Countering the Arguments Against Unbundling Windows 624
An anonymous reader sends in a link to a blog posting by Con Zymaris arguing for competition regulators to force the unbundling of Windows from consumer PCs. The argument takes the form of knocking down one by one the objections raised by "unbundling skeptics."
But then ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"GASP! Windows won't be FREE!"
So many people only use Windows because they think they didn't pay for it. That's why they have such a low expectation of quality - when it crashes they say - Well, I didn't pay for it, so its not like I can ask for my money back."
Unbundle it and let the competition flow. I can see Apple doing a big push for OSX as an aftermarket product. Also, Novell's openSUSE 10.3 is a keeper.
Re:But then ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But then ... (Score:5, Interesting)
It came out a while ago that Apple has OSX running on plain vanilla x86 (non-Apple) hardware. Now look at how many people buy iPods, and compare that to the number who buy cheaper competitors, say Zunes. Apple has reached that "sweet spot" where they can have the best of both worlds - high sales of hardware/software bundles, as well as selling just the OS to those who want it on non-apple hardware.
Dell gets the support headaches, apple gets the $$$. And those who want to "step it up a notch" are still free to buy iMacs, same as they buy iPods.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What I was saying was that I think that they could turn the majority of the potential software only sales they'd be making into full blown hardware/software packages. Someone that wants OSX is usually going to be willing to shell out the extra few hundred bucks or so to get the Apple hardware with it, and those that actually need OSX for whatever reason would then be forced to g
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Zuner: Hey, where's your Zune accessories?
EB Clerk:
Zuner: Where's your Zune accessories?
EB Clerk:
Zuner: You don't have any?
EB Clerk: We don't have any.
Zuner: I lost my cord.
EB Clerk:
Me: Did you try Target? *points down the block*
Zuner: Yeah. They don't have anything.
Me: Ah. Good luck, man!
The '...' is a stunned silence. Most of the employees that work at
Re:But then ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But then ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:But then ... (Score:5, Informative)
Where did anyone say that Dell doesn't make money, or that Apple doesn't have support costs?
The implications were that Dell would continue to make money, but that support costs would be transfered to Dell, same as with Windows, if Dell started selling PCs with OSX on them.
Re:But then ... (Score:4, Insightful)
As soon as you start pushing it on random, unknown hardware, everything Just Does Not Work.
or it Sort Of Works.
or It Worked In Our Lab, You Must Be Doing Something Wrong.
Re:But then ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Only if every man and his dog makes similar hardware to run the same software as all their competitors.
The fact is that Apple is primarily a hardware company. They stated on many occasions in the past that they wanted to usurp the position once held by Sony. I think we can all agree they've pretty much kicked Sony's corporate backside in that regard of recent times.
To elaborate further, apple are a hardware company that uses the uniqueness of their software in order to sell their hardware.
The beauty of apple products is in the user interface. Since no other manufacturer is able (for whatever reason) to match the quality of apples various user interfaces apple is able to monopolise the sales of the hardware required to obtain their "superior" interfaces. If they were to sell OSX (or indeed the iPod OS) to any Tom Dick or Harry with a commodity hardware PC then they would lose their ability to monopolise the sales of the hardware needed to obtain their superior interface.
If you don't think Jobs doesn't understand this then you're a fool.
"If I were Jobs I would spin off the hardware into a separate company."
If you were Steve Jobs then apple would now only be found in the history books alongside the likes of CBM and atari. This is exactly what the Pepsi guy tried to do in the 80's and it almost sent apple bust.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
OSX does run on plain vanilla x86 hardware - Apple was doing that a couple of years ago, but the existence of this was only leaked last year, and didn't get much attention. If and when the numbers are right, they'll release it, but not before.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ubuntu's chance to shine.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as image editing goes, the newest version of openSuse lets you choose between the GIMP with the old interface, or reworked to be more photoshop-like.
I didn't get a chance to test it, because my new RAID1 died - no thanks to Seagate (second set of bad drives in 2 weeks).
