gee I wonder why
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jsusanka Jun 21, 2006 4:34 AM EDT |
gee I wonder why none of these companies will preinstall anything else but microsoft on their machines. things that make you go hmmm! |
| dinotrac Jun 21, 2006 4:58 AM EDT |
I don't wonder in the least. First of all, there ARE vendors who pre-install Linux. You can even buy machines from Wal-Mart with Linux pre-installed. As to the others, it's all about dollars and cents, which is what companies are all about. Margins on PCs are very thin and many Linux users happily (well, maybe not so happily, but willingly) buy a Windows machine and install Linux. For that matter, many Linux users WANT to have a copy of Windows anyway, so they can dual-boot for special purpose apps and/or games. A vendor has to believe that the number of new customers willing to buy their Linux boxes -- that is, people who wouldn't have bought boxes from them anyway -- is sufficiently large to justify the cost of offering and supporting the option. |
| grouch Jun 21, 2006 5:08 AM EDT |
dinotrac: >"As to the others, it's all about dollars and cents, which is what companies are all about." Yes, and if they do not preinstall MS, they don't get the discounts on MS licensing, as per the Seattlement. With the razor margins in PCs, that can make all the difference. It doesn't matter how many GNU/Linux machines they might sell, so long as MS has the monopoly (as defined in the Findings of Facts), and so long as the Seattlement allows them to create incentives, OEMs must toe the MS line or be relegated to the other 10% of the market. |
| dinotrac Jun 21, 2006 5:22 AM EDT |
grouch: I don't remember the terms of the Settlement. What kind of incentives is Microsoft allowed to offer? I don't think they are allowed to offer incentives tied to whether or not a vendor offers machines with other OS's loaded. Even if they did, Microsoft would not be in a good position to bully Dell. Dell has the resources to back them down. |
| Rascalson Jun 21, 2006 5:50 AM EDT |
The joint marketing incentives that MS now uses in place of the discount is well documented. In fact there was an article quite a while back that said it amounted to about 2 Billions dollars for Dell's bottom line. What is the difference between MS bribing Dell and Capone bribing corrupt officials in Gangster Era Chicago? Not much except Gates doesn't directly kill people The anti-trust criminal remains relatively unpunished, and only slightly and temporarily leashed. |
| grouch Jun 21, 2006 5:50 AM EDT |
dinotrac: Here is the "Revised Proposed Final Judgement": http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm Check out section(?) "III. Prohibited Conduct", particularly: "Nothing in this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from providing Consideration to any OEM with respect to any Microsoft product or service where that Consideration is commensurate with the absolute level or amount of that OEM's development, distribution, promotion, or licensing of that Microsoft product or service." Also read III.B. OEMs selling PCs fight tooth and nail over slim hardware margins because somebody will undercut them in a heartbeat. MS licenses represent a significant cost of the computer, so the OEMs buy enough of them to get the best discount. This is a disincentive to try any other pre-installed system -- if you buy 'em, you might as well use 'em all. It tends to keep the top tier vendors competing to see who can buy the most licenses to get an edge against their competitors. For more info, here is the "Executive Summary" [PDF] by the judge: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/98-1233summary.pdf |
| dinotrac Jun 21, 2006 6:28 AM EDT |
grouch: Talk about quoting out of context to completely change the meaning!! The document you cite specifically prohibits retaliation for offering other OS's, for selling dual-boot machines, etc. It specifically prohibits retaliation by changing the terms of an existing agreement. Microsoft is permitted to offer a uniform incentive structure that applies to all vendors. A volume discount is one example. If you are Dell, for example, Microsoft has to offer you the same incentives they would offer anyone else working at your volume. Given Dell's place in the market, they could offer pre-loaded Linux without costing themselves. |
| grouch Jun 21, 2006 8:18 AM EDT |
dinotrac: >"Talk about quoting out of context to completely change the meaning!!" Bull. What I quoted means no more nor less than what I claimed before. The anti-retaliation clauses of the Seattlement do not eliminate the incentive to purchase large quantities of MS licenses, nor do they eliminate the disincentives to experiment with trying to market alternatives to MS. The majority of the over 30,000 Tunney comments received by the DoJ protested the Proposed Final Judgement. A significant number of those protests pointed out that nearly every so-called penalty imposed by the PFJ was countered with an escape clause, such as that section I pointed to. Dell has to play in the same market as HP. If Dell fails to purchase sufficient licenses to get the same discount as HP, Dell will suffer considerable reductions in the profit margin per box. Allowing the monopolist to structure pricing allows the monopolist to maintain control of that market. |
| dinotrac Jun 21, 2006 9:05 AM EDT |
