Annual Cost of Microsoft Monopoly: $10 Billion 713
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's deals with major PC vendors lock users out from alternative options, such as Linux. A recent whitepaper calculates that the cost to industry of this Microsoft monopoly is $10 billion per year."
Of Course! (Score:3, Informative)
Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Dell Dimension 2400 w/ Windows XP [dell.com] = $299
Same PC w/ FreeDOS [dell.com] = $319
Now someone tell me how Microsoft prices Windows XP $20 cheaper than the same PC with a free operating system.
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Informative)
Dell knows what support for a machine running XP costs, and they haven't got a really good idea of what it costs to support the same machine with FreeDOS. When in doubt, charge more.
Logic dictates that everybody buying the machine with FreeDOS will be relatively computer-savvy and thus won't need support, but humans have proven logic wrong on a number of occasions...
Re:What support? (Score:3, Informative)
Still, it could end up costing Dell a bit of money just supporting the hardware without a commercial operating system. If someone calls to say that their modem is defective, it would require someone who actually has a clue to answer the call and be sure that's what is wrong before sending out the prepaid shipping label boxes and things...
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Informative)
Dell buys in bulk, and thusly gets special prices
Dell's Windows version is only allowed on one (sometimes two) computers
Dell also puts in other programs from other companies which they get paid for (like anti-virus software, online services like aol, etc)
When you buy the box windows version from the store you are:
Not getting bulk rates
Are not getting advertiser discounts
Getting a version of Windows that allows you to in
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, it's really, really simple:
Price of Windows machine = Hardware cost + OS licence cost + OS installation cost + Dell's Profit - Money back from bundled software (AOL etc)
Price of FreeDOS machine = Hardware cost + OS licence cost + OS installation cost + Dell's Profit
Now, FreeDOS is free (leaving aside media duplication, which should be the same for both OSs), and isn't even installed on the machine when you buy it, so the two equations actually look like this:
Price of Windows machine = Hardware co
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:4, Funny)
Easy:
They have this deal where clippy will work their helpdesk for X amount of time for every copy of Windows sold...
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
AOL actually pays Dell a fee to include their software, as do the other companies that Dell provides "trial" software for (JASC and others, for instance). This allows them to sell the PC at a lower cost.
Also note that the regular price for the PC is $349, and the $299 price is a special.
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Informative)
And guess what happened? They pocketed the difference rather than passing it on. Do you honestly think this would affect Dell's pricing?
Their pricing is practically dictated to them.
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because it's not PRO-Microsoft doesn't immediately mean it is anti-microsoft. Sometime's the truth is still the truth without the labels you put on it.
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:4, Funny)
simple math! it is because XP is worth -$20
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
It is called a loss leader.. while illegal in theory it hasn't ever been used to prosecute a business for non-competivite behavior.
Are you drunk, stupid, or joking? A loss leader? You honestly think MS pays all the computer manufacturers to include Windows on their machines and then makes their revenue selling, office or services or something? It is completely untrue. They sell Windows, but have contracts insuring they get paid for every PC sold, not for every PC with Windows. The extra money is for the expense of putting FreeDoS on the machine. They manage to get this ridiculously favorable deal because as a monopoly they have the power to put any PC seller out of business at their whim. Get a clue.
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Informative)
same thing as how Dell has 'a choice' to only offer crappy Intel processors instead of the much superior AMD 64 bit-based machines.
We have been pricing a number of machines in house from Dell, made the mistake of buying one laptop from Dell, but every other machine that we purchase will be from acer or another PC manufacturer that can:
1) beat Dell's prices
2) offers AMD machines & much better machine specs all around
3) offers WinXP instead of the crippleware XP Home
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Informative)
Dell absolutely does have 'a choice'
Yeah they can choose to go out of business or stay in business. That is exactly their choice as having their prices go up $50 for every machine would make them no longer competitive in the only factor that people buy Dells for, low price. Dells are junk machines, built cheaply, with inconsistent hardware. Dell would lose the number one spot within a year if they started selling Linux desktops at a fair price and were punished by MS for doing so with higher OEM Windows
Re:Of course they have a choice! (Score:3, Informative)
I still fail to see how creating exclusivity agreements is a bad thing.
Exclusivity agreements remove choices, and thus harm consumers. In most cases, that is not a big problem as consumers just go with a different competitor. It is a problem when a monopoly is involved. In that case it is not only bad for the consumer, but can be used to keep things bad for the consumer and the free market cannot solve the problem. For this reason it is also illegal.