Ubuntu, openSuse, RedHat/Fedora and everyone else in the party would eat Microsofts' lunch within 5 years if Windows is unbundled.
Re: (Score:3)
IMO, the biggest barrier is that people simply
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either it comes with an OS bundled, or it doesn't. If it does that OS is getting users in an anti-competitive way, if it doesn't users won't have a clue what to do with their computer.
Also face it; there's no way computers with an OS other than Windows is going to be sold by default, because everyone expects and is familiar with Windows and understands Windows applications.
People freak out enough over Vista, wh
Except it costs less than free (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The OEM is free to make the same deals regardless of the operating system. For example, they can install free trials for various ISPs, trialware for multi-user games that work over the net, etc. About the only software they would take a hit on is anti-virus software.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Unless people consistently mount /home as noexec, malware will be a problem for Linux or OSX as soon as the get market share (based on Firefox I would say 10-20 percent is the magic number).
Once something gets into a users .rc files or whatnot, it is plenty useful as a mail relay, or a pop-up maker."
I would suggest that most people mount /home on a separate hard drive (or if they can't do that, at least a separate partition).
Of course, the situation isn't comparable with Windows for another re
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
not at all, the whole bundling issue was really about Microsoft adding technologies that OEMS had to pay for from independant companies to make them more dependant on Microsoft. The whole point of seperating the OS is that for each feature microsoft added for "free" as a bundle, they tightened the contract terms playing the OEMs against each other when Microsoft was already near monopoly. Now there's nobody to even buy extra piece from without stepping on Bills toes.
Note that Apple manages to sell an equ
Try reading the article (Score:4, Informative)
Quotes:
"Windows has reached 35% of the price of a new computer."
"52% of the price of a new Acer laptop was constituted by the forced-bundling of Microsoft and other Windows platform software"
Re: (Score:2)
512MB of R
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was in Future Shop this weekend with one of my daughters and her boyfriend. From the conversations I heard, a lot of people don't want Vista.
If her laptop can take a second drive, its cheaper to install a second drive and linux than to buy an XP retail license. She can then run Windows in a virtual machine right on the linux desktop. (oh the irony or funning Windows in a window).
Also, check out the "downgrade rights" - everyone's doing it nowadays.
Or suggest she return the laptop because its not fi
I actually disagree wth one of hte article's main (Score:3, Insightful)
The ideal situation is where every PC vendor must sell the operating system as a paid option for the PC. This helps people decide if they really want to pay for it, and doesn't force many people to pay for software they are going to rip out anyway. Selling a bare PC with both Windows and Linux on separate media is bad for the consumer, bad for the OEM (more tech support calls, etc), and so forth.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But then ... (Score:5, Informative)
> "Unbundling won't happen - when sheeple buy a computer, they expect to have a fully functional thing that can surf the "Interweb" and "process a word", and "sheet a spread".
Case in point: I encountered an irate phone caller because the version of Microsoft Office with her mac was only a trial version. She didn't like this, and ended up filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau in spite of the fact that the computer in question clearly stated that it came with a trial version.
Unbundling will happen, within the next 2 years.
Help us government, because we can't win? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Help us government, because we can't win? (Score:5, Insightful)
> "I would think that if Linux was that much better than Windows, that consumers would demand Linux powered PCs. If you build it, they will come."
Most people don't even know about the possibility of alternatives. To them, a PC is any computer that runs Windows, same as, for a long time, the Internet was Internet Explorer or AOL.
The cost of an OEM Windows license is a large portion of the cost of a new machine, compared to any time in the past. For the cost of Windows and Office, you can buy 2 or 3 computers with no OS, and install linux. the problem is, the consumer is not given a choice, so we don't know how many would take the opportunity.
Since that choice never happens, software developers develop for the Windows platform, ensuring lock-in.
Of course, now that Novell's openSUSE can run Windows in a window in a VM [slashdot.org], there's more reason to buy a new machine with linux, then move your old copy of XP or 2k to a virtual machine on your new box, rather than paying the Microsoft tax a second time (and yes, you can move your license to your new hardware, despite what Microsoft tries to FUD. Just make sure you remove it from your old hardware at the same time).
