Slashdot Log In
Buy PC Without an OS... Get a Visit From MSFT?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:54 AM
from the sure-would-be-tragic-if-something-happened-to-your-kneecaps dept.
from the sure-would-be-tragic-if-something-happened-to-your-kneecaps dept.
sebFlyte writes "'Don't sell PCs without operating systems or we'll send the boys round.' That seems to be the general message coming out of microsoft's antipiracy unit, according to ZDNet. While MS seems to accept that people might want to get hold of PCs without Windows so they can put Linux on them, they don't think that's a good enough excuse. "We want to urge all system builders -- indeed, all Partners -- not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business," says Microsoft. The FSF has given this policy short shrift, saying: "It looks like a private sniffing service which is supposed to spy on these who do not want to pay the Microsoft tax anymore. It is an incredible piece of impudence.""
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Buy PC Without an OS... Get a Visit From MSFT?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 639 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Ummm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://fak3r.com/)
Re:Ummm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~Moby%20Cock)
Re:Ummm.... (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 11, @05:30PM)
Oh, it is, but they were convicted in a US court, which doesn't have jurisdiction in the UK (much to the consternation of the RIAA and MPAA). Even then, they got off lightly enough that they don't seem to be terribly concerned with risking a repeat.
Monopoly without abuse? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://markbyers.com/ | Last Journal: Monday July 24 2006, @12:54PM)
What's the point of getting a monopoly if you don't abuse it? The shareholders would sue you if you didn't even try to abuse it.
Re:Ummm.... (Score:5, Informative)
Before anyone tries to complain about the findings of fact, remember that the appeals court never disagreed with the facts Judge Jackson found, only the remedies he demanded. So that the original practice was an abuse of monopoly power still stands. As would the present case of strong-arming people into always including Windows.
Re:Ummm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here we go again (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.snappyjack.com/)
Does a move like this do anything to effect all the current antitrust cases?
TFA:
This sounds a lot like a veiled threat to me.
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday March 31 2006, @11:17AM)
Finish the quote:
"...with specifically 5 percent fewer opportunities to market software and services."
It's a risk to your business because you miss out on opportunities for profit. Not because MS will send goons over to "buy you out".
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday March 31 2006, @11:17AM)
I don't know what MS is saying is the danger for end users, aside from the obvious that they want people to think that Linux is a risk (just like some Linux zealots say about MS) and are concerned about piracy.
From the scanned article linked in TFA:
1. To install their own software
2. To transfer software from an old machine
3. To install Linux
4. To take advantage of a volume licensing agreement
Now, you might make a great leap and infer that 1 and 2 point to piracy, but generally it's assumed that "their software" is legally theirs, and this old machine has a tranferable license (as in, non-OEM).
The point being made by the scanned article is that a lot of buyers are planning on using an "old" OS...I would assume non-XP is implied here. What they're wanting is for OEMs to determine why people are ordering naked PCs and see if they can find a way to pitch Windows to them. It's a win/win for MS and the OEM...both would turn a profit off the sale.
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/journal.pl?op=list&uid=907337 | Last Journal: Tuesday August 07, @10:58AM)
I remember a few years ago there was some kind of talk about 'returning' windows licenses...does that work? did it ever?
I don't see me buying too many desktops anymore - the freedom/power to cost ratio is low enough that I foresee all my future computers being laptops, and my last one came with XP on it...so even though FC5 will go on it shortly, I still paid the M$ tax...
anyone?
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Informative)
(http://kim.biyn.com/)
Build your own (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Build your own (Score:5, Funny)
Blame pirates, being suing people randomly/needlessly. There are three possibilities:
1) Sales go up (The pirates were the problem! Let's kill the bastards!
2) Sales go down. (We aren't being harsh enough on the pirates! They're still stealing from us, we need to crack down harder!)
3) Sales stay the same. (The pirates are still pirating as much as they always have, we need to send a firmer message! KILL THE PIRATES!)
By blaming all their problems on the invisible spectre of "pirates" companies can justify virtually any legal action and come out looking fine since, after all, they were just protecting themselves against those damned pirates.
I also nominate myself for the Award for Post with the Most Uses of the word "Pirate."
Re:Build your own (Score:5, Insightful)
it sounds like this.. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.quantumtemple.com/)
Re:it sounds like this.. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://evil.google.com/)
Y'mean like putting Windows on it? : p
MSFT should tread lightly (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, this is basically just marketing, but if they actually take action against computer makers who sell "naked" PCs, such as refusing to license the Windows OS to them because of it, they run the risk of once again being brought up on charges of monpolistic practices.
