Is Windows Worth $45? 1038
bgelb writes "This article from the Wall Street Journal questions whether Microsoft really innovates enough to justify the enormous amount of money (nearly 10% of the cost of every PC!) it takes from consumers each year. Hard drive and chip makers innovate constantly, but what about Microsoft?"
Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this the Microsoft definition that says that since I don't have a license for each and every CPU that I am "casually pirating" their software?
That's just dumb. I have bought Windoze many times in many different ways ranging from the Microsoft tax to computer shows to computer software stores... if I use windows on 4 machines and I have 3 licenses why should I be given this highly inflamatory label as a pirate? Once it gets through my door I should be able to use it as I please just as any other form of "Intelectual Property."
Wow.. fair use really must be dead as the corp guys said...
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Same reason people who download an MP3 of a song that plays on the radio every other hour get called "pirates".
Not that I agree with it, that's just how it is...
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's paid for *3* licenses, to use on *3* PCs, not 4.
Why shouldn't one be allowed to use that license on different PCs in their home?
Because the license stipulates one machine only.
Why should dowloading a song freely available to anyone with a tape recorder (or a good memory) be illegal ?
After all...one is not restricted to listening to music on any one particular device.
Heh. Yet.
The difference is that OSs typically require an install and therefore cannot be easily moved from system to system like music can (Knoppix is an exception but perhaps should be the norm).
There is no difference. The law stipulates what is protected by copyright and how. Break that law and you will be labelled a "pirate".
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's paid for *3* licenses, to use on *3* PCs, not 4.
Except, if he had the OS installed on a removable hard drive and moved it from one PC to another. Lets assume we are talking about win 98 here to avoid product activation issues.
The point being is that he (presumably) doesn't ever use more than three computers at once.
If he does it one way (with a removable hdd) its probably ok(and maybe microsoft, with 3 licences, has had more licences than it should have), but if he does it another way (4 installs) he is breaking the law.
I have problems mostly with the arbitrary way that microsoft licences stuff, and changes it with minimal notice. Internet explorer - first its for sale (I know, I bought a copy of IE 1.0 in the plus pack), then its free. Hyperthreading CPU's - how many processor licences do you need? Remember that windows NT4.0 came with a 4 cpu licence, but a hyperthreaded P4 uses up all of XP's (2) processor licences, and if you want to run even a dual processor motherboard its deemed a server. Even if it was on the same hardware. Can you install a copy of office on your laptop as well as your office machine (Sometimes you can). Oh, and yes, lets not forget the debacle of licensing 6.0 for business users, or how open source software is making microsoft drop its prices for no apparent reason.
You can say that microsoft, as the owner of the software, can charge what it chooses. I suppose so. But doesn't this say something about the value of the software? If microsoft can change the price arbitrarily, what is the true production cost of windows? Alot less than they would care to admit, and probably not much more than the cost of a linux distro. In other words, very cheap.
So when you say that someone is a microsoft pirate, yes, that is true, but dont forget the underlying legal system is unable to deal with microsoft, a convicted monopolist, leaving the average user in a position of overwhelming inferiority.
The solution is simple - and its not about breaking copyright. Get an alternative, like mandrake linux, or bsd, or just buy a mac. If the law cant stop a monopoly, then the best solution is to stop it being a monopoly by using something else.
My 2c
Michael
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest hint that windows is priced much higher than production cost would be MS's cash reserves and the number trailing zeros in Gates' net worth.
That being said, what you pay for a product only has something to do with production cost when there is real competition.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a different (and legal, AFAIK) situation. The only exception would be OEM licenses which, I believe, are only valid for the machine they were sold with.
If he does it one way (with a removable hdd) its probably ok(and maybe microsoft, with 3 licences, has had more licences than it should have), but if he does it another way (4 installs) he is breaking the law.
That's a different situation. The software is licensed to be installed and used - roughly speaking - on one PC at a time. I'm pretty sure the fine print allows for the movable install you described initially and may even allow for multiple installs (as long as only one is ever active at once).
I have problems mostly with the arbitrary way that microsoft licences stuff, and changes it with minimal notice. Internet explorer - first its for sale (I know, I bought a copy of IE 1.0 in the plus pack), then its free.
IE has always been available for free.
Hyperthreading CPU's - how many processor licences do you need?
Licensing applies to physical CPUs. The problem is that earlier versions of Windows can't tell the difference between logical and physical CPUs. It's a technical issue, not a licensing one. You are licensed to use XP Pro on a dual HT CPU machine, even if it appears to the OS as four logical CPUs.
Microsoft's licensing is really no more arbitrary than any similar company in the industry.
But doesn't this say something about the value of the software? If microsoft can change the price arbitrarily, what is the true production cost of windows? Alot less than they would care to admit, and probably not much more than the cost of a linux distro. In other words, very cheap.
*Re*production costs (ie: banging out CDs) are very cheap. *Production* costs (ie: developing the software) are very high.
