How Open Source is Faring in Retail 259
SilentBob4 writes to tell us MadPenguin is running the first of two articles taking a look at the 'world of retail as Tux is experiencing it'. From the article: "Of the stores we visited, only Linspire Linux was sold pre-installed on computers in-store. Those FOSS boxes were often among the store's best volume sellers, primarily because they were the cheapest, according to store staff. The staff believed, based on conversations with frequent customers, that most customers were buying the boxes to install Windows on them. But that is not surprising to us, because, as we discuss in section two, brick-and-mortar "computer" stores are still part of the Microsoft distribution chain. The fact that there were some open source products at all in these stores is actually surprising, as Microsoft guards its distribution chain jealously, and punishes those business partners who stray into carrying FOSS products."
MS punishing for FOSS? (Score:5, Informative)
At all three places we talked openly to MS reps about offering Linux to keep prices down. At one of the OEMs we went from all MS to about 20% Linux in the space of a year. Not once did any of that hurt our relationship with them. This sounds like a bunch of FUD to me.
Re:wow... (Score:3, Informative)
From a slightly different angle... (Score:5, Informative)
In the UK, the PC World [pcworld.co.uk] chain is the main purveyor of PCs at retail. It, err...well. How shall we put this? It doesn't have the greatest reputation for knowledgeable staff and customer service. Alternative names I've heard for it are PC Woe and The Purple Temple Of Sadness (which is the best term I've heard for the place).
As you'd expect, it pushes cheap* PCs and whilst the odd Mac sits at the back somewhere, it's pretty much a Windows-only place, happily pushing Microsoft Anything and Norton at people.
It came as a surprise then, when I needed to grab a router right that moment and so went in, to find internal stock lists and part numbers getting checked using OpenOffice spreadsheets. Interested, I had a word with the guy doing the check and he said OpenOffice was used throughout the store.
I'm not certain as to whether he meant just that store or the entire chain, but it was interesting to see OpenOffice having taken over a shop so strongly identified with WinTel and Microsoft-only solutions.
Cheers,
Ian
*Not that I have anything against cheap PCs - all depends on people's needs really.
Re:Punish? (Score:2, Informative)
And the source for this little gem is what? Do you suppose the DOJ would be interested if it were true?
If you read the article closely, you will see that the source spoke to me on condition of anonymity. The source is someone who works in retail tech, and knows whereof he / she speaks.
The point is that people are so afraid of the ramifications of giving quotes like this that they won't speak except on condition of anonymity. Face it, Microsoft is a bullying monopoly that abuses its market control to this day.
Oh, and as to the DOJ that you are supposing will take action, would that be the same DOJ that settled the prior anti-trust case against Microsoft with a slap on the wrist?
Re:wow... (Score:2, Informative)
Nuff said.
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Informative)
OEM operating system licences live and die with each pc - they are not transferable
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/licensing/howt ouse.mspx [microsoft.com]
Re:Surprised? (Score:2, Informative)
There's a very good reason why so many manufacterers "recommend Windows XP" for using their products.
Re:MS punishing for FOSS? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Exactly (Score:2, Informative)
Now it's not a new computer, I just replaced some worn out (and now broken, due to some strange lack of jumpers) parts in my old PC.
Just because Microsoft says you can't do something doesn't mean they're right.
Re:That is a shocker (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe now you can after this poor dude, David Zamos, tried to sell his copy [clevescene.com], and faced the wrath of Microsoft's lawyers. But David fought back. An amazing and sad story, IMHO, how big corps expect us pee-on consumers' to just roll over.
Re:Maybe (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That is a shocker (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Maybe (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's not all Microsoft's fault (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Punish? (Score:2, Informative)
Mainstream news media do this all the time, and I'll bet you don't question it. The news media would loose its ability to challenge the powerful without anonymous informants. In this particular case, I spoke with a limited number of sources, and the source wanted to know who else was quoted in the article before speaking. The source was concerned that even a reference to his or her industry, in the context of the article, would have provided enough information to identify him / her. That's how afraid people are of Microsoft in this industry. The profit margins are so thin and people in retail are so vulnerable that a change in just tenths of a percent in revenue can destroy careers. My source was not willing to risk his / her career over a magazine article and demanded absolute anonymity.