Re:Help us government, because we can't win? (Score:5, Insightful)
You miss the point. Buy a thousand motherboards, chips and cases, put Linux onto them, then walk into computer stores and sell them. There's nothing that precludes you from selling Linux PCs of your own brand.
Surely, someone could sell Linux PCs, preloaded off the Internet, or even through a catalog. At one time, Michael Dell built PCs in his dorm room and sold them over a catalog. Instead of trying to get the government to force Mr. Dell what to sell, why can't you sell what you think should be sold.
Please, spare me the excuses. Microsoft has no monopoly power over you, if you sell Linux powered PCs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I think you're missing the point - competition only works when there is no pre-existing monopoly that got there via illegal means.
We depend on the government to step in to protect us from predators who use illegal means to gain control of a market, same as we depend on them, via police and firemen, for local protection from robbers and fire.
Extreme situations call for extreme measures - unbundling sales of the OS isn't anywhere near extreme. To turn your argument on its head - if Windows is s
Re:Help us government, because we can't win? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The craziest part is, you obsess over Dell PCs, and Dell's are the biggest stock part PCs of them all. They don't do anything special - stock motherboards, stock CPUs, stock graphics cards. There's nothing Dell puts into a PC that you could not put into yours when you sell it."
All my PCs are self-built (laptops excepted). Been like that for years and years. I have never owned a Dell or a Gateway.
"There's absolutely no reason a consumer could not benefit from that offering, and its not Microsoft's fault that you Linux people are too big of pussies to actually sell your own offerings."
Actually, now that Christmas is coming, I plan to give away a few hard disk/openSUSE install combos as small presents. I know a few people who are running windows on hardware thats 2-3 years old, and could use both the extra disk space, and the stability of linux. They'll be able to continue running Windows via a VM (no longer a need to dual-boot) until they get used to the new setup.
There's tons of Windows users out there who are only a hard disk away from running linux. They get to keep all their old data, they don't have to shell out big bucks for the latest bloatware, etc.
If every linux user did this for just 2 people this Christmas, Microsofts' stranglehold on the market would be over in a year.
Re:Help us government, because we can't win? (Score:5, Funny)
Really, all you need to do is set up a Linux PC company and run it kinda like the way Apple does..
I thought you said they should not run it like a cult.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but what's the proportional value of the software? See, you need to think more like a salesperson. Cost is irrelevant. It's the value that is added. And, look at all the value Windows adds to a PC..
a) You have Direct X 10, for games. And, there are a ton of games for Windows.
b) You
c) You have a pretty good web browser. Yeah, IE has its flaws, but it
Re:Help us government, because we can't win? (Score:4, Informative)
First, cost is not irrelevant. Value is important. Granted, Windows comes with a certain unique feature set. But seriously, you are not comparing that value to a Linux desktop distro that has just about every software a regular user would need? The pieces that are missing are mostly because there is a monopoly OS out there (Third party proprietary software, driver, formats).
a) You have Direct X 10, for games. And, there are a ton of games for Windows.
Hard to argue. But without the monopoly status, DirectX cannot maintain as much lead. It still is better than OpenGL alternatives though.
b) You
Not compelling. Too many other alternatives now.
c) You have a pretty good web browser. Yeah, IE has its flaws, but it works pretty good for most people. That is, I can go to the baseball site, get the scores, and it works.
Every desktop OS now comes with an browser. IE works for most people because that is all they know. Once they understand taking advantage of FireFox plugins, they never go back. That has been the case with every IE user who has watched me use my browser more than a few minutes.
d) You have interfaces to a whole bunch of consumer appliances, from digital cameras and video players, and more.
So do Linux distros. Windows market status attracts driver support from appliance makers, but not as much of an advantage of the software architecture per se.
e) Vista has a really cool sound model that I am eager to play with.
I don't know much about it. I will skip that.
f) Unicode (UTF-16) is built in from the ground up. NTFS stacks up well against Reiser and ExtN for most applications. Remote Desktop and Terminal Services for Windows work really well...