Again, Microsoft "changing the price" arbitrarily is really no different to anyone else in the software industry - pretty much everyone charges per CPU, by usage type, by support details, etc. Indeed, pretty much *any* industry that derives money from "intellectual property" does this, as it's the best way for them to milk as much money as possible out of the consumer.
So when you say that someone is a microsoft pirate, yes, that is true, but dont forget the underlying legal system is unable to deal with microsoft, a convicted monopolist, leaving the average user in a position of overwhelming inferiority.
It's the *copyright system* that leaves the average user in that position. Microsoft (like everyone else) are merely taking advantage of the system.
The solution is simple - and its not about breaking copyright.
Copyright causes the problem. Not Microsoft.
Get an alternative, like mandrake linux, or bsd, or just buy a mac.
How is trading Microsoft for Apple going to make the situation any different ? They behave in exactly the same way.
OSS operating systems are, of course, different as their development generally doesn't need to be paid for by money.
If the law cant stop a monopoly, then the best solution is to stop it being a monopoly by using something else.
This particular issue has zero to do with whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly. Pretty much everyone licenses software like Microsoft.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ooo! Ooo! You opened the Can of Worms!
What exactly are "the machine they were sold with"? If I change my mouse, does it invalidate the licence? What about the harddrive or the video card? The motherboard (or maybe just the CPU)?
EULAs are nothing but attempts to indimidate and control. They have managed to twist the meaning of "copy" so that the use of the software is a "copy" (from medium to ram) claiming then that their right to limit copy is in force.
Let's hope someone does bring an EULA to court someday in front of a judge that can understand that a "copy" necessary in order to use something is not the kind of copy meant to be limited by copyright law.
After all, when I read a book, I make several intangible copies. Light reflected off the pages create a copy on my retina. My brain processing that image certainly makes many symbolic copies. I might even retain a long term copy for future reference (it's called, you know, memory).
Obviously, the copyright holders shouldn't be able to sue me. Those copies were necessary and unavoidable to even use the book to begin with. Why should software be any different?
If I buy a book, I'm allowed to read it as often as I want, where I want, and I'm perfectly allowed to let someone else read along too! I can lend it, or give it. And a bookmaker certainly could write any sort of conditions on the cover "if you read this book, you agree to foo-bar-baz" and they would be laughed out of a court.
Some time in the past, some evil business-type paid some lawer-type to go and confuse a non-tech savvy judge that being able to use what you buy is making a copy because of some technical detail. That judge got swindeled and we are paying the price.
Let's hope nobody goes to a judge explaining the evil copy that we make optically every time we read (or indeed look) at something.
-- MG
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I am saying is why can't he purchase one license and use it on all the PCs in his home?
We're not talking music, we're talking software. The difference is in the terms. If the license says "buy one license per CPU", then you can either agree to it and do just that, or you can return it on the grounds that you disagree with the license. If everyone would simply decline the licensing scheme that systems like Windows / Oracle / etc. use, they'd go away. But, people apparently keep buying multiple licenses for multiple machines and so they stay because they're obviously making money (I'm not counting the one-license people who get OEM copies).
And, if you "pirate" the software, all you do is silently add another Windows box to the statistics without making it known that you've declined the license, which just helps Microsoft and the licensing scheme.
Unfortunately I fear this may be the case. I refuse to use any paid music download service if it restricts my right to play the music on any device that I deem appropriate.
Same here, mate. Good policy. I use MMJB to play the radio at CD quality and commercial free and that's it. Vote with your dollars. If they can't sell crappy licensing schemes and "protected" (broken) content, they won't try (or, they'll die off and get replaced by less assinine companies.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Interesting)
I never see the flippant attitude here towards the GPL as I see towards M$ EULAs. Just imagine people saying, "I have the code, I can do what I want with it, even distribute binary only!" and the uproar begins.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the GPL is not an EULA. It is totally different from an EULA.The GPL is targeted not at the End User, but at the "Intermediate Developer".
The GPL gives you new rights that you didn't have before (thus it can be considered a valid contract, because you get something out of it).
Some EULAs claim they take away rights that you already had. There is no reason for a customer to agree to that license, because he gets nothing out of it (and he already had a legal right to run one copy of the software as soon as Microsoft handed him a cdrom)
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps that's true, but you failed miserably to understand the parent poster's point.
1. Is that one single machine at a time, or only installed on one machine? If I de-install it on one machine and then install it on another, does that meet the EULA? It seems to be, but it is very inconvenient. There's no operational difference with installing it on both and only using one at a time, except for the lack of the inconvenience. What about swappable HDD?
2. You are assuming EULAs are legally binding. AFAIK, that has not been demonstrated, and there's good reason to believe they aren't.
3. The conditions of the agreement cannot waive fair use rights, if they apply in this case. They might, but AFAIK it has never been tested.
But this is not the basis of law, rights, fairness, and ethics. One could say the same thing about many items. Allowing people to play the media in more than one device deprives the creators from an opportunity to sell many more copies. Allowing a car to be driven by more than one person deprives the manufacturers from selling more cars. Maximizing opportunities to sell things should never be the driver for fair use rights or legalities of licenses. It's a lousy argument and not convincing at all.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:4, Interesting)
The GPL has neither one of these problem, thank you. I have paid for windows, and, for your information, I have a legal association with a university with an extended site license so EVERY copy I have is legal and I can run it where I want... LEGALLY.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:4, Interesting)
Right to copy.