I had the choice to publish and give my readers the statement, or not publish, and give Microsoft essentially the power of a censor over this aspect of the story. I chose the latter. Of course, you, as the reader, are the ultimate judge of credibility. I accept whatever judgment you pass. That is your perogative. But do please consider the fact that few people in the tech press really challenge Microsoft, because if they do, they will lose access. Microsoft controls the tech press through self-censorship in many instances.
Re:MS punishing for FOSS? (Score:1, Informative)
You're pulling all of this out of your butt.
For starters, transistor radios in several form factors replaced solid-state radios in several different forms -- the handheld, the "kitchen" radio (for lack of a better term), the clock radio -- but ultimately what displaced the larger radios from the family room was the television, not the transistor radio.
In the 1960s Macy's was a relatively small player in the retail world. It was limited to a set of Eastern stores and had not moved westward with the acquisition of the Bon Marche chain.
RCA is hardly a shadow of its former self; the NBC netwotk (its largest and most successful component) is a rather integral part of GE.
You pulled all of that out of your butt. Bravo! If this indicates your grasp of reality, I'm glad I passed on reading your article.
Linspire shares a lot, actually (Score:1, Informative)
Linspire shares a lot back to the community as can be seen on bugtrackers all over the open source world, in their own projects (like NVU and PhoneGAIM) and on their own web site. I think all the proprietary stuff they "do not share" (apart from CNR) is stuff they do not own themselves but just license from others.
Yes they charge money, but they do that for services. Personally, I only run Ubuntu, but there is talk of CNR for Ubuntu, and I'd happily pay for that (easy codecs, apps with no free alternative, apt-friendly).
Don't bash a good community member just because they like to pay their developer for the work. I'd rather see a guy be able to make a living on making more open source than having to have another job on the side.
Re:That is a shocker (Score:2, Informative)
This is a good place to start. http://techbuilder.org/recipes/163101045 [techbuilder.org]
You will be suprised ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Maybe (Score:3, Informative)
the first is the one you mention: it's delivered after-the-fact. you've already bought the s/w, and a lot of stores won't take open boxes back, so it's a major headache if you don't agree with the terms.
You don't BUY the software. You pay money in order to enter a contract with the owner of that software. By paying money, you have acknowledged that you accept the terms of the contract, whatever they may be. Generally, you can read the EULA on the manufacturer's website or request that they send you a copy.
Second, the terms are unilaterally imposed. You have no opportunity to negotiate the way you could/would if you were in fact negotiating a contract.
This is true of almost any contract. If you are entering into a contract with a company, it's generally a take it or leave it proposition. Try negotiating the terms of your cellphone contract, or an apartment lease, or an insurance policy. Hell, most contracts these days even restrict you from disputing the terms of that contract in court -- and this is legal! Read up on mandatory arbitration provisions someday.
But for me, the biggest concern (illustrated by the Brick EULA) is that they can list any kind of terms they want. How legal the terms are comes down to a judge. Companies add all kinds of additional terms that simply don't exist in property law: neither physical nor 'intellectual'.
That's kind of the whole point of a contract -- to impose requirements onto two parties that are not already imposed by law. The parties of a contract are already expected to follow all applicable law. After all, there isn't a law that says you have to pay $55.84 a month to have a cellphone and that you have to pay $400 if you decide to cancel service.
Copyright law allows content owners to decide who gets their content, but the EULA extends this authority over how you use the content.
Wrong. Copyright law prohibits anyone from using a copyrighted work without the owner's permission. The copyright owner is free to impose _any_ conditions they may require in exchange for permission to use the content. There is nothing in copyright law that says software has to be sold for a fee or that licenses have to be indefinite. If I wanted to, I could lease software for a monthly fee or prohibit you from using it to harm animals or prohibit you from talking about it to anyone. This would be perfectly enforceable.
Once Ford has sold you the car, they have (essentially) ZERO say over how you use it.
That's because Ford _sells_ you the car. Software is licensed via a contract, not sold. If you _lease_ a car from Ford, they could do any of the things you mentioned. For example, they could make the lease non-transferable, require you to keep the car clean, specify what kind of parts you can use, specify that they are not liable for accidents, restrict your right to sue them in court, and even specify how many people can ride with you. As long as your name is on the dotted line, it's perfectly legal to do this.