually favor value. It moves at a snails pace sometimes, particularly when impeded by monopoly practices and governmental indifference. But one way or another things will change, and anyone or anything who blocks that change will find themselves bypassed or submerged.

The article "does the math" that I'm sure even Bill Gates is capable of following. I just don't' think Microsoft has figured out how to respond yet. The stock market will punish them until they offer a response, and this article wouldn't be appearing in the WSJ if that were not the case.

Microsoft=GES (Good Enough Software)

Microsoft's OS design gives us only the menu-centric launching interface starting with Windows 95. It did one thing that the Mac OS hadn't (and still doesn't, being icon-centric in navigation of apps)--allow a quick way to launch an application.

Slowly, Microsoft added OS features that allowed plug-and-play hardware detection, and peer-to-peer networking. That's about all I can think of from the OS level. Again, nothing fancy--the Macintosh hardware was doing this since 1986 with the Mac Plus.

The Office suite was a nice integration of packages, however I don't know if that qualifies as innovation per se.

Has Microsoft matched its software pace to the rest of the computer industry pace? No.

SECURITY: While all other operating systems and hardware have presented and adapted new techniques to keep bad guys out with greater ease and reliability, Microsoft has merely patched and patched, foregoing any true complete redesign of any of their products for tighter security. A quick way to fix this would be to drop the W32 architecture as their primary architecture, pick up a Linux distro (they're free!), then have a new OS that runs UNIX apps, has UNIX-style security, yet can still run W32 apps. Remember that MS bought the Virtual PC emulation software, which is a much better WINE than WINE? (Mac users can testify to this). Running the flawed Windows in a virtual machine can isolate any malware inside the environment in the same way that Mac users run Windows in their version of VPC. That way any infections stay there, unable to affect the UNIX OS that runs the virtual machine.

PHILOSOPHY: Microsoft has never learned the KISS principle. Their software is too bloated with features that the designers thought people wanted without keeping focused on what was only needed. This bloat extends into the OS and its millions of code and all apps. Also, Microsoft is a "Not Invented Here" company that stifles competition (read: inspiration) that encourages new ideas and products. MS would have never dreamt of the hyperlinking browser--and they might have bought it up before CERN could get the idea out and buried it in a file cabinet if they thought about it.

I can go on and on, but I bet that others have a few more ideas that support what little I've said.

Innovation vs. Size

Well they must be innovating at an incredible rate! Look at how fast the size of their software grows.

Every extra Gigabyte consumed on disk and megabyte allocated in memory holds useful new stuff as the OSs grow from release to release, right?

no manufacturing costs for windows?

"It's easy when you collect nearly 10% of the cost of every PC that's shipped, while having no manufacturing costs of your own."

this guy is a total asshat. how can he say that windows has no manufacturing costs? 3-4 weeks ago on slashdot after the windows source code leak, folks were saying "holy shit guys - look at the 4.5 million lines of code that becomes windows! what a crappy, bloated OS!". now this dumbass claims that it costs nothing to manufacture. how many man-hours did it take to write windows 2000? windows xp? the media it is shipped on costs very little, but one-time cost of writing is also counted in the total-cost. so unless it was written by non-paid interns (which we know is not the case), this guy is grossly underestimating the profit.

i bet he's just another disgruntled mac user...

Re:no manufacturing costs for windows?

this guy is a total asshat. how can he say that windows has no manufacturing costs? 3-4 weeks ago on slashdot after the windows source code leak, folks were saying "holy shit guys - look at the 4.5 million lines of code that becomes windows! what a crappy, bloated OS!". now this dumbass claims that it costs nothing to manufacture. how many man-hours did it take to write windows 2000? windows xp? the media it is shipped on costs very little, but one-time cost of writing is also counted in the total-cost. so unless it was written by non-paid interns (which we know is not the case), this guy is grossly underestimating the profit.

I think you'll find he'll be considering development costs as R&D costs, not manufacturing costs. The comparison was hardware manufacturers - Intel spends vast amounts of time and effort designing their chip; comparable to development time for a new version of windows. The difference is, once Intel is done, they still have a manufacturing cost on every chip they sell. Fabricating chips costs serious cash. In comparison, once the design work is done for Microsoft, they have a new version of windows - the only manufacturing cost is stamping CDs.

In other news, Microsoft most likely doesn't write those 4.5 million lines of code from scratch for each new version of windows. One would hope that the bulk of that code is fairly stable and not undergoing constant rewrites and changes. Which is to say, you are grossly overstating the development work involved in producing a new version of Windows.

