Dell Customer Gets Windows Refund

scottv67 writes "Dell today gave freelance programmer and sysadmin Dave Mitchell, of Sheffield, UK, a refund of 47 pounds ($89) for the unused copy of Microsoft Windows XP Home SP2 bundled with his new Dell Inspiron 640m laptop, Mitchell says. Dell also refunded the tax, for a total of £55.23 ($105)."

Re:Return on Investment?

[GigsVT]

If you had 1% of your yearly income stolen by mugging every year (Say, $350 if you make 35k), would that be ok?

Good for him....

[MMC Monster]

And good for Dell for taking care of him with a minimum of fuss.

17.5% tax = outrageous

[Heian-794]

Considering that the consumption tax on Windows is a ludicrous 17.5% (8.23 / 47.00), I wouldn't be surprised to see the government stepping in and forcing people to pay for Windows just to keep that revenue stream flowing!

Re:Return on Investment?

[b0s0z0ku]

But there comes a time in every transaction that you have to gauge your time versus what you get in return for your time. In this case, the US$100 this guy received was probably worth it for him to spend a few hours going through this process, but is it worth US$100 for most people?

Maybe he was just trying to prove a point? I'd say that he shouldn't have got the refund since the laptop was sold as a turnkey package. I mean, if you buy a car but never use the back seat, can you just give the seat back to the dealer and get a refund for the cost of the part?

I think, instead, the large manufacturers should not be prohibited from selling "empty" computers. IE, OS installation should be purely optional from the factory. Unfortunately, whenever this is tried, MS comes out of the woodwork and makes noises about suing for encouraging software piracy. Maybe if they threw Ubuntu on there it would appease MS and cost basically nothing for them.

-b.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have way more than 1% of my income stolen each year -- actually, about 50% stolen. You do, too. It's called taxes, and the more you try to reduce that percentage, the more you seem to pay anyway.

Re:Bust MS bubble

[RAMMS+EIN]

``Of course I don't read the EULA like most people and it probably allows you to install a copy of XP on computers that you own.''

The Windowses that come with new computers typically contain language to the effect that it is to be used with that computer only.

Re:Return on Investment?

[frdmfghtr]

If you had 1% of your yearly income stolen by mugging every year (Say, $350 if you make 35k), would that be ok?

To answer the question: of course not.

A mugging is where you are FORCED to give up your dough...buying a PC with Windows is not a mugging, since you can, with some time and effort, build your own to-spec PC without Windows and install your own OS on it. Furthermore, paying for a Windows license is a one-time thing, until the next version is released. I paid for a WinXP license on my laptop once, and once only, and I've had it for several years. Maybe site-licensing for businesses is different; I'm not familiar with that idea.

The original point is this: is getting the OEM cost of Windows refunded worth the time and effort? If I can make $50/hour doing some work, but I spend three hours getting a $50 refund on some purchase, is it worth the effort? Is the extra time and distance required to fill up at a gas station a mile down the road worth saving an extra two cents per gallon as opposed to the station I'm in front of now?

If I give up $10 in potential income to save $5, I still lose.

Re:Where will it end?

[Tim C]

How can they? The whole point is that he's not a Windows user, and was claiming a refund as he had no intention of using it.

Re:Return on Investment?

[ivan256]

You can already buy a PC from Dell without Windows on it. This is about Laptops, which for the most part you cannot build yourself without Windows. If you could, I suspect that if you could build your own laptop, Dell would offer Windows-free laptops in order to reclaim some of the built-it-myself laptop market.

Re:Return on Investment?

[cloudmaster]

We're not exacltly a minority here on the dot...

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[ksalter]

Your time is only worth $50/hour if it prevented you from earning $50/hour. I suspect that most people work on their home computers during non-working hours, and that a lot of the time they are waiting for the computer and/or install program to finish doing some task. So instead of staring blankly into the install screen progress bar with a small amount of droll on their lips, they do something else.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[TheBogBrushZone]

Uk sales tax is 17.5% and is called Value Added Tax, unsure what value it brings, maybe i'm at a genuine advantage for paying it

It is called Value Added Tax because it is a tax on the monetary value added to goods each time they are sold on to the next party in the producer-consumer chain. Companies claim back the VAT on their business purchases and pay the VAT from their sales so in the end only the difference (the added value) is taxed at each stage.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[Cereal Box]

all prices except wholesale prices are quoted with VAT already added so most people don't think about it.

Which is exactly what the government wants you to do.

This "shouldn't" be news (in an ideal world)

[amigabill]

I think it's sad we live in a world where one guy getting a refund for something he didn't want to pay for in the first place is such big news. Ideally this should be so common that no one cares.

Re:Return on Investment?

