Hidden Fees Discovered For "Free" Windows 7 Upgrade 406
An anonymous reader writes 'Thousands of recent computer purchasers who are expecting to receive free upgrades to Windows 7 when it is released on October 22 may be surprised to learn that some big computer makers are quietly tacking on hefty processing fees as high as $17 to mail out those disks to some buyers.' How about they process $0 to click a link and download a file?
similar to Snow Leopard (Score:5, Insightful)
It's annoying but it's not hefty.
And in this (Win7) case the price seems to be a manufacturer thing and not a MS thing. Ranging from $0 to $17.
$0 to click and download a file (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of course the infrastructure to serve 3gb of data to each customer doesn't cost anything?
Not that I'm defending the practice of charging for a free upgrade, free upgrades should be free, postage free too, but suggesting doing it digitally means there would be no cost is ignorant. In the UK with the extortionate costs of bandwidth I think posting a CD first class via Royal Mail might in fact be cheaper.
A lot of people would just want to stick the Windows 7 DVD they receieve through the post in the drive too. Downloading an ISO and knowing how to burn an ISO rather than copying the file across like they do usually when writing CDs (if they've ever even written one before) would be too much for some users.
hidden? (Score:2, Insightful)
Free as in Microsoft... (Score:1, Insightful)
You should know... when Microsoft say FREE, it ALWAYS COME UP WITH AN HIDDEN COST. ALWAYS!!
Re:$0 to click and download a file (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:similar to Snow Leopard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:similar to Snow Leopard (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope, nothing like it. More like paying your neighbor's kid to go to the store and buy the upgrade disk. Only the store promised it would be free, so you're just paying the middleman.
Why should a middleman profit by selling you something prematurely, making it your responsibility to purchase and install the software at a later date? That's your time and money, for a free upgrade. I understand the part about installing it yourself - if you don't want to do that, then delay your purchase. But paying any sort of fee for a free upgrade is just not how you do things.
Same goes for GPL software (Score:2, Insightful)
Open source projects can charge reasonable fees for distribution of source code. Why are these any different?
The issue is informed consent (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:similar to Snow Leopard (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah except Microsoft and the stores are saying Win7 is a free upgrade. Misleading and deceptive. Like when I visited a car dealer and "won" an 1 gigabyte MP4 player for "free". Yeah the actual item may have been technically free, but the S&H cost $30 so basically I paid for it.
I returned it and now I'm going after paypal to get a refund, since the battery only lasted 15 minutes. What good is that?
Re:Free lunch (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the PC manufacturers are advertising the free Vista-to-7 upgrade, the CD you receive is probably custom-tailored to work with your machine and its installed drivers. So it's not really any more difficult than popping-in the Win7 Restore CD and waiting.
Re:Digital distribution has been needed for a whil (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that exposes the truth of copyrights to consumers a bit too clearly for corporate comfort.
Windows has traditionally been about receiving the product. You go to the store, give them that ungodly sum that they charge, and then come home with your shiny box and DVD. Now, online distribution is coming up, and Microsoft likely will go that way, but allowing them access to the whole thing before buying a key puts the issue into the spotlight too much. They've already downloaded the system for free, and now they'd be paying several hundred dollars for a code to unlock it. At that point even the simplest minded consumer will put together that all they really paid for was that key and the other stuff costs really nothing (which has always been the case, but it's not been so obvious).
If Microsoft only allows a download after paying the fee then there's still some level of abstraction. IE, the consumer feels like they're buying at least a big file.
Just my take on the issue anyways.
Re:how many people know how to burn an iso? (Score:3, Insightful)
i can imagine all the calls to Dell. i burned the iso to a dvd and it still won't boot
Then they should provide an executable binary which upon execution upgrades. No need for an iso.
Re:Digital distribution has been needed for a whil (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:similar to Snow Leopard (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes because it costs nothing to dedicate floor space and people to package and label and track products, and make sure they get on the right UPS/FedEx truck.
Sure, it could be built into the item's cost, but it doesn't cost the same to ship an item to New York or to Zimbabwe. Which is why it's usually listed as a separate charge. But hey, if you feel "ripped off", then don't buy it.
Because transportation wants to be free! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Shipping and Handling" is a scam in whatever form it takes. This is especially true when those charges are excessive.
Yes - charging shipping to pass along a variable, customer dependent charge is outrageous!
Get back under your bridge.
Re:Digital distribution has been needed for a whil (Score:2, Insightful)
You go to the store, give them that ungodly sum that they charge, and then come home with your shiny box and DVD.
Seriously, what is UNGODLY about what they charge for their product? You spend more in a MONTH on cable TV than what it costs to buy Vista Super Premium. And don't give me the "It's expensive because it doesn't work" BS. If it doesn't work, don't buy it.
Personally, I run one of each (Win,Mac,Ubuntu) at my house, and i have no problem with the cost i need to pay for Windows or mac. Different tools for different uses.