So, in summary: You are overstating the amount of development work required to create a new version of windows, and the author of the article is already factoring that cost in anyway.

Jedidiah.

$179 for XP upgrade

How's this for a kicker: the sysadmin at my current gig purchased about 10 PCs with Win XP Home Edition preloaded, and now we need to pay $179 EACH just to upgrade them from XP Home to XP Pro. (The 60+ systems were all in "Workgroup" mode, moving them to Active Directory so I can have security on the file shares. XP Home won't join a domain.)

Yes, I know there are some hacks to make XP Home join authenticate to a DC, but they're just that, hacks (and work about as well.)

yes.

Yes, to me, it is worth it.

I'll admit that I'm a bit biased and didn't pay $45, or even $75 or $275 for my licenses of Windows -- I got them through Microsoft for Partners professional discounts, which gets me them for approximately $30/license (Professional) but there's so much more stuff in there that it's closer to about $6/license.

I'm not a new computer user. I've been using PCs, and the Windows architecture, for 14 years now -- since right around 1990, and Windows 3.1. I still, at this point, find Linux too difficult for me.

Case study:
Booting a *LIVE CD* distribution of Linux, it was impossible for me to make it detect my USB Mass Storage device. Then the autoconf script to place a /home folder on that device, and check for its presence at boot, never worked. I never did get that working -- and that's not even kernel hacking.

Then, fed up, I went on AIM (gAIM) to ask a friend who'd had similar experience. When signing back on with a Windows client later in the day -- my buddy lists were completely rearranged, groups were created with copies of people, and a handful of names were missing, for no apparent reason whatsoever. gAIM messed it up.

I'd love to use Linux, but I'm afraid to honestly, becuase of the fact that I don't know a thing about how to use it, and it doesn't seem to want to be used itself. I'll just stick to administrating Windows networks. Anything I've wanted to do so far, I've been able to do under Windows. That includes running Unix-only scientific tools - thank god for Cygwin.

redundant acronyms

>RAM memory is $54

RAM memory? That'd be Random Access Memory memory then, right? Just like my PIN number (Personal Identification Number number)...

Possibly

The only window I know that is worth $45 is the one used to keep the snow out of my house during the winter. But seeing how I live in Florida, a $10 screen in the summer and a $5 sheet of plastic in the winter seem a better way to go.

Fedora Linux for Me

Not that I like the idea of piggybacking on all of the Open Source talent out there in the world, but when faced with the choice of building my computer using Windows or linux I have to choose linux.

I would rather pay to purchase a copy of a linux distro and support an open source cooperative than pay to purchase a liscence for a microsoft product and put another gold toilet in the Gates' House.

If more people felt the same way then maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have to put up with another IE popup asking us if we want to enhance some random body part......

no.

1. I build my own stuff from scratch.
2. I do not use MS products. Period.
3. I use and sell Linux. More bang for your buck.

Windows, out of the box, does nothing but get you online so you can get infected and download warez and pr0n. Oh yeah, and mp3z...
No word processor, no spreadsheet, no much of anything.

Linux comes with too many things to list.

Yeah, Linux has it's shortcomings but it's benefits FAR outweigh it's shortcomings.

I just can not justify paying for trouble.
I had a guy today ask me to sell him a system and install a pirated copy of windows on it.
I told him I don't do that, I don't have any copies of windows, and I wouldn't do that to someone that I like anyway.. I offered him Linux instead. He declined, I lost the sale. Life's tough..

Not Flaming

Actually, if windows xp home was available for a mere $45, it'd be a steal. the $45, i guess, represents what the OEM pays for it, not the price that consumers pay for a boxed copy. nonetheless, even $100 ain't bad. let's review;

red hat enterprise liunx workstation starts @ $179.00.

mac os x is $129.00.

i know there are free (beer) variations of linux and bsd, but you don't get much support. i know everyone rags on MS for the extent of their support, but let's face it, they do still support their software. MS just recently ended support for windows 98. windows 98, people. six years of downloadable updates.

when you grab the cheapie pc @ best buy for $400 that comes pre-loaded w/ win xp home, i don't care if emachines is paying $4, $40, or $400 to microsoft. i know i'm getting a pc w/ a legal os, and i'll get support for several years.

is MS evil?
sure.
is $45 too much to pay for an OS?
no way.

Re:Not Flaming

"is MS evil?
sure.
is $45 too much to pay for an OS?
no way."

It is if you are furthering the cause of evil.