Copyrights are rights granted to copy something... and copying it into your mind by reading it doesn't qualify. This is why we get all into talking about fair use etc. What constitutes copying? Partial copying, quoting with attribution, backup copy for personal use?
Anyone know what the default copyright's are? Are all rights reserved by default? What rights are granted by not explicitely stating what the right to copy is.
And in closing, I think copying a slashdot comment will more likely get you bitch-slapped than sued... but that's just my two cents.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Funny)
I've also called Random House and Webster's. Their lawyers may want to speak to you about the usage of various of the following words:
Have a nice day.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
With the Apple, IBM, Next or Be equivalents we would be considerably FARTHER than we are today. Microsoft is a sandbagger that adopts technology and sound engineering practices only when they face threat of imminent mass end user revolt. Otherwise they just abuse their captive audience.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Informative)
CP/M [wikipedia.org] ran on the Zilog Z-80, Motorola m68k, and Intel 8080 and 8086 architectures -- on microcomputers not manufactured by CP/M's publisher, Digital Research. MS-DOS copied many features from CP/M, and several early MS-DOS programs such as dBase and WordStar were ports from CP/M.
Neither Microsoft nor IBM invented the idea of a microcomputer operating system separable from a particular manufacturer's hardware. Indeed, several of the first IBM-clones (by which many would ironically include the IBM PCjr) were notoriously buggy, and many MS-DOS programs would not run on them. (CP/M programs were generally compatible on the same processor.)
As usual, the Microsoft-based copy of someone else's idea was much poorer. However, the Microsoft marketing machine -- and, more importantly, the willingness of the computing world to forget or deny the better options not taken -- have come into play.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Informative)
Your reasoning is correct but one niggly fact was wrong. You talk about OSs only being sold by the hardware manufacturer and you say "Microsoft changed that". But CP/M predates MS-DOS by a very long time and it was available on many personal computers from many vendors. You could even get CP/M for the Commodore 128.
While I agree with you that divorcing hardware from the software was important for the growth of the IT industry, Microsoft wasn't the first company to do it. Even UNIX could be properly seen as divorcing hardware from software; you could run UNIX on dozens of different minis (not PCs) well before Microsoft even existed.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people pay much more then $45 dollars for their OS, hell, even Mandrake and Suse cost more then that if you buy it.
Nobody forces you to buy a computer with Windows on it, yet. If you don't like Microsoft's practices, buy a computer with no OS, or build your own. The vast majority of people would rather pay extra and not have to worry about loading the OS manually. And those who know how to load an OS also usually know where and how to build or buy a system without an OS.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Informative)
Don't take is the next gospel just because it's in a contract or license.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun and IBM, for example, price their hardware and software all over the map depending on what type of customer you are. Everyone gets a different level of "discounts" or slightly different SKUs, depending on the audience/purchaser, even though it's all the same under the hood.
Who actually pays? We do. (Score:5, Informative)
I see where you're going with this, but I don't know if its that clear cut. For instance, three weeks ago I was talking to one of our NOC guys at school and essentially they're going to phase out Novell because MS is giving them so much free software (upgrades to XP and server2003) they can finally shift to AD and drop Novell.
Now how is MS able to pay for this generosity?
1. They abused their monopoly and are arguably paying for this kind of thing with their ill gotten gains.
2. They're just a good company. *snicker*
I'm leaning towards 1. Novell has money and doesn't want to lose customers either, but they can't afford to supply an entire 20,000 person campus for 2 or 3 grand.
Re:Who actually pays? We do. (Score:4, Informative)
But it is also advertising. Students at the school don't see novell at all anymore, they see Windows and AD. They get used to this, they learn it. When they graduate, they know it. They go other places and ask why it's not there or help to bring it there because they know it.
With the Microsoft Campus Agreement, campuses license Windows and Office at a flat fee based on the Full-time enrollment equivalant. At our campus of 6000 students, it works out to cost about $8/student/semester. That $8 gets then the OS installed (9x/ME/2k/XP), and the Office Suite, and a couple of other things, like Visual Studio. When they leave the school, they get to keep it as well. Yeah...we pay for it, and the students pay for it, but for what is basically $16 a year, they get the OS and office suite with free upgrades. On the other hand, the amount the campus pays has gone up a couple times.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also interesting how nice Microsoft is to us where I now work. It's a university engineering department and as such has lots of UNIX in additon to Windows. MS gives us excellent terms on all their software, with compilers and the like being free provided they are used for research only.
Likewise Sun is very competitve price wise as both IBM and Dell have been frequent to point out how they could not only meet our Windows needs, but our Solaris needs too, and one system can run both OSes.
It is simply the way of a capatalism.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Particularly over the past few years when the legal street price for a functional OS has been $0. All Microsoft is really selling these days is value added above that which is available for free, and that added value shrinks daily.