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
This is one of the most common misconceptions about software and is a major factor in why it is so widely pirated.
Yes the actual production of the disks with the software on it costs next to nothing, but the data isn't something that the company just found, the software has to be writ
Must be two major reasons, then. (Score:3, Interesting)
I tend to disagree - I think the reason so much software is pirated is because of the retarded prices. $600 for a copy of Office 2003 Pro non-upgrade? $1000+ for the Adobe CS package, or hundreds and hundreds more for each individually? $300 for Windows XP?
The only mainstream software out there that's resonably priced is games. Sure, $50 might seem like a lot for a single game, but for a game like Half Life 2 - it took those guys a long time a
Re:Must be two major reasons, then. (Score:3, Insightful)
What in the name of CMOT Dibbler has the cost of hiring a secretary got to do with the inflated margin MS charge for office?
Do you have any idea what OS's used to cost before MS came out?
And this would relevant because...?
There are a lot of things not to like about MS, but I really don't think anyone can claim they've done anything but drive prices down to
Re:Must be two major reasons, then. (Score:3, Insightful)
That makes a fairly major assumption. It could just as easily be true that dropping prices led an explosion in personal computi
Re:Must be two major reasons, then. (Score:3, Funny)
Don't complain it costs $20 for a CD. Try hiring the Rolling Stones to play in your living room.
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, parent is still wrong, and it's because he's right - because the cost of duplication is identical for both FreeDOS and Windows, and Windows is proprietary and therefore requires a per-unit royalt
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blatant Example of Microsoft Monopoly (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree about the technical support/warrenty: they're absolutely useless. Dell's tech support used to be quite good when I was talking to people in Texas and Florida, but the Indian tech support sucks bottom. I'm not just talking about accents, which are a hinderance; their phone connections are incredibly shitty, and apparently there was some gap in their English education, as they do not respond to the words, "I cannot hear you, you need to speak louder." That's with a modern cell phone turned up all the
Re:Of Course! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the MCSE's shouldn't have put their careers in the hand of one company, then? If MS collapses, and the MCSE's are all out of jobs - well, it's their problem for making a poor career choice. Maybe they should have seen the trend and prepared by learning about it.
Software development, however, will not be affected. There's not much different when you're coding C++ for Windows or Linux. Or Java. Or Perl. Or [insert language here].
There's not much different in using those computers, either. Thunderbird is similar in look and feel to Outlook, OpenOffice.org is similar to MS Office, and Firefox is well, Firefox, and a great number of Windows users are already running it.
Re:Of Course! (Score:4, Funny)
There's not much different when you're coding C++ for Windows or Linux. Or Java. Or Perl. Or [insert language here].
Visual Basic?
*ducks*
Re:Of Course! (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said - the market for commodity software is dead. The future is in customization and embedded systems. This will continue, and will allow engineers like me to continue to get paid.
Furthermore, I don't believe that all applications must be open source. Operating Systems? Absolutely. It's the ultimate level playing field for the application space.
And as far
Re:Of Course! (Score:4, Informative)
The only time you've got to give away code you made is when you've released a product that extends somethign that is already available under the GPL, which is perfectly fair. Its a derivative work, and the only reason you could create it is because someone else put the original work out there for you to build on. Seems fair enough.
Re:Of Course! (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, everyone knows it's impossible to make a cross-platform version of Office (*cough* *cough* office 98 *cough*).
Re:Of Course! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of Course! (Score:3, Insightful)
I do find it interesting that you see the only two alternatives as being Microsoft in it's current monopolistic form, or no Microsoft at all.
Personally I was thinking more along the lines of
Re:Of Course! (Score:3, Funny)
Astroturfing again, Bill?
Monopoly? You should try TREK! (Score:3, Funny)
[dehli001] ~ > ssh 127.0.0.1
jahangir@127.0.0.1's password:
Welcome to the Interix UNIX utilities.
DISPLAY=localhost:0.0
Man, this was cool, no? Well then, check this out!
5 Klingons
4 starbases at 3,1, 0,2, 7,2, 1,3
It takes 250 units to kill a Klingon
Short range sensor scan
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 * . . . . . . . . . 0 stardate 2300.00
1 . . .