No raindrop may be responsible for the flood but every drop does it's part.

So yes. Paying $45.00 to further evil in the world is too much to pay.

billg will have his Nobel Price too!

IBM, too, is famous for its research, and it has five Nobel Prizes to show for its work.

Just wait until the government in Sweden gets a nice deal on Windows and Bill Gates will have his Nobel Price too!

(If you don't believe, compare it with the deal the government in the UK got and that he immediatly after it got knighted :-)

What do OEM customers really pay?

I'm wondering personally, what is the cost an OEM customer (Dell/Gateway/etc.) actually pays for Windows XP Home?

I've asked Dell before what discount they could give me if I wanted a Laptop with no OS installed, and the answer was "none." When I tried to get them to elaborate on it, I wasn't really met with a positive response in any way.

It seems almost as if users really don't "pay for" Windows XP Home, which is $99 retail, but rather they are rewarded with a free copy (or at least super cheap copies) simply because they are helping maintain the MS Monopoly.

This is where the vast majority of Windows based PCs come from: large OEMs.

Personally, I believe a more fair price would be $50 for home and $100 for pro. MS may even get more people to upgrade from 2000 or 98/ME with those prices.

Think of it as marketing...

Don't think about the cost of the Microsoft OS - think about how it drives hardware obsolescence - the average user only buys a new machine because they need a new version of Microsoft Office, which needs a new version of the latest Microsoft OS, which needs a faster CPU, and more memory. (Or, more recently, getting the latest Microsoft OS because they can't keep up with the patches).
This drives computer sales - versus what would happen with Linux - users would still buy better peripherals, but Intel wouldn't be where it is now - because the peripherals would use embedded processors, and Intel doesn't rule there. Memory wouldn't sell as much, because without OS bloat, we wouldn't need as much memory. So in summary, I'd say that Microsoft does serve a purpose - marketing of new computers.

MS innovates plenty!

As harddrive manufacturers add to the storage capacity of the drives MS innovates in occupying more of that space. :-)

Your dollars are for more than Windows!

You get a bunch of free software with Windows, so it's money well spent!

• Think of Wordpad, for professional documents.
• Paint for quality graphical designs.
• Notepad, the professional HTML (and more) editor.
• Several great programming languages (bat, jscript, vbscript).
• A great jukebox, Windows Media Player 9 Series.
• Windows Messenger, the nice instant messenger.
• Internet Explorer, the most web-standards compliant browser around.
• Outlook Express, the best email client around (unless you need spam filters).
• Bunches of games, such as Internet Reversi (very addictive!)
• etc, etc...

How many times must we pay for windows?

The question I think should be asked isn't whether it's worth it, but rather, "How many times do I have to pay for windows?".

Several people purchase computers to replace the computer they already have. The old computer gets junked. Lets forget about the possibility of people switching from windows to linux. Lets just ask an even more clear issue. Why can't the user use his old copy of windows on the new dell? Can't resellers ask for proof of previous windows version to not get billed for the software?

Comparative pricing

Is Windows worth $45?

A little while ago I spent roughly this amount on a game called Uru. (For those living in caves, it's the latest in the Myst series.) I seem to remember paying quite a bit more for Windows, but maybe the price has come down since then. No matter.

When I'm playing Uru, I wander through a variety of odd (but usually very pretty) environments, often sitting for hours on end contemplating alien mechanisms that I don't understand. Sometimes I click on a control or two (or ten), and sometimes things start working as a result. Other times I wander for days, trying every knob and button I can find, peering suspicously behind doors, retracing paths I've been down dozens of times, and in the end I still haven't figured out how to make some odd machine power up or work properly.

Which pretty closely parallels many of my experiences trying to get Windows to do things.

So...ummm...I guess by analogy, if Uru is worth the money, then surely Windows must also be worth it. ;-)

Value has a context.

And in the case of an operating system, the context is tool. For instance, my job is not installing and configuring the latest OS. My job is, however, writing memos and TPS reports. Now, forty years ago, memos were typed on an IBM Selectric 2. Nobody had one at home - they were prohibitively expensive. And no one expected the TPS report to be completed outside business hours. Then, twenty years ago, DOS and WordStar replaced the Selectric. But since then, the memo-generating tools and TPS report tools haven't really changed. They certainly haven't even gotten any faster, as my brain and hands tend to be the limiting factor.