To say that a PC sold without an OS will undoubtedly be used to pirate Windows is an absurd stance, and so forcing PC makers to sell PCs with Windows pre-installed in order to avoid such piracy is not valid. If Microsoft presses the issue too hard, they're going to end up making their lawyers very happy once again.
Re:MSFT should tread lightly (Score:5, Insightful)
And even if it is....it is not the PC makers responsibility!
Headline wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
monopoly money (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.mountainlogic.com/)
Naked PCs? (Score:4, Funny)
"We want to urge all system builders -- indeed, all Partners -- not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business -- with specifically 5 percent fewer opportunities to market software and services," wrote Alexander.
So, since they don't want "naked PCs"...they want you to install a "clothed-source OS" ?
hahahahah
T.Dzubin (submitting as Anon 'cause I've forgotten my login password)
With a little help from their 'friends' (Score:5, Funny)
MS will be able to track purchases, and if it looks like you're building your own systems, they come to mess you up. Afterall, pirates are just like terrorists, except for the eyepatch, the big hat, and the dead parot.
Scraping away the FUD... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday March 31 2006, @11:17AM)
Now for some serious FUD debunking:
This quote seems popular: "We want to urge all system builders -- indeed, all Partners -- not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business"
Now here's the rest of it: "with specifically 5 percent fewer opportunities to market software and services,"
As for the idea that MS might pay you a visit for not buying Windows...it's pure speculation and is not indicated by MS at all.
This describes the situation best:
Microsoft is trying to convince OEMs to sell more of their product? Those fiends!
Re:Scraping away the FUD... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://echoreply.us/)
I'd like to see those statistics (if they exist) before I completely dismiss the validity of the article
bullshit.
It looks like this was aimed not at people who sell OEM (bare) as just an option, but people who don't offer Windows licensing at all
Gestapo-ish marketing, yes. Big brother
Re:Scraping away the FUD... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday March 31 2006, @11:17AM)
That's odd, because in my experience dealing directly with MS as an OEM, that wasn't the case at all. Now, they did tell us when we told them we were switching to Linux for some apps that our unit prices would go up...but that should be expected when your purchase volume drops by 20%. They then flooded us with pamphlets telling us how much better Server 2003 is than Linux and how TCO for Linux was actually higher and so forth. We had that crammed down our throats for four months before I finally told our MS rep that it was customers who drove our switch to Linux, and we weren't going to push MS on them if they specifically requested the change.
The article most definitely is not "FUD"
So stating that MS will pay you a visit for not buying Windows with your new PC isn't FUD? It's even clearly stated in TFA that they have no intention of doing that.
In this instance, it is Microsoft who are employing this tactic by hinting that bad things will happen to OEMs and to consumers who buy OS-less machines.
Yes. Businesses will miss out on a chance at boosting their sales figures, and consumers will install Linux. That's pretty much what MS said.
Re:Scraping away the FUD... (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone needs to explain some economics to Bill et al. It just doesn't work that way.
Re:How does this differ from a non-compete? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.unanimocracy.com/about.html | Last Journal: Tuesday April 04 2006, @12:04PM)
How is it anti-competitive if I offer the customer a savings on a product that they want? I don't ask others not to compete with me, I just worked out a long term agreement with someone to get the product they want at a price they want.
If an employee works for me, I also make them sign a non-compete in exchange for a much higher income. If they don't want to sign with me, they can go make 50% of the money with some company that doesn't care.
Anti-competition comes only out of licensing by the state and excessive regulations causing high-barriers to entry. Anti-competition does not come from companies forcing themselves into the consumers' homes. Microsoft has definitely taken advantage of government regulations (copyrights, patents, DCMA etc) so they're not clean in my mind, but I see nothing anti-competitive about getting people to agree to certain terms so you can plan your budget and growth.
Is signing a cell phone contract for 2 years to get a free phone anti-competitive? Is signing a satellite TV contract for 2 years to get $1500 in free hardware anti-competitive? You made the decision.
Which risk is worse? (Score:4, Funny)
Well as soon as you install Windows, there is a risk of being attacked and infected. So the risk is about the same.
Big Deal! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://skryche.livejournal.com/)
THis is a bit overstated. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.sjbaker.org/)
The actual source of this information says that:
1) This is a UK-only thing.
2) There are only TWO new MS employees doing this.
3) They discuss this during routine customer meetings.
4) There is no hint of coersion implied here.
So what this actually means is that there are a couple of extra marketeers out there trying to pursuade stores not to sell bare PC's.
Furthermore, the MS article http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z/nw/sp/storygraphics/sc
* To install their own software.