[GigsVT]

As a libertarian, I'm with you there. One battle at a time, eh?

Re:Return on Investment?

[GigsVT]

I would. Spending a thousand or two on a gun, some classes, concealed carry permit, ammo, and range fees is well worth it, if it prevents one guy from getting away with another mugging, and, if you are lucky and the situation allows it, takes that leech out of society permanantly.

What's the expression? Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.

Re:Return on Investment?

[jejones]

The original point is this: is getting the OEM cost of Windows refunded worth the time and effort? If I can make $50/hour doing some work, but I spend three hours getting a $50 refund on some purchase, is it worth the effort?

I guess that depends on how much one thinks one's principles are worth.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft "tax" is barely 1% versus the costs of the applications and maintenance they need to run that workstation for a year."

Yes, that's not much to the end user or business. But that 1% sums up to Billions for Microsoft. And it keeps them a position of dominance and influence. And I, for one, don't want even 0.001% of my money going to MS because I want to them to become less significant and less influential in the computer world. A world where hardware/software is made for more than one platform, Web pages that are not browser dependent and documents that people can share with anyone they want just to name a few.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Engival]

I'm so sick of that arguement.

So, you lose $50 by watching a 1 hour TV show... and just think of all the money you've lost while sleeping.

The fact is, most people do have some "spare time". You don't have to skip work, or turn down another contract to watch TV, sleep, or complete the refund process. You aren't losing money by doing it in your "spare time".

Unless of course, you really are some extreme workaholic, don't take time out for any personal activities at all, and barely have time to eat or sleep. In that case, your arguement is justified. Only problem with that is, you're posting on slashdot, so you obviously you do have some time to spare.

Re:Return on Investment?

[LurkerXXX]

Making a law for that is dumb. Really really dumb. We don't need more laws.

If you want hardware without an OS, but it from a company who sells it that way. They exist.

Most customers (not myself, but most) want the OS already installed so they don't have to do it, and so that they know it is fully supported (drivers, etc) on the hardware.

Dell and many other companies charge more for *nix because they are expected to support the OS they ship with their hardware. The windows community is huge, so their cost for building up the support infrastructure (knowledge base, writing manuals for their support techs, etc, etc) can be spread over a huge number of customers. Their *nix customers are a much smaller market. They still have the expense of researching and creating tech support manuals for it, and training all their techs, but that cost gets spread over a much much smaller number of customers. So while their cost for the OS itself is less (or nothing), the higher per-customer support cost can easily make the overall *nix offering more expensive than windows. It's no deep dark anti-*nix bias, it's the realities of cost structure.

Re:Return on Investment?

[bladesjester]

Surely you don't make your professional wage 24hrs per day

I may not make my professional wage 24 hours a day, but my free time isn't free. It's worth a great deal to me.

Let's face it - time is the one thing you can never get back.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Lanoitarus]

Well, it all depends on how much you enjoy the process. If you enjoy spending hours dealing with Dell and writing letters and such, then your cost is quite negated anyway. If, on the other hand, you view dealing with Customer support people as being even worse than actually working, then yes, it is correct for me to value that time at my working salary- Id much rather spend the time working and getting paid for it.

Re:Return on Investment?

[rosciol]

Then why don't you use the time when you wouldn't otherwise be getting paid to get the $100 back? Surely you don't make your professional wage 24hrs per day. Your free time is just that.

You've never heard of the opportunity cost of time, have you? I suspect that this is exactly what the gp was referring to, not to his professional salary. Maybe you can't value your free (as in beer) time at your professional rate of $35/hour, but look at it this way: if you were offered the opportunity to work at Starbucks for $10/hour for three hours on a random night, would you? Most of us making a good salary would say no. And yet, according to your argument, since my time is "free" then anything >$0 for that hour should be worth it, no? There is a set value below which you'd be unwilling to work, even in your "free" time. That threshold value is, essentially, your opportunity cost of time. Any hour of your free time could easily be devoted to doing something that produces money, but you value your relaxation and you pay for it in terms of opportunity cost.

I understand that if we take the parent's assumption of $100 over three hours it works out to $33.33/hour, but the point remains. If that $100 isn't worth three/five hours of my free time, just as working at Starbucks for any amount of time during my free time isn't, then I'm simply not going to bother. I don't know what your opportunity cost of time is but, in general, I agree with the gp. Spending three to five hours on the phone for a measly $100 would make me want to gouge my eyes out. I value my time more highly than that. If you don't, then you can tie up the phone lines.

Re:Return on Investment?

[everphilski]

*I* value my free time at the same price as my employer pays me. And somtimes I value it even more. My free time is exactly that - free. Free for me. Free to play with my kids or my wife or learn a new skill or just relax and recharge. I don't need to "work" more than I am already.