The innovation in hardware, however, has changed the tool context. Now my boss wants the TPS report on his desk in Tokyo on Sunday. So I complete it on a PDA connected through the Dupont Circle Starbucks wi-fi. Very little software innovation - it's still Word and TCP/IP. The change in context is hardware (and firmware). Hardware innovation has made the specialized tool an ubiquitous tool.

Where can a software company add value in the 'ubiquitous tool' context now? Security. Microsoft recognizes this; they are rushing to try to show value in that context. They have failed so far, some would say miserably. It remains to be seen whether they will succeed.

I get it at $50.

I am on smaller OEM and typicaly buy XP home OEM for $50-54 and XP Pro for $65 or so. I purchase 10 packs to get a price like this and go through 2 or 3 packs of home a month and a pack of Pro every six weeks or so. Dell buys direst from M$ while I go through a middle-man. I am pretty sure that since the big OEMs are buying 10000 the volume I do they get a better price.

Yes

I happily paid $128 or so for Win2K Professional at a store that was going out of business.

I have 98,ME,2K and XP. The only one that wasn't worth what I paid for it was ME and that was $50. Although it useful as it bridges the upgrade path. The upgrade version of ME will install with an upgrade version of 98 and then I can install 2K on top of that.

XP I got free from the university.

I wouldn't pay for it since I have 2K. If I didn't have 2K then I'd be willing to pay for it.

Ben

$45? I wish...

Is Windows XP worth $45? Microsoft obviously doesn't think so.

I'd buy it in an instant if it were that inexpensive, but they seem to be insitant on selling it to me for $250. (That's XP Pro, OEM, Canadian price.)

Re:Instead of using my mod points...

You like XP, and that's perfectly fine. But suppose you went to your local computer store to buy a new machine and found that every machine there came pre-installed with Redhat Linux. Also suppose you found out that $45 of the cost of each computer is going to the cost of Redhat. So you grudgingly buy one of these machines, remove Linux and install XP. In this scenario, was Linux worth $45 to you? Keep in mind this is what people like me are forced to accept. I had to pay some undisclosed amount for XP on my laptop, yet I have never used it (and never will). To me, that copy of XP was not worth $45. To me, it's not worth anything, yet I was forced to pay it to get the laptop.

$45 isn't bad

Really, you get a lot of software for that $45.

It's Office that you lose on. Microsoft makes most of their money on Office. Arguably, Microsoft is a company that sells Office; everything else exists to sell Office.

How to Avoid the Microsoft-Tax

Here in Germany you have to pay more than 100 Euro for the Microsoft Windows XP Home OEM edition, if you want to buy a laptop for example. There are only a few laptop manufacturers, which sell their machines without pre-installed OS. Just in case you don't need that OS, here are some legal ways to avoide the *Microsoft tax* [tuxmobil.org].

I hate to provide the counterpoint, however...

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm prefixing this strongly, because it's important that people understand my position. I abhor Microsoft's practices, and detest their muscling around of other companies. Heck, Microsoft became a success due to what could be construed as Corporate Theft.

Now, that being said, I believe in the importance of stating valid arguments against Microsoft. There are many, MANY valid arguments that can be made against them, but the argument above is (sadly) not one of them.

When it comes to Operating Systems, especially ones that end users count on, innovation is detracting. A typical end user wants something predicatble, and above all, something that they don't have to reinstall, upgrade, or pay for in often occurring intervals.

The hardware industry gets away with innovation because they can appeal to 2 select groups of users that doesn't mind having to pay at closer intervals than the mainstream: gamers and high-end businesses. And through them, it filters down to the masses who are convinced by their zealousness that buying a new computer is good (when, most of the time, it's not needed).

Operating Systems don't have that luxury. How many things can one add to an operating system before A) You run out of things or B) You run out of things that won't put you into the realm of Monopolizing (for example, take the integrated Web Browser debate). Add those up, and it's hard to come up with reasons to innovate in the OS world.

Now some OSes are inclined to be more innovative. By design (and cost, if you consider that distributions can be downloaded for free), Linux can position themselves to be innovative, and often is. More reason to use them. But for Operating Systems that cost money, and already run the risk of Monopolization, it's just not a good idea.

MS Research

As much as I detest the Beast of Redmond (and I *am* a Linux user), I have to admit that Microsoft Research does a huge amount of really good research in basic computer science and mathematics. And a *lot* of this research ends up in actual products.

I know for a fact that some wonderful research in statistical machine learning is actually being used on the XBox, while some equally great theory in stochastic processes is being used for image super-resolution.