Re:Digital distribution has been needed for a whil (Score:4, Insightful)
Every product has hidden costs embedded into the price. In Microsofts case, it's dev time and marketing, and yes, a profit too. If you don't think the dev time yielded a high enough quality product, or a product you're interested in, by all means, go buy a Mac or download *nix. But, just because it costs next to nothing to create "keys" doesn't mean there weren't some very real expenses in delivering this product that need to be recouped.
Re:Digital distribution has been needed for a whil (Score:1, Insightful)
That's as dumb as a blade of grass.
When you buy a new house, or rent an apartment, do you really think you paid all that money just for two shiny (or not)keys, and the bathroom is superfluous, even worth nothing more than what you think two keys at the Wal-Mart should cost?
Grow up and stop sniffing the anti-copyright glue. When you buy a copy of Windows whatever, you get more than a key to enter into your computer. Playing word games doesn't change that, and pretending that Windows is exclusively a scheme to ransom your computer is also. Microsoft doesn't have to do much now to make a new version of Windows desireable except pay a few thousand developers to make the code. Since we expect (and need) ongoing support to stomp out the inevitable security flaws, this money also goes towards that effort. Discussions about how much and when we should pay Microsoft will cement the reality that if you use Windows, you pay Microsoft. Probably.
Now, if you want free, go load your favorite Linux distribution. Bound to be able to get your hands on a live CD distro to get you started. Free.
And if you want to avoid both, consider Apple. Great product. Oh, and you won't need to pay a couple hundred dollars to get a key that unlocks the software. You'll need a whole new computer. Not a cheap one either.
Really, grow up and stop with the gratuitous copyright-bashing. It's disingenuous, false, and naive. If you really hate it, choose a copyright ot license that better suits you. They are out there, and mostly free.
Me? I have to use Microsoft products, that's what the people that pay me need me to use. For my own pleasure, amusement, and purposes, I use other stuff.
Next thing you know, you'll be whining about how the Internet should be free to you.
Re:Digital distribution has been needed for a whil (Score:1, Insightful)
You must not have been paying attention to slashdot for the last few months... whining is all he seems to do. And ranting about socialism in Ayn Rand's terms. Hint: SHE IS NOT AN ECONOMIST. SHE IS NOT A PHILOSOPHER. SHE IS A THIRD RATE WRITER.
Re:Digital distribution has been needed for a whil (Score:1, Insightful)
What if the car you previously purchased was a lemon, as well as the previous OS (Vista)? Why should you pay yet again for what amounts to turd polish? Your thinking will keep you in the cubical.
Re:Digital distribution has been needed for a whil (Score:1, Insightful)
The last thing I want is Comcast controlled by the government. Government has no business in private Market.
Re:Digital distribution has been needed for a whil (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>It sounds alot like you just feel the need to bitch about something today.
I can't help that. The actions of the corporations makes the complaining inevitable. Perhaps if they stopped searching for ways to screw the citizens (like in this article with "free" upgrades costing 20 dollars) then not just me, but ALL of us would have less things to complain about.
Re:The issue is informed consent (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Digital distribution has been needed for a whil (Score:3, Insightful)
If somebody offers me, in writing, $25 back if I buy something, I damn well expect to get $25 back.
Re:Digital distribution has been needed for a whil (Score:3, Insightful)
wow - did someone piss in your cereal this morning?
The OP did not say anything about copyrights being right or wrong, and didn't seem to to overly anti-copyright, and his point about microsoft's motives (or part of them) is arguably correct. He did mention that he thought the price of Windows is a lot, and he is free to think that if he wants. He didn't imply that it should be free or pirated.
I'm sure Microsoft is quite concerned about the abstraction between product and cost. People don't want to think about paying for development, testing and support. They want to pay for something they can hold in their hand or put on a shelf. That's why all the software boxes (and most other boxes) you see in the store are all bright and colourful, when a simple brown box would suffice. How many peoples comptur rooms do you go into and see software boxes on their shelves (collecting dust)? The box is a trophy. With a download there is no trophy.
Playing a 'word game' is EXACTLY what Microsoft is doing because they are afraid that if people 'think' that all they are paying for is an unlock code, then they won't be concerned when their brother in law 'gives' them the unlock code instead of buying it from Microsoft. So they make people think they are paying for a DVD, manual and box in addition to the software.
And there is nothing wrong with that, except for as other posters have pointed it adds cost to the product that it presumably passed on the the customer, as well as delays the release while the manufacturing process occurs. And Microsoft is fully within their rights to do both if they think that is the correct thing to do for their business.
Re:Digital distribution has been needed for a whil (Score:3, Insightful)
So his bitch is that he got $25, but not in a form that would have allowed him to "make" it $26.25 via a reward scheme at his bank.
See why he comes across like a complete douche?
Frankly, no. They offered $25, and if it wasn't a cash or cash equivalent, they should have said that on the advertisement.
Unless there's some way to cash the credit card like a check (instead of spending it), in which case I'll concede that it's a cash equivalent.