What's going to make them stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's going to make them stop? (Score:3, Insightful)
Until the penalties outweigh the revenue, what's going to make MS stop?
MS is certainly contributing to making itself stop, with antics like these [slashdot.org].
As Microsoft makes it more and more difficult to use its products (from a legal standpoint as well as an illegal one), the alternatives are going to look more and more attractive by comparison.
Re:What's going to make them stop? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's going to make them stop? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, Microsoft suddenly decides to make it more labor-intensive to keep your systems up to date: You have to verify the license. It's not much, but it would be enough to make you start looking at Linux a little harder, just after your next update round.
Maybe you'll switch, maybe you won't, but you are thinking about it. If you do, you now will show every user in the company that Linux works. They had probably never heard of it. Maybe they'll like it. Maybe even take a look at it at home. Even if you don't, you may talk about it with your boss. Who make look at it, if you make a good enough case.
No one cost in this is enough to force a switch. But every small cost is enough to make switching just that little bit more attractive. And any one switch is one more real-world example, making more switches more likely.
This is how empires fall. Not all at once, but in pieces...
Re:What's going to make them stop? (Score:5, Interesting)
The really sad part about it all is how Apple gets sued for the Tiger name or for "Apple" in cahoots with iTunes. Intel and AMD are going after each other. These are instances of competetition that is allowed to thrive and it's carrying over to the courts. Then you've got Microsoft getting pissy at Google and suing because Google is getting an ex-Microsoft employee (rumor has it, they're getting quite a few employees actually). And then you've got this monopoly business. This current administration in office doesn't care about Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. Microsoft has to get slapped pretty damn hard to stop...and I just don't think that will happen anytime soon.
Re:What's going to make them stop? (Score:3, Insightful)
A) Software costs next to nothing to ship per unit, after the R&D is paid for.
B) they have very high volume thanks to a monopoly
Yes Dell could slap a free version of Linux on it and save maybe $30-50. If Dell actually cut a deal to License Red Hat or SUSE I'm willing to bet it would end up costing the same or more than Windows.
$30-50
Re:What's going to make them stop? (Score:3, Insightful)
Every cost gets passed on to the customer (who, by the way, always has a choice about buying the product) whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean
Poor Apple (Score:5, Funny)
I predict apple juice.
10 Billion? What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:10 Billion? What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:10 Billion? What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:10 Billion? What? (Score:5, Informative)
They extrapolate, based on their figure of $200 million in savings, which is 2% of $10 billion.
In reality, in any given year, Microsoft makes $40 billion. Does it really seem ridiculous that 10 of that might be from their monopoly? It seems sensible to me. The WP points out that in buying a computer, that it used to be (ala early - mid 90s) that the hardware was about 85% of the cost, and the software 15%. Now, hardware costs have plummeted, whereas software prices have gone up. Now when you buy a computer, about 65% of the price is hardware, and 35% is software. Good points, if you ask me.
Non sequitor (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't training costs for sys admins and secretaries be higher if Windows and Word weren't de facto standards. Wouldn't developers be overworked if the market demanded every cons
Re:10 Billion? What? (Score:3, Funny)
10 spread butt cheeks
20 pull digit
30 if count(digit) 8 goto 10
$10 Billion... (Score:2, Funny)
Rich Uncle PennyBags would be shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
I pity the thimble that lands there!
The number is crap (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The number is crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The number is crap (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's say, in order a virus to spread, it needs an environment to live in, which is given by Microsoft because they are a monopoly, systems have the same code (windows).
If a virus would manage to infect 10-15% of the systems worldwide and crash them down or make them otherwise impossible to use in a relativel
Microsoft OEM Pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
Somewhere in Redmond... (Score:5, Funny)
The vendors laugh and a hush falls over the Redmond conference table. "Fine," replies Bill, calmly stroking the cat before deftly returning his pinky to his lips, "One hundred Beeeellion dollars!"
"Shit," reply the executives.
Shocking, just shocking (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the sidebar was the only thing that would load:
"linux support - get penguin powered" [...] "training - for linux administration and web development" [...] "development - apps for linux, unix, windows and the web"
How shocking that a company which sells training, support, and development services for both Linux and Windows would come out with an inflammatory article.
Why, they couldn't possibly have ulterior motives! Nothing like a bit of viral marketing.
Explain (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason I don't use Linux is because I know it to be a much less intuitive system, but I'd struggle to refer to my choice for not using Linux as being locked out by Microsoft.
