While the EC wastes time with IE, Russia tackles bigger issues
Summary: While the European Commission is wasting time getting Microsoft to pull IE from Windows, Russia's Commission of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) is putting together a case against some of the largest OEMs for violating antimonopoly legislation.
While the European Commission is wasting time getting Microsoft to pull IE from Windows, Russia's Commission of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) is putting together a case against some of the largest OEMs for violating antimonopoly legislation.
FAS is looking at Acer, ASUSTeK, Toshiba, HP, Samsung and Dell, claiming that the companies violated competition laws by pre-installing Windows on notebooks, and not giving users an option to choose a different OS (Linux) or no OS at all.
Side note: This case looks at notebooks specifically. I guess the reason for this is that you can build your own desktop system, but not a notebook.
Reading the press release, I think that this is more a case of giving users a choice rather than punishing Microsoft. And when you think about it, there's merit to the investigation. While the vast majority of users are perfectly happy with whatever OS comes with their system, there are some people who either don't want an OS installed (they're going to install Linux or perhaps have an OS license at hand) or would prefer to have another OS pre-installed. Makes sense to me. That said though, OEMs will probably be resistant to pre-installing Linux because that means they end up supporting multiple OSes.
It seems that Microsoft is in the clear over this:
"The «Microsoft» Corporation, brought to the proceedings as an interested party, confirmed that the licence agreements with PC vendors do not set any restrictions or requirements to sell PC with pre-installed operational systems, or any obstacles for returning the pre-installed operational system. To prevent future imposing of the operational system, «Microsoft» presented information on changes to the draft contracts with notebook manufacturers, which would obligate the latter to have procedures for returning operational systems from end users."
This is about choice, but I can't see choice being free though. Even if OEMs could push say 5% of PCs running Linux out of the door, it's likely that the cost of the OS (free) would be offset by the cost of the custom setup and that Windows-based systems would cost about the same as Linux-based systems. However, the exposure that Linux could get from being featured alongside Windows could mean the OS gains ground. As far as offering OS-free systems goes, the cost here would be minimal (fitting a blank hard drive rather than one with Windows installed on it) and these systems are likely to be significantly cheaper.
In my opinion, giving users a choice of OS (or no OS) is far more important than which browser is installed as default.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
And who picks up the tab?
Who picks up the tab for that? Or do we pay a little more for the cost related to stocking and maintaining all those operating systems?
That's not the point. Do you agree that Consumers should have the choice?
As long as MS isn't forcing OEMs to exclusively install Windows, then no
If the Linux community wants Linux to be widely adopted, maybe they should do some PR like any normal business. As it stands, you're putting the onus on the OEMs, which is just [i]another[/i] added cost for them, while they already operate on razor thin margins.
Canonical Announces Desktop Support 7/31/2009
And?
And this doesn't address the point I made about advertising. You're shirking that responsibility to the OEMs, who have to run campaigns educating users that this is different from Windows and there are benefits and drawbacks.
An OEM can't just offer the system and expect people to buy it, and since the Linux community isn't interested in doing actual marketing you're implicitly telling the OEMs it's their job.
A user can buy a PC with no O/S and walk out of the store
Get it? Got it!
That only works for half the argument
It doesn't help them when they're forced to install Linux. That's a whole different matter.
Argumentative. Adrian's article is concise and to the point.
@Dietrich : So, would you be happy with ...
"If you are calling about problems with Windows, press 1
If you are calling about problems with Linux, press 2"
[Press 2]
"Please wait while we direct your call to Canonical support"
[Wait a few mins]
"Welcome to, Canonincal support. Please note that Canonical support requires a per-incident support fee of $50 to be paid up-front. Please press 1 to type in your credit card details or 2 to discuss a variety of other payment options with your Canonical support professional"
[Hang up, reinstall Windows]
Don't try to confuse the issue with convoluted logic. Consumer Choice.
@Dietrich: No, this isn't convoluted logic
A company should be free to say:
1) We offer this product with these terms.
2) If you want to buy our product and live within those terms, then great.
3) If you want to buy our product and use it outside of those terms, then you're on your own.
So they'll want to get customers requiring support on an OS they don't support off their switchboards as quickly as possible.
