Interesting...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| johnb316 Jul 25, 2009 3:11 PM EDT |
So Microsoft admits that computer vendors don't need to pre-install any form of Windows on computers sold in Russia; and M$ also admits that any pre-installed M$ OS can be returned... very interesting! Of course I'm sure this policy doesn't apply to computers sold by Acer et al in the USA... |
| mjeffer Jul 25, 2009 6:10 PM EDT |
Sadly I don't think this is of any benefit to Linux. While it would certainly be nice if they were trying to offer consumers more choice, I think the real intention here is to get laptops with no OS installed so that russian consumers can install pirated versions of Windows instead of paying for it. Russia is one of the top countries where Windows gets pirated. While I don't necessarily like Microsoft or their products, I do believe in the right of companies to produce proprietary software and to sell that software (not saying I'd actually use it but they have the right to do so). I can't say I support countries trying to circumvent paying for something so that they can use it illegally. |
| softwarejanitor Jul 25, 2009 6:35 PM EDT |
@mjeffer I don't think its fair to say that every Russian who wants to buy a bare machine intends to pirate Windows. While that may be true in a lot of cases, a lot of people would probably prefer to run Linux or *BSD or something else too. Acceptance of alternative OSes is much bigger in Europe than it is in the US. I don't personally believe in encouraging piracy of Windows because I'd rather have people who can't afford or don't want to pay for Windows use Linux instead. I think that while they don't like losing revenue to piracy that Microsoft would actually prefer that people ran pirated Windows than Linux. |
| mjeffer Jul 25, 2009 7:00 PM EDT |
True, I'm not saying they all will and I think it's a good thing for OEMs to offer Windows, Linux and bare. But it just struck me as odd that the anti-trust was all about getting bare laptops and not about giving consumers a choice of what they want. I'd be a lot less skeptical if that were the case. Some of those already offer Linux on netbooks or laptops (although I don't know about in russia) yet they're still want bare laptops? It just looks fishy to me. |
| Halko Jul 25, 2009 7:05 PM EDT |
Mjeffer, Linux users must pay Microsoft tax, because otherwise something that has nothing to do with us might happen? Piracy is a problem, but it is not our problem. If Microsoft has trouble with pirates, they can have my sympathy, but I am not going to donate them money to ease their pain. Or am I willing to let them abuse their market position either. Windows is not the only piece of software on Russian market. Perhaps Russians ought to buy a variate of useless software when they purchase new computers just in case. Piracy has nothing to do with Microsoft's abusive behaviour. Those are two separate cases, and should be handled separately. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 25, 2009 8:24 PM EDT |
Perhaps they are only mentioning bare laptops because they want to keep the focus on Microsoft's bundling tactics and not on MS's competitors?Quoting:If Microsoft has trouble with pirates, they can have my sympathy, but I am not going to donate them money to ease their pain. I would love Microsoft to crank up the WGA and kill off every pirated Windows install overnight. Linux marketshare would explode beyond your wildest dreams. On the flip side we'd probably also have another economic recession because many people and companies simply stopped functioning. Especially in the far east :-) |
| mjeffer Jul 25, 2009 8:24 PM EDT |
I agree completely halko...that wasn't my point. My point was I don't see this as Russia trying to allow users to have access to Linux but rather to not fairly pay Microsoft. Is this good for Linux users in Russia? Of course! But do you see one mention of Linux in this press release? Is there any mention of trying to get the OEMs to give the consumers a choice of OSes? Nope. I just don't see this as Russia trying to promote competition in the OS market which is what we should want. |
| softwarejanitor Jul 25, 2009 9:02 PM EDT |
@mjeffer I really don't care what the intent is as long as it helps Linux and hurts Microsoft... And if I'm a bad person for saying that, then so be it... |
| tracyanne Jul 25, 2009 9:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:[If]Piracy is a problem, but it is not our problem. If Microsoft has trouble with pirates, they can have my sympathy, but I am not going to donate them money to ease their pain. This applies to all proprietary vendors. In the case of FAS, I don't care why they want bare bones laptops. If people are using "pirted" Windows on them then that's a completely different issue, and it's one for Microsoft to deal with.... and I might add in a way that doesn't impinge on my freedom to buy a Linux compatible laptop, and not have to pay Microsoft for the privilage, onto which I can put any distribution of Linux. |
| kt Jul 26, 2009 3:40 AM EDT |
mjeffer: "But do you see one mention of Linux in this press release? Is there any mention of trying to get the OEMs to give the consumers a choice of OSes? Nope. I just don't see this as Russia trying to promote competition in the OS market which is what we should want." I think that you point is interesting. However, if one continues along the hypothetical path of events that might happen in the new market environment (let's call it free environment), one indeed might see the validity of FAS's statement about promoting competition. So, let's imagine one OEM (A) selling a bare-bone machine. Now let's imagine another OEM (B) pre-installing Linux in the hopes of outselling A. And on it goes, one OEM using its creativity to compete with another, benefiting the consumers. FAS does not have to require that or that OEM to sell alternatives -- it will happen more by itself as MS losses its grip on OEMs in one way or another. Also, I doubt that FAS can require someone to sell anything in this case. |