Re:Explain (Score:3, Insightful)
I may very well get killed for this, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me begin by saying I don't like Microsoft products. I think it's an evil, opportunistic company that is likely funded by Nazi gold, but....
Microsoft itself is not the real culprit here. If the cost to the industry is really 10 billion, then the threshold for establishing a monopoly should be met. The problem is no real enforcement of the Sherman Act or any of the other federal "calls to arms" against monopoly.
Like it or not, in capitalist society the message sent to business is to be as nasty as profitable and permitted. As long as consumers keep buying (maybe because they feel like they don't have a choice, and there is some argument there) and the government doesn't enforce its own laws (which is probably why consumers feel they have no choice), Microsoft can't be blamed overmuch.
In short (too late!), the problem isn't really the 300 lb. gorilla. It's just doing what gorillas do. The problem is the federal prosecutor with the tranq gun taking a nap.
ACThat's nothing compared to......... (Score:3, Funny)
My Resume Cover Letter (Score:5, Funny)
I would like to apply for the job of "Guy that pulls numbers out of his ass". I feel that my ability to pull numbers out of my ass qualifies me as an excellent candidate for this position. To demonstrate, please allow me to give some examples:
$4.3 Billion
$350k per year
$20.34 for every person in the United States
Please note how I was effortlessly able to adjust the meanings of the ass-pulled numbers by adding descriptive phrases, while still distancing the numbers from any real facts or statistics. I realize that it takes more than pulling numbers out of my ass to succeed in todays competitive white paper/consulting/propoganda market, and feel that I can be a great benefit to your company.
Re:My Resume Cover Letter (Score:3, Funny)
Dear Jayhawk88,
Thank you for your interest in my company. Normally, we would definitely be interested in hiring a "Guy that pulls numbers out of his ass". However, I regret to inform you that we will not be hiring any time soon. I will keep your resume on file, for we do plan on hiring again -- in about 25 years.
Sincerely,
Bernie Ebbers
Article Summary (Score:3, Informative)
Over the past decade, the personal computer industry has seen a major reduction in competition in the operating system platform market. A computer operating system platform is the software which computer users learn to operate their computer with, the software that independent software vendors develop applications for and the software that third-party computer hardware developers create compliant hardware for.
Competition in the desktop computer operating system space is practically non-existent, with one platform from a single supplier commanding a very high proportion (over 95%) of the Australian market. This single platform from a sole vendor is Microsoft Windows. Cybersource believes that a sizeable portion of this market share is due to the fact that over many years, most consumers were never given the option to acquire alternative operating system platforms. Instead, Microsoft Windows was always bundled with most vendors' computer products, whether consumers wanted that bundled product on not.
We have seen that the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has acted in the best interests of consumers to increase competition in such areas as telecommunications. Cybersource wants to see similar actions introduced in the computer operating system platform space.
In the software market, as in the telecommunications market, a single, powerful and well-leveraged vendor can cause the reduction of real competition and the corralling of almost all consumers into a single monopolistic platform situation. This causes significant reduction in choice, price competitiveness and innovation. Cybersource calls upon the ACCC to rectify this situation for the benefit of the local Information Technology industry and of all Australian IT consumers.
Key Points
1. It is impossible or extremely difficult for consumers to purchase a desktop PC or laptop from a tier-1 or tier-2 computer manufacturer without also having to purchase an OEM copy of Microsoft Windows operating system platform.
2. Cybersource believes that this greatly reduces choice for consumers and competition for the industry. Such a reduction in choice, and consequent reduction in competition, costs the Australian economy hundreds of millions of dollars annually, through paying one vendor needlessly high prices for monopolistic products.
3. The computer market is many ways similar to the telecommunications market. When one vendor has over 95% of the market, that vendor should be bound by a universal service obligation to ensure that all consumers can access the content, documents and data which reside on that vendor's platform. Neglecting such an obligation hinders all consumers and third-party developers not using that vendor's platform, further increasing anti-competitive pressures.
4. Cybersource believes that such anti-competitive practices should be stopped as soon as possible, through remedies introduced by the ACCC, to secure both a broader competitive base and increased options for consumers.