The same goes for pirated versions as well, were XP Pro $45 retail and XP Home $25 I dare say you'd see 90% of the pirate market dry up over night and Microsoft revenues either hardly dip at all, or perhaps even rise slighttly.
Those who would still pirate it at those prices are those that will pirate it anyway, notwithstanding price.
Any company that can, at those prices, cry that they're only making about 90% clear profit on their wares had best not cry to me. I shall likely be entirely deaf to their entreaties, knowing, as I do from personal experience, that squeezing 20% overall profit from commercial trade is doing rather well, both by one's self and by reference to the profit margins of others.
Take GM, for instance, who must deliver to you a car for the same profit margin that MS makes on Windows+Office, and who must invest billions of dollars in research, regulation compliance, manufacturing facilities, distribution channels, liablility etc, in order to deliver that car to you.
Microsoft's vauted "R&D" costs are peanuts compared to what it takes to make a simple change to an existing auto design, let alone the cost of designing and certifying a wholely new model. Their manufacturing costs are virtually nil, as are their distribution costs.
This is why they have been able to gather their unparalleled vast fortune in only a couple of handfuls of years, and why they must now resort to extraordinary actions to maintain their sales, even though their vast fortune would allow the company to live quite securely ad infinitum without conducting any overt commercial trade whatsoever.
Yes, for Windows XP Pro $45 seems fair, to a bit less than fair, as a retail price.
Let's say $19.95 for Office.
KFG
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not saying these are reasons not to use linux, just mentioning some of the stuff I miss when I choose the "alternative" option when I boot my box.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not at all. Most OEMs get it massively discounted, for something like $1 per machine. It's one of the major leverages Microsoft have had over the OEMs.
Basically if an OEM is pissing MS off by, say, negotiating with another OS inventor, then they pull on the leash and threaten with making the OEM pay the normal $45 price. $45 is a lot to OEMs who are constantly trying to undercut competitors in order to maintain market share.
Just ask Be Inc who couldn't get a single major OEM to even consider BeOS. Even IBM suffered from this as they struggled to get OS/2 onto the consumer/coporate desktop. Hell, Linux is free yet no major OEMs properly push a machine pre-setup with Linux. Or are you going to tell me there never was a desktop market for any of those (or other) OSes?
Only recently have OEMs started to flaunt a little disregard for the desires of Redmond because of all the Antitrust hoo-haa. But now that all the states have been bought... I mean, have reached settlements, things will soon return to normal.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:4, Informative)
The WSJ numbers are OEM quantity numbers. MSRP for Windows is a lot higher (same for all the other components as well). It is true that Microsoft will massively discount for their friends; but $45 is the DISCOUNTED price.
Re:Who actually pays? (Score:5, Informative)
I worked for a major OEM for several years. I don't know where you got your figure (but I can guess...), but it's wrong. OEMs pay about $45 per license. The price hasn't changed for years. It used to be $45 for WfWG, about $50 for NT 4 and the same for 98 and up. And that was back when MS was strong-arming exclusive contracts.
We had to consider the cost of every component that went into a PC, down to the screws. So even back when a hot computer was Pentium 166, that $45 was a chunk of change. You can bet that it's virtually intolerable today.
What really made us grit our teeth, though, was that we paid $45 to $50 for a copy of Windows, but we were responsible for all of the manufacturing costs, from the media to the packaging. We had to contract our own mastering, printing and packaging services. So, while we paid Microsoft their money, we also had to pay Phoenix another few bucks for the actual media. And when a new version of Windows came out, we had to pray that Microsoft would actually get us a master soon enough so that we could ship systems with their OS on the announced release date.
At the time, we were the second largest build to order PC company (behind Dell). I'd hate to think of how things would have been if it was a tiny outfit.
Not a dollar. Not even close.
-h-
In a word... (Score:4, Funny)
It isn't even worth $0. I don't want it near me.
No, really, I'll get a restraining order.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats a pretty good indicator of how important OEMS are to Windows. I haven't ever got 80% off for buying in bulk, much less 93%. If it wasn't for OEMs choosing peoples OSes for them, Windows would be losing a lot of market share fast.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't accept a Windows CD for less than $100.
You gotta pay me to keep that coaster safe.
Consumers do have choices (Score:4, Informative)
There are choices for consumers and if they refuse to vote with their wallets, I have little pity on them,.
Re:Consumers do have choices (Score:5, Insightful)
Patience young one. This is a Wall Street Journal article, not a computer focused article. This is just a sign that Wall Street is waking up to the fact that Windows isn't worth the money they've been spending. Ever since Microsoft released XP with these new tighter contracts, businesses who hadn't previously cared about alternatives now care. We've already seen some Microsoft replacing going on, this article is probably a harbinger of more.
Re:Consumers do have choices (Score:5, Insightful)
The real assessment is much more sobering to those of us in the software industry -- this is just another bit of proof that the general perception nowadays is that software should be free, or damn close to free. No one groans about $600 for an LCD monitor, $200 for a hard drive, or $250 for a new video card every two years, but $45 for tens of millions of lines of code that is the single most important element of the PC (how great is that PC minus software)? Whoa, that's just unacceptable!