grouch: Better go back and find that thinking cap. With it firmly in place, answer me this silly little question: Why on earth would Dell consider going to the trouble of offering Linux PCs if it won't increase their sales? Besides, Dell currently sells about 10% more computers worldwide (with a much bigger edge in the US) than N. 2 HP. Presuming that HP doesn't need that last computer sold to get it's Windows price, Dell could could ship a pretty large portion of their current output with Linux and have no effect whatsoever on Windows pricing. In fact, if Dell were able to sell enough Linux computers, the opposite would be true: Microsoft would have an incentive to make Windows more attractive, just as it has done in foreign markets. |
| jsusanka Jun 24, 2006 8:08 AM EDT |
"With it firmly in place, answer me this silly little question: Why on earth would Dell consider going to the trouble of offering Linux PCs if it won't increase their sales?" good question - guess it's pretty hard for anybody to get their foot in the door at dell with the way their current business is structured. With that in mind "A vendor has to believe that the number of new customers willing to buy their Linux boxes -- that is, people who wouldn't have bought boxes from them anyway -- is sufficiently large to justify the cost of offering and supporting the option." with your reasoning above there will never ever be anybody able to put their os preinstalled on dell computers - it will be microsoft till their bitter end. therefore you have a monopoly - this is what the DOJ was suppose to address but just handslapped microsoft because their good buddy George W got in office. wink wink! I guarantee you if I called dell right now and wanted to buy a preinstalled linux box on my computer it would not happen. There is no other business that allows this to happen. The consumer should always have choices no matter what the cost is of running the business. It is nothing but greed on Dell's and microsft's end. which is fine - the only other choice they have is to lose business to someone else which will eventually happen because truth happens and people eventually will wise up - I just hope I see it in my lifetime and with treacherous (trusted) computing I just may. |
| jsusanka Jun 24, 2006 8:11 AM EDT |
One other note is that dell seems to be helping and starting to walk in the right direction but time will see. http://linux.dell.com/ It is started by the community but it seems to have dell's help. |
| dinotrac Jun 24, 2006 3:10 PM EDT |
jusanka: >There is no other business that allows this to happen. The consumer should always have choices no matter what the cost is of running the business. It is nothing but greed on Dell's and microsft's end. Every business allows this to happen. You can't walk into McDonald's and expect to buy a Whopper. Wal-Mart isn't likely to sell the same clothing items offered at Bloomingdales. GM cars don't come with Chrysler engines, no matter how much you might like to try a Corvette with a hemi. Public Corporations exist to make money. They even have a legal obligation to their stockholders to act in a manner consistent with that goal. |
| jsusanka Jun 24, 2006 6:10 PM EDT |
what are you talking about you aren't even making the correct comparison. "Every business allows this to happen. You can't walk into McDonald's and expect to buy a Whopper. Wal-Mart isn't likely to sell the same clothing items offered at Bloomingdales. GM cars don't come with Chrysler engines, no matter how much you might like to try a Corvette with a hemi." I think the example would be better if you said that there was only mcdonalds and you could not buy anything but mcdonalds because they started the hamburger first and no other manufacturer was allowed to get in the maket if there was only ford and you could not buy anything else but ford because they were there first and no other manufacturer was allowed to enter the market because it would be seen as costing more to the distributors because they had such a great deal with ford and ford would punish them if they sold another manufacturer. "Public Corporations exist to make money. They even have a legal obligation to their stockholders to act in a manner consistent with that goal." can't argue there - but when it becomes illegal then they aren't doing their stockholders any favors. |
| jdixon Jun 24, 2006 6:12 PM EDT |
> I guarantee you if I called dell right now and wanted to buy a preinstalled linux box on my computer it would not happen. It's my understanding that Dell does allow for this possibility if you're a volume purchaser. I believe that means that ou have to be ordering 50 or more computers (from memory). In such a case, they MAY be willing to preload the OS of your choice on the machine. Note that unless you buy their N series, they still charge you for the Windows license. They also will preload Linux on their server and workstation lines, without either the Windows license or the volume purchase requirement. |
| dinotrac Jun 24, 2006 6:24 PM EDT |
>what are you talking about you aren't even making the correct comparison. Of course I am. You were talking about computer makers and what they pre-install. Last I looked, you could by computers from Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Apple, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Acer, and umpteen others. That's no monopoly. The monopoly you're talking about is Microsoft's monopoly on desktop software, and that's a monopoly of market share -- not a monopoly of eliminating choices. Computer makers can (and some do) pre-install Linux with OpenOffice and other software. |
| jsusanka Jun 24, 2006 6:39 PM EDT |