This isn't only about *nix but MS double-dipping

[parvenu74]

This precedent doesn't just apply to folks who want to run some other operating system on the machines they buy from Dell. It affects me because I don't need the bundled XP Home when I've got an MSDN license that allows me to run XP Pro. Or take the case of a small business with a Microsoft volume license. If they are required to buy a bundled O/S with every machine they purchase, then Microsoft has, in effect, sold two O/S licenses per machine. The $$$ saved by getting back the cost of the bundled O/S will add up!

Re:Return on Investment?

[C0rinthian]

Guns are not good or evil. They're chunks of metal. It's the people handling them that can be good or evil. A computer can be an evil thing too, if directed as such by it's user. (For example, by making it easier to create and distribute child pornography)

If you're going to place blame, at least place it where it belongs.

Re:Return on Investment?

[ivan256]

Desire? I don't know about that... Many times you don't have a choice though. Many school and corporate IT departments provide a short list of hardware that is supported on their network. In the case of schools, many just flat out require you to buy a (dell|IBM) just so they can get the kickback the manufacturer pays to them every time a student buys one of their laptops. That's regardless of whether you already have a machine of your own or if the machine you already have is better or even exactly the same.

Re:Return on Investment?

[wolfgang_spangler]

All a gun can ever do is hurt people, be it for good or evil. Arguably shooting someone is never a good thing even if it is in self defense. Comparing guns to computers is a highly flawed analogy.

You are wrong.

Guns do not have to kill people, many target shooters don't even hunt or carry a concealed weapon. They simply enjoy target shooting. The same is true for archery. Hell, shooting guns and bows are both Olympic sports.

You are backing up the very point which you are trying to break. Guns are not evil, or good, or even in-between. They are simply chunks of metal. Comparing guns to computers is a very apt analogy. Both can be used for good, for evil, or for benign tasks.

Re:Return on Investment?

[JazzLad]

Here's a reply from someone that doesn't think you a troll for defending your rights. Assuming you are in the USA or other country that permits you to bear arms, I for one am glad you took the time to take classes & get a cc permit.

My Karma is positive, mod me a troll if you have to, but sometimes people need to remember that just because you don't exercise a specific right doesn't negate it's value. I didn't go after Acer for the 1/5 of my laptop's cost that was XP Home (which I deleted withen 48 hours) but I'm glad this guy got his back from Dell. I don't carry a firearm, but I'm glad people exercise this freedom. I belong to a somewhat unpopular religion (especially in the southern parts of USA), but it is my right to do so.

Cheers to the guy who got his money from Dell, cheers to GigsVT. Everyone should exercise their freedom every chance they get.

Re:Return on Investment?

[mr_matticus]

It's not stolen. You (collectively) approved the loss of each and every penny to the greater good of society. You might not personally approve of taxes for x and y, but you might be okay contributing money for cause z; someone else might have the reverse opinion. You might feel that less taxation is appropriate, but there are people who think taxes should be higher. In the end, we meet in the middle and that's the way it works. If more people agreed with you, things would be closer to your ideal vision for the world. Not every individual gets his way, but that's what you get for living in a pluralist society.

Oh, and I invite you to find a major liberal democracy where taxes are lower. That's small-l liberal, by the by.

Re:Return on Investment?

[burndive]

Guns are evil things

Guns are powerful things. Power and evil, while often correlated, are not the same thing.

Re:Return on Investment?

[bodan]

Sorry to troll, but do you mean you just bought a MacOS copy you won't use?

Re:Return on Investment?

[burndive]

But a gun only has one purpose: To hurt living things. All a gun can ever do is hurt people, be it for good or evil. Arguably shooting someone is never a good thing even if it is in self defense. Comparing guns to computers is a highly flawed analogy. Always remember, if guns make people safe then why isn't the United States the safest place on earth?

Guns aren't just for hurting people, they're also for protecting people, by threatening voilence to those who would otherwise be voilent. One of the purposes of government is to be a "terror to evil."

No one is suggesting that unrestricted access to guns is the answer to all of society's problems. We're just trying to correct your irrational classification of them as pure evil. None of us think of them as pure good.

Re:Return on Investment?

[close_wait]

Speaking as the guy who got the refund, yes it was worth it, both financially and emotionally.

It took maybe half an hour to read through the licence bumf, take some screen shots and write a letter. For which I earned about $80.

Emotionally, I was doing something satisfying. Some people might find it satisfying to sit for several hours by a river with a fishing rod. I found it satisfying that, in some small way, I was attempting to rectify the almost unprecedented situation whereby a near-monopoly supplier still gets its fee even if you use its copmpetitor's product instead.