Consider this a win if you're blinded by your anti-Microsoft rage, but the reality is that this is yet another step towards the caveman mentality that only physical objects that you can hold in your hands have value. Of course I realize that's the going philisophical argument in these parts, so I'm preaching to the wrong crowd.
Re:Consumers do have choices (Score:5, Informative)
"Buy a Mac," while it is a good solution for some people, doesn't work as well for those on a budget. Pirating windows is not a legally friendly option, and it wouldn't save Joe Sixpack any money if he's buying a new Dell anyway. As much as I think Linux should become more widespread, I'm not sure if the masses are quite ready for it yet.
The issue is not that Windows costs money, but that there is no choice in the matter for the average user when they buy a new PC.
Re:Consumers do have choices (Score:5, Insightful)
If consumers don't like paying for Windows they can buy a Mac, use Linux, or pirate it.
There are choices for consumers and if they refuse to vote with their wallets, I have little pity on them,.
Easy for you to say, but most people only know what is on display at CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, WalMart, etc. As soon as the big OEMs with retail distribution stop giving in to Microsoft exclusion deals (I forget the economics term, when a monopolist refuses to sell its product to a middleman if he sells competitors' products too). Dell employees came out of the closet and told the world about these deals, we know it goes on. Do you really think any OEM will stand up to Microsoft and risk losing Windows? Only WalMart has been able to do this, one juggernaut battling another...
Re:Consumers do have choices (Score:4, Funny)
The term for that practice is, "Felony."
Schwab
Re:Consumers do have choices (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Consumers do have choices (Score:4, Insightful)
Point of information: CompUSA stocks macs and mac products. And, many malls are starting to see an Apple store pop up. Go into your local University store and you'll see Apples all over the place and Linux. Go into best buy and you'll see Linux. Order a PC from walmart.com and you can get Linux based PCs. The future is coming, and it is wonderfull M$ free. <grins/>
Re:Consumers do have choices (Score:5, Interesting)
If you dont support MS, then fine. Don't buy their product. But using their product (pirated or otherwise rented where legal), you're just indirectly supporting them by telling your friends and relations that it's OK to send you MS -formated documents (Word, XCell etc). You're not accomplishing much, in a show of disapproving their products or business model, by using their products.
The best protest you can make is categorically not using their stuff, and returning send documents to the sender and asking them to save it as an open format (RTF or PDF to name just two).
I don't use any MS product--even those that came with my Macs (including but not limited to Explorer) for this precise reason. For those very rare occasion where I simply can't escape it, I resort to an open source product that can read or convert said documents.
Act, on your beliefs.
PenguinComputing.com (Score:4, Insightful)
$45? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:$45? (Score:4, Insightful)
Today nothing ever crashes, my work box has uptime of two weeks(win2k), our servers(solaris and red hat linux) never go down along with our sql servers(win2k server). If you getting crashes, i'd point fingers at hardware. I've had problems in the past with bad hardware(VIA Chipset + Creative Labs SB Live) or bad hardware drivers(VIA chipset before 4 in 1 drivers).
Stability determined by drivers and hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
I think everyone wants but does not realize that modern OS is not 'hardware proof'. They don't test drivers and hardware, they just assume they work... and fail badly when they don't. FreeBSD 4.9, Redhat Linux 9, Windows XP -- all the same. In some respects, Windows XP is actually doing more to adress the problem - the crash reporting component helps Microsoft narrow down which 'real world combinations' are problem. I wish they were more in sharing the results... but that is more a 'corporate America' problem than anything...
Article Text (Lee Gomes's Portals column) (Score:5, Informative)
Do We Get Enough In Innovation for What We Give to Microsoft?
It's 2004; do you know where your computer dollars are going?
One can learn a lot about the computer industry by looking at the breakdown of manufacturing costs in an average desktop PC, as compiled by iSuppli Corp., a market-research firm. Excluding labor and shipping, and leaving out the costs of a monitor, keyboard or mouse, the typical desktop PC these days costs the Dells or the H-Ps of the world roughly $437 in parts.
The biggest portion of that -- 30%, or $134 -- goes to Intel for a Pentium processor. The disk drives, including whatever CD or DVD is installed, cost around $104; the RAM memory is $54; and the remaining hardware items -- power supply, case, circuit boards -- total $100.
The final 10%, or $45, goes to Microsoft for the Windows operating system.
Because these prices are never disclosed, the figures here represent best guesses. But you can start to see the contours of the computer industry in that bill of fare. Specifically, you begin to understand how Microsoft could amass its $61 billion in cash and other assets. It's easy when you collect nearly 10% of the cost of every PC that's shipped, while having no manufacturing costs of your own.
Most technology companies that do well justify the money they make by saying that is what is required to fund innovation, that were it not for all the profits they were accumulating, the industry would be standing still.
The claim is suspect. The disk-drive industry, for one, manages to release drives with ever-larger capacities while often barely breaking even. And the technical challenges they face are among the most formidable, involving squeezing more and more bits of data onto ever smaller portions of a rapidly spinning magnetically charged platter.