Don't know about UTF-16 enhancements. RDP is a good but remoting X and Linux Terminal Server work quite well too. Don't forget though that to have these features you have to pay quite a bit more too. Sure, but NTFS is good enough. But good enough is not what we are talking about. We are talking about what they offer to justify 95% market share and making computers cost significantly higher when they barely manage to go up against free alternatives. I expect 6 billion in productions costs to do a lot more.
And this is not a new argument. This has all played out before. When IE won the browser wars, MS froze all further development on it (the team was disbanded as I recall), after all it made no business sense to spend any more money on it. The only reason that we even have an updated IE7 is because of FireFox. That is the price of a monopoly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you installed linux lately? Its a lot easier than Windows.
Its also a lot easier to create a master hard drive image that can be installed across various hardware configurations, since there is no WGA, activation, or tying to the installed hardware to generate keys, and you can resize the image once its on the hard drive.
All this means lower, not higher, deployment and support costs.
D.O.O.P. sends its regards (Score:3, Funny)
Wasn't he defeated by Zapf Brannigan?
hard to parse much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Author of TFA is showing his nerd credentials. (Score:4, Interesting)
His use of "laissez-faire" as something other than "free" or "open" is simply bizarre.
His repeated insistence that Microsoft somehow got its monopoly dishonestly wears thin by the end of the piece -- even though I agree with him. (I once earnestly wished for Microsoft to eat IBM's lunch; I won't make that mistake again.)
I remember when the "real" computer stores looked the way videogame stores do today, with separate sections for each platform, and woe betide you if you picked up the wrong version of M.U.L.E. or Choplifter. I'd like to see an article that spells out in detail how we ended up with the Microsoft monoculture.
hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For sure comfort level is part of it but the other sticking point is office apps; word, excel, outlook, etc. The documents are "stuck" in Microsoft's format... tough to advocate switching OSes when the "work" is in Microsoft formats.
Microsoft should give up the ghost on desktop/consumer OSes and just port their office suite over to *nix.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Make Windows an open kernel for people to distribute their own flavors of. (Windows as a standard instead of an OS)
2. Make Windows into a closed-source desktop environment built on the Linux kernel. That way anyone can have Windows and/or Linux (KDE, Gnome) running on the same machine without the multiple partition bullshit we all have to go through if we want dual boot.
Of course, then what would we all argue about on
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, tell me about it. Even worse is when you're forced to pay for the operating system you don't want as well.
Oh, you were arguing for bundling Windows?
Drivers, Compatability Testing, and Support (Score:4, Interesting)
The first is that it would require vendors to ensure compatibility at all levels of two different configurations and have two sets of support. Support and warranties aren't free and the cost would be passed on to the consumer either directly as vendors recover the costs or indirectly to to crappy kit if the vendors fail to properly spend the money in the first place.
Secondly, it assumes that Linux has a god given right to exist on the mainstream desktop independent of its merits and that Windows is the inevitable winner unless someone stacks the deck. I take the long view and I think that in the end the platform that provides the best value will win and that the market will do its thing without the regulators taking sides. It might take 10 more years, but as computers evolve into things we can't even imagine (wearable? pervasive and ubiquitos with a universal network maybe?) that Windows will take it's place in the history books as will Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Attempting to stop a convicted monopoly from dealmaking that excludes competitors or allows them to collect money per PC regardless of the OS isn't a matter of regulators "taking sides". It is stopping said monopoly from abusing its position further, and actually giving competition a chance to thrive in an area despite the monopoly's best efforts to exclude.