Alternatively, they WILL offer Linux support, but only a small, finite number of distro's (probably one and one only), but will have to charge for that support because they have to pay and/or outsource-to support personnel. And they'll want to make some profit off this because they're not a charity.
When Dell or whoever sells a Windows PC, that copy of Windows includes a period of free support. The support cost is built into the license fee customers pay.
When Dell or whoever sells a Linux PC, the OS is free and there's no included support. That's the OSS mantra - products are free, you make your money on services.
Canonical's recent publication of its support costs ($150 for 3 years basic support or $352 for professional support, 9am-5pm, Mon - Fri only) essentially eradicates any financial advantage of Ubuntu vs. Windows.
That's going to be a hard sell.
Uhh...last time I checked I had to pay Dell for Windows support.
Please, let me know where I can get this! I have lots of Windows licenses I don't use and could also install Linux. I'll take the support on for myself (you know...the Internet!).
So let me get this straight
Of course I don't "need" it, but who do I go to if there's a problem? Not the OEM! Not my friends. Not my co-workers. So I'm left trying to find an answer on websites, Google, etc. Or chatrooms filled with rude and obnoxious dweebs who *might* answer but will inevitably say "you can find this in the man pages you know!"
That makes Ubuntu *really* expensive, far more so than Windows.
So how is this a viable choice for the mainstream? Why should they buy an OS they've never heard of, which doesn't run the applications they already own?
How is that choice a real choice again?
Or is it just a "fake" choice to satisfy your own craving to see Ubuntu on every PC in the world? :)
Ubuntu?
be Google OS. And Google will probably be able to
fix it remotely.
But anyone that installs Ubuntu usually has a bit of
PC moxie and is not a complete PC moron. Why
would anyone purchase online help for something
that they can correct themselves? Windows users
maybe, especially if they are the proud users of
VISTA.
Wow dude
How do you figure? Break it down.
Easy
Ubuntu Advanced Support - $114.98
Ubuntu Professional Support - $218.54
Add these up over a couple of years, and the support costs add up [u]very[/u] quickly.
Windows 7 HP Full - $199.99 (Free support from Microsoft while the product is inside it's support lifetime.)
Wolf_Z has some really good points:
Why should I use an OS I know next to nothing about, my friends know nothing about, has next to nothing in terms of third party support, and doesn't run *any* of my purchased software?
Maybe if I had the time to sit down and tinker with it, I would install it on an extra HDD.
Where do you get free support from MS?
There is no "free market" in PC's
Microsoft can leverage OEMs in dozens of ways that are deniable under the definition of "forced".
Why do you think it's so hard to buy naked boxes? PC's with no OS installed. If you're a big customer you can order them from Dell, but try to order one retail. You are, in effect, being "forced" to buy Windows.
Where's the manufacturer that gives you a choice of operating systems or none at all? I tell you why there isn't because that makes Windows look bad. You can buy this netbook for $199 with Linux or no OS, or $299 with Windows.
Microsoft would get hammered if consumer choice was that clear. But it's not and part of that reason is MSFT's OEM pricing and some of it is channel software partners. All that crapware that comes pre-loaded on your new PC. That's how OEMs get around passing the true cost of the OS along to consumers.
If you want Windows and are willing to pay the price, more power to you. But, right now, because of some very non-competitive pricing, the rest of us don't get an option.
Is it not the manufacturer that should decide
Consumers have a choice of shopping a brand or not based on what the manufaturer carries.
Apple gives customers no choice of operating systems, should they be required to sell systems with the choice of Windows or OSX?
What distro of Linux is the manufacturer required to carry? All of them, or one or two? Where is the choice at that point?
If a retail outlet determines it is not economiclly feasable to carry all variations of a laptop, should they be forced to?
Consumers have many choices on many things, yet at the same time, they may not have the choice [i]they want[/i] on a lot of those things due to economics.
Though many cars had various engines available to them in the past, there was a point that certain combonations were not economicly feasable, and therfor never an option. I am not implying that the customer could not fit a 454 cubic inch engine in a compact vehicle, the manufacturer saw that the demand made it not worth the time and money invested into tooling up for that.