Buy PC Without an OS... Get a Visit From MSFT? 639
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.""
Ummm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Here we go again (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Headline wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ummm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
monopoly money (Score:5, Insightful)
Scraping away the FUD... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
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:MSFT should tread lightly (Score:5, Insightful)
And even if it is....it is not the PC makers responsibility!
Re:Ummm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Best post in thread award! (Score:2, Insightful)
-Rick
Re:Here we go again (Score:2, Insightful)
The veiled comes into effect because it could be interpreted as a threat, I took the section I considered to be the threat.
Re:How does this differ from a non-compete? (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft are abusing their dominant position, which they only reached in the first place by abusing a dominant position.
Re:Ummm.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ummm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Biased information (Score:2, Insightful)
As some people have already pointed-out, this "information" don't relate the facts. This is just an interpretation of possible results from those facts.
The interpretation is NOT the fact. It just makes for more "entertaining" news to say that an evil company will own you in the future. Usually "evil company" is equal to "biggest company" in a given field. In this case Microsoft.
Big Deal! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does this differ from a non-compete? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
THis is a bit overstated. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Monopoly without abuse? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Scraping away the FUD... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Ummm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they force you to buy it, then yes it certainly is.
*i.e. if (like AOL used to with their product) ensure a CD with a legal copy of windows was included with every computer then I'd be very happy. Some would argue this would still be an abuse of monopoly though because it would be even less of an alternative to swap to alternate OS platforms and MS would still have lock in via their API
Re:Ummm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if I were to buy Moller and start selling the vaperware that is their flying cars, then the government would need to shut me down. Since I would be the only flying car seller, I would instantly be illegal. In fact, the first company to sell any product would be instantly illegal, as they would have a monopoly. Patents would be illegal, since they are a guaranteed monopoly, as are copyrights.
No, monopolies are completely legal, as long as you operate as if you have stiff competition. It is when you take advantage of the monopoly status you hold that you run into problems.
Re:How IS is a Monoply? (Score:3, Insightful)
Buy PC Without an OS... Get a Visit From MSFT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ummm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's both absurd and insightful.
Absurd: In a free market, no abusive monopoly would stay that way -- competitors, smelling profits, would start supplying effective alternatives. Heck, even with a less than free market, alternatives sprung up to Windows: the community-produced and collectively owned GNU/* and BSD-* alternatives.
Oh, but it was hard, time-consuming, and difficult to do. Considering the capital investgment MSFT made, this is not surprising. Now Windows®, while catering to 90%+ of computer users' needs, might be awkward for your needs, that's just plain good business sense: go after the low hanging fruit. Try buying fresh galangal outside of Thailand sometime. I don't see attempts to bust up the "ginger monopoly" in response.
The anti-monopolists wish to use the force of the state for the simple purpose of making their lives more convenient at someone else's expense. And it is to the initiation of such force that I object. (Much as I'd object to state-granted patents, licensing requirements, and other impediments to a free market - why should the taxpayer protect your intellectual property?).
Insightful: If you wish to object to a monopoly object to the state's monopoly on the initiation of force on behalf of the popular thieves of the day and read "The Market for Liberty."
Those that are strong enough to steal for you are strong enough to steal from you.
Those that think monopolies should be busted so their lives might be more convenient should have no objection to the busting of their skulls with a crowbar, facilitating the taking of their monies so my life could, too, be more convenient.
So comply, ship a PC with an operating system... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ummm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
The "value proposition" is apparently that you had better not cut into Microsofts income stream by selling customers what they want.
Re:Build your own (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MSFT should tread lightly (Score:3, Insightful)
1: Guns
2: Alcohol
3: Cigarettes
The reason I say *both* sides is that all of my examples only hurt mere people, and sales send profits to well-connected corporate donors. Selling a naked PC is certainly less deadly than all of my examples put together, but it only benefits mere consumers. Arguably the hardware revenue of that naked PC has simply been transfered from another supplier who wouldn't sell that way. Besides, most likely neither PC supplier was politically well-connected. OTOH, the naked PC deprives Microsoft of the "well-deserved" profits, and they ARE politically well-connected.