5. The first remedy that Cybersource seeks from the ACCC is that all tier-1 and tier-2 vendors should be required to offer their desktop and laptop products without an operating system pre-installed, that this choice be presented to consumers as broadly as the products themselves are, and that the price difference between the with and without operating system options should also be clearly and broadly presented at retail outlets, on vendor marketing literature and vendor websites.
6. The second remedy that Cybersource seeks from the ACCC is that Microsoft should be required to offer unfettered and unencumbered access to all major content, document, data and applications formats which could enable interchange and interoperability between users of its platform and users of other alternative platforms.
MS Tax vs MS Profits (Score:3, Interesting)
MS profited $12B this year, and is expected to profit $15B next year. And they make $10B just from being a convicted criminal?
If only duh-byah hadn't quashed the anti-trust suit.
This sounds as hyped as the piracy numbers. (Score:3, Insightful)
I just don't feel they've taken the "good" parts of Microsoft's monopoly into account (kill me for saying that.) Considering all of the features included with the OS that we used to pay for-- Browser, media, utils, etc, Microsoft has "given" a lot to maintain their monopoly. While I support competition whole heartedly (and look forward to a day where I can "choose Mac OS to run on my custom intel hardware) I don't think this is an honest assesment. You get a LOT with what you pay for, and there hasn't even been a new version in 4 years. And they still support you with security fixes for FREE (all jokes aside).
Office is no more expensive now than when Word Perfect was still alive and kicking.. And the features keep coming. (Though I gladly use openOffice, myself.)
I think the worry should be "Let's not make this a total monopoly so one company can't hold all the keys to human technology in the future" rather than, man, they're screwing us out of cash.. because I think the sheer volume of units they ship actually causes the price to be CHEAPER, not more expensive.
I guess we'll only find out if Apple sucks it up and makes their OS able to work on Dells.
"Giving away" is illegal for a monopoly! (Score:3, Informative)
Apple is a worse Monopoly in my opinion. (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is a software OS vendor, one of few.
Apple is not a convicted monopolist.
Microsoft is.
There's your answer as to why Apple is not a "worse monopoly." They aren't even a monopoly! They are a hardware vendor with software for their hardware. You are welcome to put a Linux variant on their hardware instead. You are welcome to buy from many other hardware vendors instead.
I'm sick of this type of argument, usually seen in political circles. Target A
Re:Apple is a worse Monopoly in my opinion. (Score:4, Funny)
Why don't you buy yourself a dictionary and look up the word "monopoly" then come back here and tell us what Apple has a monopoly on? OK, thanks, bye.
Re:Apple is a worse Monopoly in my opinion. (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is not a monopoly.
Re:Apple is a worse Monopoly in my opinion. (Score:5, Interesting)
Your opinion about Apple controling both the hardware and the software of their computers may be valid (I'm not going to argue or agree with you). But calling them a monopoly shows a lack of understanding of the term. They (Apple) haven't prevented you from choosing a competing product through illegal methods or coercion.
Hi... (Score:5, Funny)
Does that include (Score:3, Insightful)
Should it?
Convicted Monopolist (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing has changed their practices... not even a little. They continue to do harm. I think they should be brought back into court for a REAL remedy. How can we start a petition to get the Justice Department to charge them for failing to abide by their terms and for continuing to do the things they were convicted of -- i.e. bundling MSIE and all that, and then add everything else we can think of as examples of wrong doing.
If we have a community that wants to see justice, someone who wants to get elected will see that justice is done.
The Slashdot Bandwagon (Score:5, Interesting)
But: every time there's a new study on how "piracy costs the music industry N dollars", where N is the estimated number of piracy incidents times the average suggested retail price of the pirated materials, there is universal outrage. "That's fallacious," we cry, "it assumes that every incident of piracy would have otherwise been a retail purchase at full price!". And we are right to make that claim.
However, here's a study that exercises a similar fallacy, and yet the outrage goes in the other direction. (and yes, I know this doesn't apply to everyone... I'm generalizing).
We can't assume, if the major vendors decided to stop bundling Windows/Office tomorrow, that any significant number of people would happily explore alternative options and be just as satisfied.
We can't assume, had Microsoft gone belly-up nine years ago, that people would have been perfectly content to start figuring out monitor sync rates and which filesystems with which to partition and format their hard drives.
We can't assume that all the unwashed masses would've just gone to Apple; we can't assume they would've been able to afford it; we can't assume Apple's products would've advanced at the rate they have without the pressure of being the "underdog". And since the premise of this "study" (though I am loathe to call it that) is that of the cost of a monopoly, we can't assume Apple (or Linux, or whatever) "winning" the market would've been any better.