Intel is no stranger to big profits. Analysts estimate the Intel CPU costs more than a comparable product from rival Advanced Micro Devices. What about the added charge? Think of it as an Intel tax on each PC.
Even if you're not an Intel shareholder there's arguably a benefit associated with that tax. Intel is like a research-and-development operation for the entire semiconductor industry. The manufacturing processes it uses for its latest-generation Pentiums are the most advanced in the world and cost billions of dollars. Eventually, though, these processes become widely available to everyone in electronics. This is one case where trickle-down economics seems to work.
That leaves Microsoft, and the question: What does the world get for the 10% Microsoft tax on every PC?
No one could ever say Microsoft is sitting idle. That was clear last week at a Research TechFest the company held at its Redmond, Wash., campus. Microsoft has an advanced research operation that employs about 600 people all over the world. These are some of the smartest people around, and they don't work on specific Microsoft products, but rather on long-range ideas, usually matching their own interests.
The TechFest was like a science fair. Researchers set up booths, and the managers of Microsoft's many products milled around, looking for useful ideas they could deploy in future products. The number of people doing the milling was in the thousands.
But is the innovation from Microsoft commensurate with the awesome resources it has been given? The average Microsoft customer probably wouldn't say so. Indeed, the advances the company lists for its new products all too often involve fixing shortcomings of earlier products, such as security and reliability in the case of its operating systems, and ease of use with its Office suite.
In fact, you can argue that genuine innovation is the last thing monopolists want, since it threatens to upset the very applecart that made them rich in the first place.
When asked which research from its labs has made its way into M
perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
CBV
The majority actually do just that (Score:4, Informative)
So ya, if you don't like the OEMs sticking Windows on there and not giving you an option, go to the mom and pop shop and get your computer there.
The alternative is MacOS or Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Not much of a choice between all three, really. What there ought to be is a free OS that is as comfortable an environment as MacOS and supports as much software as Windows.
They say I'm a dreamer, but my heart's of gold...
Re:The alternative is MacOS or Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The alternative is MacOS or Linux (Score:5, Funny)
$45? Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:$45? Yes. (Score:5, Funny)
How much is it if I install Windows?
$45.
How much if I don't install Windows?
You can't afford it.
Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, what do you know? A Dell machine with Linux on it, and another with FREE DOS. Just because you are an uninformed consumer who can't be bothered to look for a machine configured with the software you want (from the same vendor no less!), don't waste the time of the FTC.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Informative)
Not Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Usually.. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I do have to give them credit for Microsoft XP, being the best thing they have done in a long time, and for allowing me to use a form of Windows that can actually have a nice interface if you tweak with it a bit.
And for making a Windows that is easier to install, and doesnt crash quite so often, as Win98, WinMe, Win95, ad nauseum did.
So basically Microsoft needs to just wait, work on Longhorn, make it stable and release it once it is completely finished, with much much more stability and Bill Gates will just have to wait before becoming a quadro-gonzo-bobillionaire.
Re:Usually.. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a bit of problem though, because a lot of the timelines are now starting to place Longhorn at around 2008. That's an awfully long time for Microsoft to be sitting on their hands really.
Yes, there are plenty of promises of wonderful new features in Longhorn, but then MS was promising a OO filesystem in "Cairo" the update to WinNT that was perpetually delayed and never quite arrived. As long as Longhorn is several years away they can promise all the amazing innovations they like - we have to wait to see what they actually deliver
Jedidiah
I've done my part! (Score:5, Informative)
He also has a monopoly on the area's new PC market, but that's okay.
I've paid a Microsoft tax on two of my 11 PCs. Five of the others are too old to run Microsoft software, two of them are relics that will never leave my house. One is incapable of running any Microslut OS and it would be preferable if it stayed that way. One is a hunk of silicon which I didn't pay microslut taxes on. One other, my Quadra 630CD, runs a Microslut OS, but I didn't pay the taxes on that one, AAPL did way back when. (consequently, that thing runs Windows 3.1 on its 486/66 processor better than my native 486/66 did, with less RAM)
10% of the cost of every new PC? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:10% of the cost of every new PC? (Score:5, Funny)
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Laptops... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was very disapointed to find out that not ONE of the vendors would sell me a laptop without an operating system. ESPECIALLY IBM! I eventually gave up and went with my first choice which was IBM.
I guess my point is, sometimes you don't have a choice. You're stuck paying the MS tax.
Daniel
45 $ (Score:4, Interesting)
The Microsoft Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
better technical leadership had been handed the PC operating system
monopoly by IBM oh so many years ago. Perhaps it would not have been
possible for that company, whoever they might have been, to achieve the
level of domination that Microsoft achieved because such a company might
have put too many resources to the task of technical innovation and left
the business (i.e. monopolization) side of things to falter. It is quite
possible that the only company which could achieve the kind of dominance
that Microsoft has achieved would be one which, like Microsoft, cannot
innovate or excel technically, because it would take too many resources
away from the business side of things to focus on the technical.