| hkwint Jul 26, 2009 1:52 PM EDT |
Quoting:"But do you see one mention of Linux in this press release? But what's the point in mentioning competitors if your task is to make sure any company obliges to the law? Their task is to help create an environment where competition thrives and enforce law if necessary. Their task is not to help consumers or Linux. It's the task of the law to make sure people can choose, not the task of the ones enforcing the laws. Normally when competitors are suffering from certain behaviour by other companies - the competitors suffering are not mentioned in monopoly-cases. Examples are the beer breweries, elevator makers and more of the like. In the cases of Microsoft and Intel the competitors who were suffering were identified, but only because they were the ones complaining. The Russian Federal government can 'market' this case as bare 'law-enforcement' if they want. Such as: "OEM's break the law and they should oblige" - period. Of course that's not the complete truth, but that's just besides the point. If I don't like someone and inform the police that person is acting illegally, the fact that I don't like that person doesn't make his act legal. |
| hkwint Jul 26, 2009 2:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:I'm sure this policy doesn't apply to computers sold by Acer et al in the USA... Probably it does, because Acer _does_ offer a refund (at least they do here in NL). You simply can't say "Acer et. all" because "et all" just don't exist. Here's the situation over here in NL: Acer does offer a refund but you have to pay for 'shipping' or transport the hardware yourself (NL is small, but petrol is so expensive may as well cost more than €30 of petrol to deliver and collect your hardware), Dell does offer a refund but they say "It's not their official policy" (don't believe their policy, is my advice), MSI offers a refund but most MSI-personnel doesn't know, Medion offers a refund, FujitsuSiemens offers a refund but shipping costs are much more expensive than the refund so you still lose money, but others such as Toshiba and HP don't offer a refund saying "legally they're not obliged to do so", while lame companies such as Sony don't respond to questions at all (just as in Russia - it seems). As you see, there's no such thing as "Acer et all". Here's what some Dutch MSI-exec disclosed: If you ask the store for a refund for unused Windows on an MSI-product, the shop in turn contacts MSI NL, MSI NL contacts MSI TW, MSI TW contacts MS TW, MS TW contacts MS US. Then MS US pays to MS TW, MS TW pays to MSI TW, MSI TW pays to MSI NL, MSI NL pays to your shop and your shop gives you the refund. That's also why it takes them half a year to offer you a refund. Typically something like €30 for WinXP home. A document from Acer in my posession, telling Acer employees to contact MS to ask for a refund when a customer wants to return Windows, and the stories at Windowsrefund.info where US customers phoning Dell US are put through to Dell India to receive a refund seem to affirm this is the way refunds are managed. In other words: If you receive a €30 refund, it will probably have cost both MSI and Microsoft together more than €150 handling fees. If enough people do this, I'm sure OEM's will decide they are losing money this way and they have to change their policy. However, the MSI exec also disclosed 'this happens about twice a year'. That's for a country with 16Mo inhabitants. Extrapolating to a typical country with 64Mo or 320Mo inhabitants that would respectively be only eight or forty people a year, meaning no reason to change the policy. |
| jsusanka Jul 27, 2009 10:40 AM EDT |
"I agree completely halko...that wasn't my point. My point was I don't see this as Russia trying to allow users to have access to Linux but rather to not fairly pay Microsoft. Is this good for Linux users in Russia? Of course! But do you see one mention of Linux in this press release? Is there any mention of trying to get the OEMs to give the consumers a choice of OSes? Nope. I just don't see this as Russia trying to promote competition in the OS market which is what we should want." I am not sure I want that. It sure hasn't worked here in the US. I think that is what they are looking at and how Microsoft has illegally got their position. I think this is great. Maybe this will actually make informed consumers and that will do nothing but help Linux and hurt Windows. Why should OEM's be telling people about Operating systems. Let them find out on their own and get educated. Nothing wrong with that and it will do nothing but help society. |
| kt Jul 27, 2009 4:05 PM EDT |
susanka: "Why should OEM's be telling people about Operating systems. Let them find out on their own and get educated." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYFWGRSH5Rw |
| kt Jul 27, 2009 6:09 PM EDT |
mjeffer: "I think the real intention here is to get laptops with no OS installed so that russian consumers can install pirated versions of Windows instead of paying for it." http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2009022301635OSDP |
| tracyanne Jul 27, 2009 10:39 PM EDT |
@kt, who cares, that's Microsoft's problem, they need to deal with it. Only not in ways that affect my freedom to buy laptops with out windows on them. I suggest actually making WGA work. |
| kt Jul 27, 2009 10:48 PM EDT |
Tracy: "@kt, who cares, that's Microsoft's problem, they need to deal with it. Only not in ways that affect my freedom to buy laptops with out windows on them." I think you mistook me for mjeffer whom I was quoting. |
| tracyanne Jul 28, 2009 2:06 AM EDT |
kt I did sorry |
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!