Re:Drivers, Compatability Testing, and Support (Score:5, Informative)
why didn't they get a manufacturer to ship dual-boot systems with their OS? because microsoft's OS licensing policy forbids it, it not by outright language, then by punitive cost measures. this was part of the focus of the department of justice's antitrust suit. as a matter of fact, even beige box companies used to force a copy of windows on individuals who purchased an entire system. microsoft's corporate policy is to force the entire world, if possible, to have only one choice. excuse me, let me correct myself; one choice in several flavors (think all the different vista incarnations that will be paraded in front of any future antitrust action as evidence of innovation and variety).
did i hear anyone say BeOS? no, i didn't think so
Software + Hardware Comparison Flawed (Score:2)
Best use of Not Avoiding At Least Enough Negatives (Score:2, Funny)
One point not raised (Score:2)
What should be happening is the PC maker should offer the OEM software, but the user should be buying the one and only seat that they want of Windows. No multiple purchases necessary. This CLEARLY serves the interests
Re: (Score:2)
Looking on Tiger Direct, an OEM (that is, tied to hardware) license of Windows is almost -exactly- half the price of a non-OEM one. S
Be careful of what you wish for... (Score:3, Interesting)
As a MSFT shareholder, it might be nice if the company split in to OS, Software, Entertainment, Hardware, etc. complanies.
At least then I could sell off the losers (Zune, cough, cough).
why ship with no system installed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why ship with no system installed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Strawman (Score:3, Insightful)
Who claimed they did want to install their own OS, and what does that have to do with bundling? Bundling is unrelated to pre-installation.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well (Score:5, Interesting)
IMPLEMENTATION of the option :
As most of us know, installing an OS - any OS - properly for a given piece of hardware can be complicated. Getting the best possible drivers (which is not always the latest version), setting all the internal OS settings to appropriate ones for the computer being sold is a complex process. I am aware that many commodity PC makers do a shitty job of setting up the software for a PC, but they DO set it up a certain way when they make that disk image.
(if the computer is a gaming PC, the OS should be set to be efficient, if it is a work PC, it should be pre-installed with running anti-spyware and virus programs, ect)
SO...there would be recovery CDs, but everything would be on the new computer's hard drive.
When you start up the new pc, you would be taken to a screen where you can choose to
1. PAY the OEM price by credit card for Windows. The partition containing Windows preinstalled, a clean disk image all ready to go with appropriate drivers, is made the primary partition. The other partitions are deleted from the drive index table. There could easily be different options : Vista Home, Premium, XP, ect, and a version of Windows loaded with other programs in a bundle. You could either pay directly if the PC is connected to the internet, or, when you bought the PC you would have been given an activation number to type in.
2. Pay nothing, have the Ubuntu partition made primary
3. Pay nothing, wipe the disk so that you can install your own OS.
A small entry would be added to the BIOS Flash once you pay for Windows successfully. That way, if you have to use the Windows recovery disk, the PC already knows if you have paid for the software or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who actually thinks that linux is ready for the desktop needs to spend more time with the average computer user.
Linux is not ready. (Score:4, Insightful)
Look! This text is on a different line.
I used <br> tags.
Slashdotters are so used to doing things in a technical way that they disregard the very real usability issues that surround Open Source. If I put text on a different line in this textbox I should not have to know or care about the br tag. This is FOSS's greatest barrier to adoption in a nutshell.
Linux at retail stores hurting reputation of *nix (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, driver problems in both Windows and Linux suddenly aren't accounted for...
While I really do love Linux (need to get round to trying the BSD's, etc), I can see that sort of situation being actually bad for Linux. "Oh, whats this 'Xandros/SuSE/RHEL/Linspire/etc' - its cheaper than that Windows software box over there, I'll get this instead!" They either pay the store something like $50 bucks to install it for them or are somehow able to do it themselves - "Oh wow, the interface is different!" and "Oh, shit. I can't figure out how to do what I want - Linux sucks, I should have just coughed up the change for Windows!"
Also, the retail stores might find a way to make all the Linux distros more expensive than Windows even before people get out of the store. $50 bucks for the distro itself, $50 to $75 for Geek Squad to install it for you, and another $50 to $100 for 3 years tech support over the phone. That doesn't even include people getting home and spending time (time=money) to re-learn how to use half the GUI (only because things aren't in the same place) or paying tech support a wad of cash to learn how. Anybody that goes through that will tell their friends that its not only cheaper but also easier to just buy Windows.
How to force Linux on everyone Fan Fiction (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How to force Linux on everyone Fan Fiction (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yes they are, if they want to stay in business.