* To transfer software from an old machine.
* To install Linux
* To take advantage of volume licensing.
The didn't mention "To use a pirated version of windows".
What they ARE saying is that selling a bare system is a missed opportunity for the store. They suggest that if you sell someone a bare machine, you're missing a chance to sell them additional software such as photo processing, music players, etc.
So - yeah Microsoft are most definitely *evil* - but this isn't anything to panic about.
I doubt this will change the minds of many sellers - two guys in one country appealing to store owners who probably made a careful decision to let their customers avoid the MS tax.
You DON'T need to keep re-buying windows over and over again. You DON'T need to buy a copy of Windows only to have it be overwritten with a site-licensed version at work. You DON'T need to buy a copy only to scribble all over it with Linux. You SHOULD be able to save $50 off the cost of your PC if you are in one of those catagories.
This is getting old (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.themanpages.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 06 2005, @03:45PM)
I wouldn't put it past them, but this looks like a straw man that we have predictably knocked over. Congratulations, Slashdot, for another brilliant victory.
Fuck Dell (Score:3, Informative)
MSDS (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft engages in foul play even here on /. (Score:4, Interesting)
Check it out. . .
I know the guy who posted this Slashdot comment [slashdot.org] on how prominent Forbes writer, Daniel Lyons, a suspected SCO puppet, was asking leading questions of Balmer at Microsoft's request in a recent interview slamming Linux.
Through fluke, my friend managed to get first post. He was also posting with some respectable Slashdot Karma. What happened next was fascinating. . .
His post became the focus of a moderation tug-o-war. No big deal. Happens all the time on Slashdot. --I've posted hundreds of items which piss people off, and I've watched my posts fly up and down on the venerable, "Troll" to "Insightful" Slashdot scale. Except, I cannot ever claim to have invoked more than, at most, say 8 or 9 mod points from the Slashdot moderators.
carsonc [slashdot.org]'s post however. . . Wow.
We were chatting a few days later and he described the scenario to me. It seems that, lickety-split, after his post had gone up, a group of somebodies had gone into his posting history and spent a lot of mod points hammering several of his recent posts from 2's down into -1's. They spent, we estimate, at least 25 mod points worth of specific attention on him. Despite the fact that regular Slashdot moderators eventually won the tug-o-war, leaving his comment in the rarefied air of +5, his Karma had nonetheless dropped so quickly from history moderation, that he was left prevented from posting more than two comments per day, (effectively stopping him from engaging in open forum debate on the very topic he'd launched), and assigning an automatic -1 to everything he might say thereafter.
Yeah, yeah. Big deal. Slashdot Karma wars do exist on the level of schoolyard nonsense, but in this case. . .
A group of somebodies with 25 mod points to blow on a moment's notice? Well that raises interesting questions! Judging by the otherwise bland nature of carsonc's post, which I can't think could possibly have inspired anybody to have such intense emotional reaction and thus mod negatively, --unless they were directly affected by his comments, I can only surmise that it was either. . ,
A) Unwholesome Slashdot editors. --Which, considering Slashdot's fairly clean history of moral conduct over the years, I think is unlikely in the extreme.
or. . .
B) A band of Microsoft employees who had been directed to acquire mod points on Slashdot to be used at the whim of Microsoft's PR department precisely when negative views circulating around delicate points in the news might harm them. And as mod points are not given every day, how many users exactly, does it take to have 25 mod points available at a moment's notice? Enough to require some paid coordiation, I'd say.
Some might cry, "Conspiracy!" and wag their heads like dolts. But with several 1000 employees plugged into the Microsoft cube. . .
Anybody who has seen the film, "The Corporation" [imdb.com] knows that such a scenario is not just possible, but -extremely- likely.
In other words. . . Fuck Microsoft. Switch to Linux. Tell everybody to do so now. Ubuntu [ubuntu.com] will mail you 5 disks for free, and they'll support them, for free, for 3 years.
-FL
well, I checked his history... (Score:5, Interesting)
As to MS employees being a reason he was boned, I have to say that's not too far-fetched to me. But really, I'd have more sympathy if slashdot weren't so consistently off the handle in relation to MS. I mean, it's pretty easy to get a smack even for reasonable opinions about MS and SCO. And his slight wingnuttiness doesn't help much.
It's still seems unfair. Maybe meta-moderating can fix this eventually?
Buy PC Without an OS... Get a Visit From MSFT? (Score:3, Insightful)
So comply, ship a PC with an operating system... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://upt.org/lane)
What about Apple computers? (Score:4, Funny)
Lets wait and see what happens when... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.robphillips.org/)