While the end user might have to wait for a bit for the benefits of all the research to trickle down to the actual products themselves, from a pure research standpoint, some of that money that they squeeze out of their customers actually ends up getting spent in the right places.

The cost of Windows is simple

The cost of anything is simple. What the market will bear. In the case of Windows, the market has to bear the current pricing structure of Microsoft's operating systems. It's this very market that is to blame for the price, the market decided long ago to pay what Microsoft asked. The market itself has locked in to this supplier and is just now beginning to see that it made a very stupid and short-sighted move.

None of the OEMs are in a position to bargain with Microsoft. Look at IBM. They've invested millions(billions?) into Linux and you can't even buy a laptop from them sans Windows. When the supplier of the base ingredient to your product has a ~90% marketshare on that ingredient you have very little to no bargaining power. Limiting yourself to just one supplier of anything is going to come back and bite you in your collective asses.

Since the OEMs are in no position to bargain, that leaves a government to step in. My government attempted to straighten Microsoft out but failed miserably. Time will tell how others fare. Regardless of the outcome, it will have no effect how Microsoft operates on its home turf. Microsoft will continue to strong arm clients and dictate the price of their products until they are stopped by the U.S. government or the market refuses to bear the cost.

I'm sorry to say...

Microsoft will always, always have a monopoly on the PC Operating System market. The simple reason for this is that VERY, VERY few people or companies would ever take the risk of installing an O.S that doesn't run the vast majority of software products already available and demanded on the market. After all, when it comes down to it, isn't a free economy all about choice? This gives consumers two initial choices A: Install and use Linux (forget for a second that for many people this is going to have quite a steep learning curve compared to Windows). What does the consumer get? More money in his/her pocket, but FAR less choice in software applications. B: Cough up a wad of cash and use Windows XP. Rest assured you can go online, or go to your local "software supermarket" and have millions of choices concerning software, compared to a much smaller number for Linux et al. Given the fact that a huge number of people choose "B", software developers aren't really encouraged to support Linux, but instead keep churning out new programs for Windows machines, thus repeating the cycle. I don't think any of us will ever live to see Microsoft as anything other than a monopoly. Sad, but true.

If it saves me about 1 hour, it is worth it

I run a bussines. And anything that can save me 1 hour of work is worth $45 to me. Simple as that.

Switching to Linux for the desktop would cost me a lot more time than that, as I would have to re-learn my habbits.

I can even afford to pay it every second year without breaking a sweat.

And windows isn't that insecure. Shure if you only use MS products it is. But Apache, Mozilla etc. runs nicely on Windows too.

I prefer Linux as a server, but desktop Linux is still to bothersome for me.

not just innovation

Why the focus on innovation? It costs a lot just to maintain the rest of the business, support, documentation, etc. I mean, if you want to make this argument about $45 for innovation, then we're being ripped off on most things we do in society that cost us money and have no innovation. To me it seems that $45 is actually not bad for the cost and complexity that goes into buying something like Windows.

The point is really: is it a _mandatory_ $45 hidden into the cost of an OEM'd PC; or is it an _optional_ $45 along side other operating systems ...

Re:ok time to start out with first post trolling

One thing you can't label Apple as is anti-innovation. Look at iTunes -- got the new technology of the year award from Time.

And look at OS X... think of how fundamentally different it is than OS 9. Then think of XP versus 2000 or 98. Not that much of a difference.

Re:ok time to start out with first post trolling

One thing you can't label Apple as is anti-innovation. Look at iTunes -- got the new technology of the year award from Time.

Which is somewhat ironic when you consider it's just Yet Another MP3 Player App bundled/tied to an online store and a portable MP3 player - none of which were particularly "new technology" at the time.

And look at OS X... think of how fundamentally different it is than OS 9. Then think of XP versus 2000 or 98. Not that much of a difference.

Windows 2000 and XP (which are roughly analagous to OS X 10.2 and 10.3) are just as fundamentally different to Windows 95, 98 and Me as MacOS Classic and OS X are to each other.

YOU are not MS customer!!!!

one thing to point out is that YOU are not MS customer...Dell or IBM is. Hence they make the OS to cater to those people who buy a lot of it...and they want to sell pre-made PCs.

In reality MS is like McDonalds...McDs invents the burgers and puts up marketing, but other people pay to put up and run stores eeking out a living selling burgers. In reality MS only has several thousand customers...Or think of an oil refinery...they sell gas to stations..not You and I. because of that they're allowed to "hide" their tactics behind contract law unlike your local cable or energy company which sells to US directly...and is held accountable for every dime!!!