Like it or not, Microsoft's presence and market dominance is an inextricable part of computing history. There is no way of even remotely predicting how the last twenty years would have panned out without it. And despite its grandiose claims, the authors of this article don't even seem to have bothered trying.
Re:The Slashdot Bandwagon (Score:3, Insightful)
No, losses over a more competitive market. The more competitive the market, the lower the losses. In a perfectly competitive market, the losses are zero.
No markets are, in reality, perfect competition.
Doesn't matter. A lot of markets are close enough that the losses due to lack of perfect competition are very small. Even in moderately competitive markets like soft drinks, the economic losses are still much smaller than in a majo
Is that figure net or gross? (Score:3, Insightful)
Blame Game (Score:4, Insightful)
Still ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people just don't want to use Linux even if given a choice, because it still has serious usability issues that show no signs of being solved. Mostly because even though it is "one OS" it still suffers from the fragmentation that killed UNIX as a viable platform. Instead of kernel/system call fragmentation, it is fragmentation of desktops (KDE, Gnome, etc) and services (different print systems, different X servers, different window managers, each with slightly incompatible ways to cut & paste, etc).
Not to mention how much easier it is for developers to develop for Windows due to the fact that you don't have to worry about a billion different differences between distros, libc versions, kernel branches, etc.
But go ahead and keep blaming Microsoft's business practices... why stop now? It is easier than trying to actually compete for users.
Re:Blame Game (Score:3, Interesting)
But go ahead and keep blaming Microsoft's business practices... why stop now? It is easier than trying to actually compete for users.
The article says MS is costing the industry X squandered dollars with their blatantly illegal business practices. The number is probably bunk, but could be in the right ballpark. How does Linux users believing that most people enjoy the experience of using Linux have anything to do with whether or not MS is engaging in illegal business practices?
Ok Linux sucks, whatever.
This is only the retail end of costs (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting response (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Interesting response (Score:3, Interesting)
With a marketing budget of their size, I'd be surprised if they didn't drip some greenbacks into hands that would spend time defending their reputation online.
And no, I don't think Slashdot is the only place they have paid staff doing astroturf.
Re:Interesting response (Score:3, Interesting)
Always skeptical with biased reporting like this. (Score:3, Informative)
I do have to agree that Microsoft dominates the PC industry with a lot of unfair partnerships and agreements with PC vendors. But to say that PC consumers are losing billions because of this "monopoly" is a little far fetched. This assumes that PC users actually WANT Linux, and are not being offered the choice.
Lets put it this way. In a fair world, both Linux AND Windows are offered on every Dell computer. Many assume that Linux is FREE and Windows is NOT. Would the Linux option actually cost nothing compared to buying a Windows license on a Dell computer? My honest opinion is NO! While you are able to get Linux for free by downloading it online, a company like Dell would prefer to setup some form of Linux support option which you will have to pay for. Linux IS FREE, Linux support IS NOT! Also, considering the sheer amount of support required by newbies to simply install and use Linux, Dell would quickly want to absorb the extra cost of support by charging SOMETHING for installing Linux on their PC's.
The bottom line is, people often over estimate how free Linux really is. In a perfect world, if Linux was as easy to use and configure as Windows, then yes, you are losing $100 every time you buy a Dell computer because they charge you for the XP license and don't offer you a viable free alternative. But in reality, Dell would charge about $100 to install Linux on their PC's because of all the extra headaches and nightmares it would cause them in technical support alone.
IE Costs? (Score:3, Insightful)
different language options neither (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, so with PCs at least you get a normal version, but laptop versions do not install anywhere else other than the laptop
I hate microsoft for that crap, and hate all retailers who force me to buy a copy with every laptop I buy
I do not need WINDOWS on my laptop please do not let me pay for it
PCs I just build from pieces and not by OP system (Linux/BSD would be used anyway)
Here's the test geek Linux zealots won't do... (Score:3, Insightful)
I guarantee you it will be Windows XP Home every single time that is totally or mostly successful. The webcam alone will be enough to prevent the FC3 build from reaching totality. The second most problematic will be the external USB or Firewire device. The third will be the modem and fourth will be the printer.