Inform yourself. Here is a start: link here [google.com].
Manufacturers who wanted to get the nice cheap bulk OEM Windows licenses had (have?) to agree to pay-per-processor/system, regardless of actual OS installed.
PC sales run on obscenely thin margins. If a manufacturer can't get the cheap price, they'll lose competition to someone who can.
Dig around. Some of the manufacturers (see Gateway) had sales minimums and marketing requirements attached to the prices.
So yes, they are FORCED.
He's left out one (Score:2)
The US government fucks up almost everything it touches. Especially while being run by the current Court Jester. I want them to stay away from my computer, even if that means it comes out of the box with Windows on it and Balmer delivers it in person.
I also disagree with his argument that the cost of Windows makes up 35 percent of the cost of a PC. He must be another one of those glue sniffing idiots that thinks OEMs pay retail prices for Windows. Even on a bargain baseme
Imagine... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Naaaah" - Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber
OEM Price (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, that isn't how it works. The reason the OEM price is less than the retail price is because the computer manufacturer put Windows on the machine and tailored it specifically for that environment and what not. They also get to absorb the tech support load. You do not get to call Microsoft and run up their support expenses with an OEM license. Instead, you call the computer manufacturer because part of the OEM deal is they handle support calls.
So, without the ability to control how Windows is installed on the computer it is unlikely the manufacturer is going to give you OEM tech support or an OEM price. Microsoft isn't going to give you the OEM price and take the support call load. So this would require people to pay retail price for Windows and go to Microsoft for support.
Microsoft would love to do this. The OEM deal is in the consumers and manufacturers best interest and not all that great for Microsoft. Except for perhaps reinforcing the dominance of Windows which is unlikely to be dimenshed any time soon. Microsoft would experience 2x or 3x their current revenue should this happen.
Very Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite an interesting topic, but I prefer arguments that are contrary to the position opposite of that which counters the arguments against unbundling Windows. Or to put it another way: for unbundling windows. I know it's not quite a triple negative, but it's very unclear and I see this type of writing all the time in slashdot head-lines. If you're against someone who is not for undoing something, then just say you're for undoing something, or against doing something. Reduce it to its logical minimum. Why not use "Countering The Arguments For Keeping Windows Bundled", or "Countering the Bundled Windows Apologists"?
another good proposal (Score:3, Insightful)
A minor aspect of the article's proposal that I like is the requirement that the manufacturer include an MS Windows recovery CD. Some manufacturers don't do that, even though you are paying for MS Windows. The last HP machine I bought had no CD. Instead, it had a hidden "backup partition". That's okay if you just want to reinstall the system after it has been corrupted, but useless if the drive dies or you decide to replace it with a larger one.
Unbundle != No Preinstall (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Preinstalled Windows
2. Preinstalled Linux
or
3. Blank Machine
It only needs to be another line-item option in the system configuration. OEM blows the correct image and includes a Windows CD + Sticker for Windows customers, and a Linux CD for Linux ones, and nothing for the blank customers.
Come on, this is trivial. Just have the assembly tech plug the drive into a fixture, hit the correct image choice, and bingo-bango, it's ready.
My solution (Score:4, Interesting)
This is stupid! (Score:3, Insightful)
This won't harm Microsoft, it will harm PC manufacturers and resellers, who will bear the entirely of the market disatisfaction with the unbundling. People will still buy Windows, only now they will be paying Microsoft full price for it.
The big hurdle you whiners need to get over is that Windows has 90% market share because people have voluntarily chosen to buy Windows or PC with bundled Windows. It may not be the choice you would have made, but that give you no excuse to government and its police to impose your will on others. IF this is that important to you, get off your high horse and go out and buy a computer without Windows on it. Sheesh.
Not about Linux! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about opening up the market to other competitors. Another Beos? Another OS/2? There is no reason why there should be only two OS available for computers, one of them only managing to still stick around because it's free (in both senses).
There is no operating system market. Unbundling windos is about re-creating that market. Innovation (not only in features!) only happens in a free market. That's what this is all about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These companies, or their representatives, are welcome to offer Dell, et al, deals for loading their OS in place of Windows.