I guess this would mean that the companies which achieve monopoly status
are by definition technically inferior? This would certainly seem to be
the case
Some people would argue that Microsoft is not a monopoly because it does
not in fact have 100% complete control over the operating system market.
But Microsoft does have a monopoly in one *very* important market -
operating systems capable of running Microsoft Windows software. You
see, I think that the fact Microsoft's operating system's are the only
ones which literally trillions of dollars worth of software can run
on means that Microsoft is by definition monopolizing an absolutely
enormous market. While it may sound flippant to say that Microsoft
has a monopoly on Microsoft operating systems, I think there is something
really important behind this. No one company should be the producers
of a commodity which so many other companies depend upon to sell their
product. It's not healthy for the market and it's certainly not to the
benefit of consumers.
Re:The Microsoft Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
As an interesting aside, how long do you think it would take to get COMPLETE compatibility with Windows under linux if MS opened the source code? Three days? Five maybe.
This is the exact reason that MS will never do that. Because as long as Adobe, Macromedia, and most of the big game shops don't release native versions of their software on linux, MS will continue to have a powerful monopoly.
IF OpenOffice EVER is as good as MS Office in the ways it counts (usability, userfriendly), then we will another step toward lessening MS monopoly power.
My big concern is that people like norton, TurboTax, and the gazillion and one other 'useful' commercial app makers will never jump off the MS bandwagon. As long as this is the case, then there will be big issues.
As a note, Pampered Chef uses some type of VB app for their consultants. It's windows only, and is one of the BIG reasons I can't ditch windows.
Another reason is companies like SPSS and SAS. If you can show me a stats app that is as easy to use and as powerful as either that runs natively under linux, I will be shocked.
These are just a few examples of apps that need replacing before Linux is ready for primetime.
Perhaps a repository is in order to list all the apps that need replacing, and possible alternatives--if one exists, PLEASE let me know.
No, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Great Article (Score:5, Interesting)
Software research can be done at all levels, by individuals, small companies, groups of individual working together. There is, and always will be Open Source software. I can't forsee there ever being an "Open" architecture CPU, that could be manufactured on a small scale (it would be a great thing if there was though!).
Microsoft's day are numbered unless they find a new business model. I don't hate them, love them, or feel sorry for them, thats just the way it is. A free economy will eventually favor value. It moves at a snails pace sometimes, particularly when impeded by monopoly practices and governmental indifference. But one way or another things will change, and anyone or anything who blocks that change will find themselves bypassed or submerged.
The article "does the math" that I'm sure even Bill Gates is capable of following. I just don't' think Microsoft has figured out how to respond yet. The stock market will punish them until they offer a response, and this article wouldn't be appearing in the WSJ if that were not the case.
no manufacturing costs for windows? (Score:4, Insightful)
this guy is a total asshat. how can he say that windows has no manufacturing costs? 3-4 weeks ago on slashdot after the windows source code leak, folks were saying "holy shit guys - look at the 4.5 million lines of code that becomes windows! what a crappy, bloated OS!". now this dumbass claims that it costs nothing to manufacture. how many man-hours did it take to write windows 2000? windows xp? the media it is shipped on costs very little, but one-time cost of writing is also counted in the total-cost. so unless it was written by non-paid interns (which we know is not the case), this guy is grossly underestimating the profit.
i bet he's just another disgruntled mac user...
Re:no manufacturing costs for windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you'll find he'll be considering development costs as R&D costs, not manufacturing costs. The comparison was hardware manufacturers - Intel spends vast amounts of time and effort designing their chip; comparable to development time for a new version of windows. The difference is, once Intel is done, they still have a manufacturing cost on every chip they sell. Fabricating chips costs serious cash. In comparison, once the design work is done for Microsoft, they have a new version of windows - the only manufacturing cost is stamping CDs.
In other news, Microsoft most likely doesn't write those 4.5 million lines of code from scratch for each new version of windows. One would hope that the bulk of that code is fairly stable and not undergoing constant rewrites and changes. Which is to say, you are grossly overstating the development work involved in producing a new version of Windows.
So, in summary: You are overstating the amount of development work required to create a new version of windows, and the author of the article is already factoring that cost in anyway.
Jedidiah.
$179 for XP upgrade (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, I know there are some hacks to make XP Home join authenticate to a DC, but they're just that, hacks (and work about as well.)
yes. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll admit that I'm a bit biased and didn't pay $45, or even $75 or $275 for my licenses of Windows -- I got them through Microsoft for Partners professional discounts, which gets me them for approximately $30/license (Professional) but there's so much more stuff in there that it's closer to about $6/license.
I'm not a new computer user. I've been using PCs, and the Windows architecture, for 14 years now -- since right around 1990, and Windows 3.1. I still, at this point, find Linux too difficult for me.
Case study:
Booting a *LIVE CD* distribution of Linux, it was impossible for me to make it detect my USB Mass Storage device. Then the autoconf script to place a
Then, fed up, I went on AIM (gAIM) to ask a friend who'd had similar experience. When signing back on with a Windows client later in the day -- my buddy lists were completely rearranged, groups were created with copies of people, and a handful of names were missing, for no apparent reason whatsoever. gAIM messed it up.