"The monopoly you're talking about is Microsoft's monopoly on desktop software, and that's a monopoly of market share -- not a monopoly of eliminating choices. Computer makers can (and some do) pre-install Linux with OpenOffice and other software." Here is a better example - If a hardware store sold only on kind of bug killer because the deal they had with the brand they sell would punish them if they sold another manufacturers bug killer or it would supposedly cost more if they sold another brand because as you say "the margins are thin". that just doesn't exist today except in software. and the doj was suppose to do something about it and they didn't because of politics and the lobbyist that microsoft employs. microsoft is just delaying the inevitable because the truth eventually happens. |
| jdixon Jun 24, 2006 7:32 PM EDT |
> If a hardware store sold only on kind of bug killer because the deal they had with the brand they sell would punish them if they sold another manufacturers bug killer or it would supposedly cost more if they sold another brand because as you say "the margins are thin". > that just doesn't exist today except in software. You obviously haven't tried ordering a Pepsi at McDonald's, have you? |
| dinotrac Jun 24, 2006 11:22 PM EDT |
jdixon: And, let us not forget, Microsoft makes sure they don't put Linux on their burgers. |
| grouch Jun 25, 2006 6:19 AM EDT |
Pepsi and Coca-cola have fought battles in the past over preferential placement on store shelves. This is competition. Neither, to my knowledge, have engaged in having dead people write letters to Attorneys General, nor sent spokespersons to testify before Congress that the other was a threat to the economy, nor made credible threats to cut off the air supply of the other for introducing a slight chance of disturbing a monopoly, nor paid multiple news outlets to publish false information about the other, nor charged organizations for a set number of licenses whether used or not, nor surreptitiously altered vending machines so that the other's product leaves a bad taste in the purchaser's mouth. |
| dinotrac Jun 25, 2006 7:27 AM EDT |
grouch: I don't believe we're defending Microsoft here. Microsoft has a monopoly. They broke the law. Their business practices suck giant turds. I wouldn't trust Microsoft around my money, my wife or my kids. All of which has something to with the facts of economic life, but not everything. Microsoft's monopoly certainly dominates the landscape in which PC makers operate. It means most people want Windows. We may not like that fact. We may think most people are pretty stupid in their pc preferences. We might even be right. That does not change the underlying economic truth: If it ain't going to make you money, you shouldn't be selling it. When Dell, HP, etc convince themselves that pre-installing Linux will increase their profits, they will offer it. In the meantime, buying a pc with Linux pre-installed means buying from a vendor whose business model already lets them make money from Linux PC's. They're out there. If you really want more companies to pre-install Linux, the best thing you can do is buy a Linux PC from one of the vendors who sell them now. |
| jdixon Jun 25, 2006 8:12 AM EDT |
Grouch: The Pepsi at McDonalds example merely illustrates that such agreements are common, not that Coke is equivilant to Microsoft (if they were, that would make Pepsi either Apple or Red Hat. Hmm...). The reason they should be illegal for Microsoft is that Microsoft is a monopoly, not that they're illegal as a matter of course. Mind you, I always make a point of telling the clerks at the Coke shops why I'm not ordering a drink when they ask if I want one. |
| jsusanka Jun 25, 2006 1:52 PM EDT |
"Microsoft's monopoly certainly dominates the landscape in which PC makers operate. It means most people want Windows" no it doesn't - I think this is totally false. people don't want windows they are going to get it rather they like it or not and that is where the problem lies. the computer manufacturers can make money with linux preinstalled and I think it will eventually happen. I have noticed the common folks are getting more educated when it comes to computers and some of them have asked me personally where they can linux preinstalled - so I think this is changing because the people have heard and seen and read about the tactics grouch writes about. I may not be able to get pepsi at mcdonalds but at least I can get orange, water, sprite, orange juice, coffee, etc etc - so this is nothing like the microsoft example. Now this would be the same if they only offered coke period and nothing else like water, orange, sprite, orange juice etc etc and all you could drink at Mcdonalds was coke. People get windows whether they want it or not and bottom line this is the problem and this is what the doj was suppose to fix but didn't and microsoft continues there monopolistic predatory business practices. |
| dinotrac Jun 25, 2006 4:06 PM EDT |