I don't get personal often on /. but with all due respect, are you really such a complete moron that you don't get it? No company offering a PC operating system has any chance of survival. They won't even get the venture capital to get going. Thanks to the exclusive OEM deals that MS has made all around, there is simply no way you will ever get enough market share to recoup your initial investment.
This is not about what has more value to the customer, because the customer doesn't ever have that choice. Asi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about Macs? (Score:5, Interesting)
In this way, people who want MS-Windows have it. They have it quickly. They have it easily. They have it customized by the OEM. But people who do not want (or need) it, do not have to pay for it and are not pressured into it by the OEM. They don't have to order "special" models.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is exactly what I came in to say. If a mostly-Microsoft vendor is worried that people will be "confused" (an oft-cited argument for bundling), then make the Windows OS a default choice. Let the people who don't want to buy it change it to something else.
More importantly, let people see what they are paying for. If it costs $x for an O
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But here is where we get into the Catch-22: no bundleware vendor wants to build a product for a platform that has a small install base. Linux's install base cannot grow if it cannot compete. It cannot compete if people can buy a PC with MS-Windows for a "nominal price", which they can only because bundleware is made available for MS-Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple should have to sell computers without an OS too.
Also where do you start to draw the line with computers, pdas, cellphones as the lines start to blur?
Unbundling the OS makes a computer just hardware that can do very little on its own. A computer manufacturer also can't support every single OS out there.
There are definite practices of Microsoft that need to be curtailed but unbundling only Windows (even unbund
Re: (Score:2)
There is a very simple answer to your question. You draw the line when a company becomes a convicted monopoly (like Microsoft is, in this case). If Apple had 90% of the market and had hardware that supported competing OS's, and was ruled a monopoly, then s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What has Apple done to require such regulatory action? When has Apple even been in a position to illegally leverage a monopoly and bring on such regulation?
Re:What about Macs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about Macs? (Score:4, Informative)
No it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The Mac is no longer a proprietary platform and it is certainly not a cell phone. In fact, other OS's run on Apple hardware. However if you want Apple hardware you still have to pay for the OS. I think there would be a serious issue if the roles were reveresed.
Re:What about Macs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
better?
RTFA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Microsoft has a hugely bigger install base than Apple does.
3) Microsoft does not make computers or bundles of hardware/OS. Apple does.
Forcing Apple to play by the rules that should apply to Microsoft doesn't make sense; not now, anyway.
So you'd rather... (Score:2, Funny)
I for one applaud the '+Funny' modding overlords.
Re:What about Macs? (future -1 for MS defending) (Score:3, Interesting)
Since MS makes IE for Mac, do they have the right to complain that Apple bundles Safari? What about Real?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are better ways to break the MS monopoly if you are so inclined - break off the company's OS division, for instance. Or, force the company to license its code. Or, split MS into two companies with identical product offerings. E
Re: (Score:2)
Familiarity is worth the money. They don't NEED Linux. "Good enough" is the enemy of "the best".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Please Unbundle.... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm constantly running into people with expensive laptops or years of usage who truly want an appliance PC, and have settled into an uneasy compromise of knowing just what to do to get predictable effects, like reading email. These are people who call the computer a 'hard drive' or think that IE is 'the internet' because that's what it says in the start menu, often professionals who rely on computers, often in their 50's. The mere mention of changing to another operating system truly freaks them out, because they've invested enough braintime to not be so afraid of the damn thing. Even using a Mac is threatening because they 'don't know where anything is' [translation: where the start menu is, etc.].
Computers badly fail the 'appliance' test. I tell them that they should learn to use it, the same way a carpenter has to learn a table saw or plumb line, but get chagrined shrugs.
So, next week, I'm starting an afterschool computer club at my kids' school. They've just moved the whole district to Fedora via the Linux Terminal Server Project [ltsp.org], w00t, no hardware replacement costs in my tax bill, so it's just getting interesting here in this small community, there's hope for the kids, more likely they'll convert the old farts by importing linux into the home.