People can whine about there being a monopoly when the Linux would comes up with a disto that is as easy to use, as well supported, has as wide support for hardware as easily, and is so easy to maintain as Windows. Of course, the method Microsoft chose to follow to this plateau also came with a lot of tradeoffs on stability and security but any Linux zealot who claims Linux is secure and stable is lying blatantly. If Linux was so stable, or any *nix for that matter, would you need to have (you@yourbox)# kill [process id] in your toolbox never mind the legendary issues with the quirks of the most common *nix tools?
Here's a neat one. Load up the Stardock Object Desktop software suite on a WinXP box. Load up xcompmgr w/KDE on the FC3 box. Make each work. I guarantee the xcompmgr on FC3 will be so unstable and resource hogging as to make the machine useless, illustrating the claim of those who put it in, that is is unstable. Not so with SOD. Neat shadows, transparancy, zoomers like OSX, etc. Eye candy in abundance.
All that said, I use FC3 every day at home. But I have no blinders on that it is a techies' OS and NOT a casual end-user OS. I've been supporting Windows since before most of the anti-Microsoft crowd began their inane tinfoil hat FUD ranting against Redmond and if there is one central truth to it that I've learned, that it is very stable and secure IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING (with the exception of Millenium Edition which sucked donkey balls, especially on HP Pavillions).
I guarantee you that should any distro of Linux of tomorrow become equal to the ease of use and intuitiveness of Windows of today, it will be equally open to user error because that is the nature of the situation. The only practical way to shield against user error is to make the doing of things so hard that it discourages the attempt. The only practical way to make the system easy to use for total idiots is to make it childishly open and easy to do the slightest thing.
I wouldn't sell ANY version of Linux preloaded on consumer PCs aimed at casual end-users because as someone who's supported them for years on end, I know they won't even read their VCR manuals to stop the clock from flashing 12:00. They won't have truck with RPMs and dependency never mind makefiles and builds.
Re:Dropping... (Score:3, Informative)
That said... the reason windows revenues are going down is essentially a combo of
1. People are either pirating windows
or
2. Learning to use *bsd or linux.
Getting a cheap PC isn't that hard. If I was naive I'd go to Dell and buy their 399$ box... So Apple doesn't really win there [and them moving to Intel... is another story
Re:Dropping... (Score:5, Interesting)
3. businesses are not upgrading from windows 2000.
4. many people find their 8 year old computer working just fine for internet/email/word processing/spreadsheets/tax software.
5. some other ancedotal excuse.
Re:Dropping... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dropping... (Score:3, Insightful)
The number one fastest in what way? Revenues? Profits? Employees? Hype?
Re:Dropping... (Score:3, Funny)
Slavishly devoted fanboys. Apple absolutely leads the commercial OS market in blandly devoted fanboys. Of course in the whole OS market they are a distant second to Gentoo, but their current growth rate in mindless followers is much better than Gentoo which peaked a while ago.
*(Not to knock Apple or OS X, they are a company that produces decent hardware and a fine OS, they just seem to have a side effect generating vocal mindless zo
It's fanboy time! (Score:3, Informative)
Hm. So that's why Apple's marketshare has dropped by something like a factor of 10 in the last 20 years? Also, Apple's growth has nothing to do with Macs, and everything to do with iPods.
I own a powerbook, but it doesn't blind me, despite the glare from its beautiful silver finish.
Re:Dropping... (Score:3, Interesting)
Losing market share as a coercive monopoly (http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Coercive_monopo l y [psychcentral.com] ) is inevitable once leveling factors come into play. As there is little natural barrier to entry in the OS business, it's natural that more attractive price points would erode its position as a monopoly.
Re:$AUS10 Billion (Score:3, Funny)
They said Australian Dollars, not Canadian Dollars.
Re:$AUS10 Billion (Score:3, Insightful)
Just one potential example - the Office add-on for automating collection letters they tried to develop a few years ago - with a "phone-home" back door. The beta testers were really enthused about having their receivables being logged by the mother
DEAR SLASHDOT OWNERS (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation. You need to do something about the relentless modding down of anybody who attacks Microsoft and Microsoft's "intellectual property" regime. I have been
Re:10 easy facts (the Unseen hand - look it up) (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, and FYI, professors are leftist because they actually study the world. I find it incredible that most people wouldn't ride in an airplane built by a layman, but are perfectly willing to listen to economic theory espoused by people unqualified to do so.