>no it doesn't - I think this is totally false. You are free to think whatever you want. >People get windows whether they want it or not and bottom line this is the problem So, how exactly would you characterize that problem? Do people, for example, leave the room when those nifty Mac commercials come on? Do people simply not know what they want? Are the big PC makers too stupid to figure out how much more money they'll make by selling Linux, which, I presume, is what all those people who don't want Windows really want? Linux on the desktop is a much harder sell -- and sell is the right word -- than Linux in the server room. Desktop customers are, by and large, less technically proficient than server customers. They don't have a fundamental computing background in which to place their computer use. Change is scarier to them. Add to that tons of boutique programs that are Windows-only, hardware that is Windows-only (though that problem seems to be gong the way of the Do-Do), the use of Windows at work, etc, and you have lots of reasons why people really do want Windows. Things like Firefox are opening eyes. E-mail viruses are opening eyes. The future for Desktop Linux has never looked brighter. On the other hand, I was saying the same thing 3 - 5 -7 years ago. It's a hard, hard slog. I've made this suggestion before, but I'll make it again: If you want a better understanding of what it takes to convince people to change from a widely accepted status-quo, you could do a lot worse than to read the book Blue Ocean Strategy, by Kim and Mauborgne. |
| jsusanka Jun 25, 2006 4:38 PM EDT |
"Add to that tons of boutique programs that are Windows-only, hardware that is Windows-only (though that problem seems to be gong the way of the Do-Do), the use of Windows at work, etc, and you have lots of reasons why people really do want Windows." All you are talking about is marketing. microsoft can spend their monopoly money on marketing. how did they get their monopoly money? by their illegal monopolist predatory business practices. people are very versatile and except all kinds of change in their lives daily some of it catastrophic. its not that hard to overcome a little old computer. there are tons of linux programs that can replace those "boutique" windows ones and without all the kruft that comes with those windows "boutique" programs. |
| dinotrac Jun 25, 2006 4:50 PM EDT |
jsusanka -- Let me guess...University student? High school fanboy? Some real world thoughts: >All you are talking about is marketing To a large extent, yes. I use a Linux desktop everyday. I am typing this from a Linux desktop. My wife uses a Linux desktop in addition to the Windows XP notebook she needs to run a piece of boutique software not available under Linux. My ten year old types her school work on a Linux desktop and my six year old (the ten year old, too) plays games on a Linux desktop. You will never hear me say that Linux is not a perfectly wonderful desktop. I much prefer it to Windows. Marketing, however, matters. It is the art of convincing people they want what you're selling. If people were clamoring for Linux PCs, there would be a lot more Linux PCs on the market. One problem companies like Dell have is that PC margins are pretty thin. That doesn't leave a lot of cash for creating markets, certainly not if it means competing with the deep pockets of Microsoft. >people are very versatile and except all kinds of change in their lives daily some of it catastrophic. Oh sigh. I'll pause for a moment while you pull your head up out of the sand. Yes, people absolutely do change and they adjust to change. That's not exactly what we're talking about. We're talking about getting people willingly to change from what they are doing now. It absolute is possible. It does, however, require a very good reason. Here's the kicker: it doesn't matter that you or I may think they have very good reasons to change. They have to think so. Again, Blue Ocean Strategy is very enlightening. |
| jsusanka Jun 25, 2006 6:32 PM EDT |
"Marketing, however, matters. It is the art of convincing people they want what you're selling. If people were clamoring for Linux PCs, there would be a lot more Linux PCs on the market. One problem companies like Dell have is that PC margins are pretty thin. That doesn't leave a lot of cash for creating markets, certainly not if it means competing with the deep pockets of Microsoft." no need to get peronal - of course marketing matters and again to my point there is no other market out there that lets any company get away with what microsoft does in the the software world if the doj did their job and punished them appropriately they would not have the dollars or should not have the dollars to spend on marketing. I too live in the real world and I see all the backroom deals that go on all the time between vendors and companies and I take no part in it. To me that is one of the advantages of linux. It makes people honest. With supporters like you it's no wonder that linux hasn't taken off on the desktop. We all have to change our thinking in order for change to happen. we can't expect a different outcome by doing and thinking business as usual. |
| dinotrac Jun 25, 2006 7:12 PM EDT |
>I too live in the real world and I see all the backroom deals I guess I pegged you wrong. It sounds like you can do some real good for the linux desktop. Most of us are not in a position to see backroom deals, taking place in the back room as they do. You can help the cause immensely by sharing your information. Share it with us, share it with the DOJ, European authorities, etc. For that matter, the dirty deeds you've seen must affect some pretty big companies out there with deep pockets. I'll bet some of them would be glad to take the things you've witnessed and file suit against Microsoft. A number of companies have made out very well indeed by suing the boys from Redmond. So please -- take what you've seen and put a nail in Microsoft's coffin. I will be very grateful to you. So will most of the people who visit this site. You have a chance to do some serious good here. |
| jsusanka Jun 26, 2006 6:00 PM EDT |
"Share it with us, share it with the DOJ, European authorities, etc." like it would do any good - it is going to have to be a group effort - I believe it is bigger than you or I. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!