I'd love to use Linux, but I'm afraid to honestly, becuase of the fact that I don't know a thing about how to use it, and it doesn't seem to want to be used itself. I'll just stick to administrating Windows networks. Anything I've wanted to do so far, I've been able to do under Windows. That includes running Unix-only scientific tools - thank god for Cygwin.
Possibly (Score:4, Funny)
Fedora Linux for Me (Score:4, Interesting)
I would rather pay to purchase a copy of a linux distro and support an open source cooperative than pay to purchase a liscence for a microsoft product and put another gold toilet in the Gates' House.
If more people felt the same way then maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have to put up with another IE popup asking us if we want to enhance some random body part......
no. (Score:4, Insightful)
2. I do not use MS products. Period.
3. I use and sell Linux. More bang for your buck.
Windows, out of the box, does nothing but get you online so you can get infected and download warez and pr0n. Oh yeah, and mp3z...
No word processor, no spreadsheet, no much of anything.
Linux comes with too many things to list.
Yeah, Linux has it's shortcomings but it's benefits FAR outweigh it's shortcomings.
I just can not justify paying for trouble.
I had a guy today ask me to sell him a system and install a pirated copy of windows on it.
I told him I don't do that, I don't have any copies of windows, and I wouldn't do that to someone that I like anyway.. I offered him Linux instead. He declined, I lost the sale. Life's tough..
Not Flaming (Score:5, Interesting)
red hat enterprise liunx workstation starts @ $179.00.
mac os x is $129.00.
i know there are free (beer) variations of linux and bsd, but you don't get much support. i know everyone rags on MS for the extent of their support, but let's face it, they do still support their software. MS just recently ended support for windows 98. windows 98, people. six years of downloadable updates.
when you grab the cheapie pc @ best buy for $400 that comes pre-loaded w/ win xp home, i don't care if emachines is paying $4, $40, or $400 to microsoft. i know i'm getting a pc w/ a legal os, and i'll get support for several years.
is MS evil?
sure.
is $45 too much to pay for an OS?
no way.
Re:Not Flaming (Score:4, Informative)
sure.
is $45 too much to pay for an OS?
no way."
It is if you are furthering the cause of evil.
No raindrop may be responsible for the flood but every drop does it's part.
So yes. Paying $45.00 to further evil in the world is too much to pay.
billg will have his Nobel Price too! (Score:4, Interesting)
Just wait until the government in Sweden gets a nice deal on Windows and Bill Gates will have his Nobel Price too!
(If you don't believe, compare it with the deal the government in the UK got and that he immediatly after it got knighted
Think of it as marketing... (Score:4, Insightful)
This drives computer sales - versus what would happen with Linux - users would still buy better peripherals, but Intel wouldn't be where it is now - because the peripherals would use embedded processors, and Intel doesn't rule there. Memory wouldn't sell as much, because without OS bloat, we wouldn't need as much memory. So in summary, I'd say that Microsoft does serve a purpose - marketing of new computers.
Your dollars are for more than Windows! (Score:5, Funny)
How many times must we pay for windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Several people purchase computers to replace the computer they already have. The old computer gets junked. Lets forget about the possibility of people switching from windows to linux. Lets just ask an even more clear issue. Why can't the user use his old copy of windows on the new dell? Can't resellers ask for proof of previous windows version to not get billed for the software?
Comparative pricing (Score:5, Funny)
A little while ago I spent roughly this amount on a game called Uru. (For those living in caves, it's the latest in the Myst series.) I seem to remember paying quite a bit more for Windows, but maybe the price has come down since then. No matter.
When I'm playing Uru, I wander through a variety of odd (but usually very pretty) environments, often sitting for hours on end contemplating alien mechanisms that I don't understand. Sometimes I click on a control or two (or ten), and sometimes things start working as a result. Other times I wander for days, trying every knob and button I can find, peering suspicously behind doors, retracing paths I've been down dozens of times, and in the end I still haven't figured out how to make some odd machine power up or work properly.
Which pretty closely parallels many of my experiences trying to get Windows to do things.
So...ummm...I guess by analogy, if Uru is worth the money, then surely Windows must also be worth it. ;-)
I get it at $50. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:$45? (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously, this is about as straight-forward RTFA question as you can get..
Re:$45? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:$45? (Score:5, Funny)
"I am, it's Windows that isn't!"
Re:ok time to start out with first post trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is somewhat ironic when you consider it's just Yet Another MP3 Player App bundled/tied to an online store and a portable MP3 player - none of which were particularly "new technology" at the time.
And look at OS X... think of how fundamentally different it is than OS 9. Then think of XP versus 2000 or 98. Not that much of a difference.
Windows 2000 and XP (which are roughly analagous to OS X 10.2 and 10.3) are just as fundamentally different to Windows 95, 98 and Me as MacOS Classic and OS X are to each other.
Re:Instead of using my mod points... (Score:5, Insightful)