Oh, plus think "movies" and "music" for a deadly contrast to guns, alcohol, and cigarettes.
"Our" government has been very protective, indeed.
SICK of "shareholders" (Score:0, Insightful)
If a company gets nailed for illegalities, over and over again, EVERY SINGLE SHAREHOLDER should get the same exact fine and or jail time. How ya like them apples? Screw them never getting any notice. And if a big corporation keeps losing in court, it should be the same as with individuals, THREE STRIKES AND YOU ARE OUT, automatic instant dissolution of the corporation, stocks made worthless, tangible assets put up for auction by the US marshalls.
That would FORCE these profit seeking they don't care about anything but money "shareholders" to think twice about throwing money at some shady company like MS or Enron or Worldcom or Arthur Andersen in the hopes of getting a lot more money for doing nothing other than already being wealthy enough to "own shares". It would make them take a LOOK at what the company is doing, to ACTIVELY take part in shareholders meetings and oversight issues. Screw em, they want the money, let them actually WORK for it.
Re:Ummm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scraping away the FUD... (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, there is a history of Microsoft strong-arming its customers. Denials by you or by Microsoft notwithstanding, once you've seen your competitors suffer by not submitting to Microsoft's demands, you quickly learn to do what's best for your business.
Second, you make a misstatement. You say that Microsoft did not state that they would visit customer's sites. Microsoft themselves clearly admit to saying that. They claim that they will stop saying that at sometime the future, but they said it and they admit it.
But there's an underlying issue here. The PC business has a pretty short product lifecycle. Once a PC is obsoleted and excessed for hardware obsolence reasons, why should the OS on that PC be excessed? If XP was installed on the old PC, why not move it to the new PC? And the old PC can be used as a Linux server.
This is the heart of the problem for Microsoft; they want vendors to sell a new copy of Windows with a new PC. They don't want to see XP be reused. Microsoft finally issued an OS that works halfway decent, and now they're afraid that it will be reused on new hardware. And they're right to think this will happen.
Re:SICK of "shareholders" (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ummm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
A business with a monopoly over certain products or services may be in violation of antitrust laws if it has abused its dominant position or market power. Although not all anti-competitive behavior which is subject to antitrust laws involve illegal cartels or trusts, the following types of activity are generally prohibited.
Bid rigging
Predatory pricing
Price fixing
Tying
Vendor lock-in
Group boycotts
The reason the government does not act on certain monopolies is that they don't engage in such practices which discourage new businesses and stifle competition.
Re:Microsoft engages in foul play even here on /. (Score:2, Insightful)
He's saying that people with modpoints have a tendancy to be dicks, and that in all likelyhood you're just being paranoid.
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.
Roger and Me won awards too.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The awards for movies are given by artists and mostly for art. Don't confuse recognition of artistic principles with statements underscoring factual correctness.
Piracy might not be a concern (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a coworker who after watching us order componants and build our own PC's, go excited an ordered his own. With his former Dell, that he always felt uneasy about messing with the partition, but that new empty drive was just BEGGING to be played with, so he installed Ubuntu today.
I don't know if he will stick with it, but the chances are good as he is not a gamer. But even if he does not, Linux has mindshare between his ears, and he is not afraid of it anymore.
You Ubuntu people will be interested to know that it is your free cd's with shipping that made him pick your distro. (I am a KDE guy, so it was not me, lol)
Re:Scraping away the FUD... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are a libertarian or conservative economist, I suggest sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "The Free Market is GOD!" until the problem goes away.
Install Ubuntu - inflate the BSA's piracy figures! (Score:2, Insightful)
This is pretty irritating - where I used to work, we had 120 machines in student labs set up running Knoppix from their hard drives (no Ubuntu at that time). No for-money software on them at all. I don't think the BSA's methodology adequately accounts for machines that legitimately generate $0 in software sales.