Bring on naked PCs, says think tank

Summary: Computers should be sold without an operating system in order to foster competition and bring down prices, a major European think tank has recommended.

Computers should be sold without an operating system in order to foster competition and bring down prices, a major European think tank has recommended.

In a submission to the European Commission, the Globalisation Institute claimed the lack of choice in desktop operating systems is a more central issue than that of bundled media players--the issue that sparked the Commission's antitrust action against Microsoft.

Alex Singleton, the Globalisation Institute's president, wrote in the submission: "The vast majority of computers sold are commodity products. While manufacturers compete on styling and brand reputation, in addition to specification, no manufacturer or component manufacturer is the sole choice for consumers. There is no reason why there should not be diversity in operating systems, too."

Singleton suggested most people are unable to easily purchase a computer without automatically paying for Windows. "The result is that consumers who, given the choice, would opt for a cheaper operating system, find themselves automatically buying the market leader," he said. "There is no meaningful competition between operating systems for commodity computers."

He said the institute's analysis excluded Apple's OS X because the Mac is a "premium, niche product, like a Bang & Olufsen television, which is difficult to justify in the business world outside of the publishing sector".

He wrote: "Microsoft's dominant position is not in the public interest. It limits the market and has slowed technical development to the prejudice of consumers. Yet operating systems are not a natural monopoly. Just as evolving standards in hardware allow the combination of competition and compatibility, in a competitive operating-system market, there would be broad compatibility between different competitors' operating systems. Competition would encourage open standards and interoperability, as vendors would, for competitive reasons, want their products to interact with other vendors' products."

Singleton claimed the Windows monopoly "imposes an extra cost on virtually every EU business", due to the lack of competition, as well as higher support costs associated with Microsoft's platform.

The institute examined several options for breaking Microsoft's monopoly but settled on the so-called "naked PC" option because offering customers a choice of bundled operating systems would be logistically impossible on the high street, and offering a rebate to customers who choose not to activate Windows when they first fire up their new purchase could be bureaucratic.

He wrote: "We decided that the best way to approach competition was simply to insist that operating systems are purchased separately from desktop and laptop computers. Price-conscious consumers, including many students, would opt for cheaper operating systems. We do not believe this would add complexity for consumers. Consumers would simply be asked to insert an operating system DVD when they first turn on a new computer, which would then automatically configure itself."

Neither the European Commission nor Microsoft could offer comment on the institute's proposals at the time of writing.

Topics: Hardware, CXO, Microsoft, Operating Systems, Software

David Meyer

About David Meyer

David Meyer is a freelance technology journalist. He fell into journalism when he realised his musical career wouldn't pay the bills. David's main focus is on communications, as well as internet technologies, regulation and mobile devices.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

129 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Is he implying that taking the obviously right

    approach of not having to purchase a single vendor's OS along with the PC h/w will benefit consumers?

    I thought that common sense was frowned upon :)

    [i]Singleton suggested most people are unable to easily purchase a computer without automatically paying for Windows. "The result is that consumers who, given the choice, would opt for a cheaper operating system, find themselves automatically buying the market leader," he said. "There is no meaningful competition between operating systems for commodity computers."[/i]

    -dT
    Dr-T
    • You'll save next to nothing.

      OEM copies of home Premium are what, 100 bucks? Clearly Dell isn't paying anything close to that.

      So now you'll save, at most, the price that Dell pays for the OS and then turn around and pay retail for the OEM copy (assuming you can get an OEM copy, since the OEM CAN'T SELL YOU THE OS!).

      And now you're going to force people to install Windows (or even harder for the typical end user, Linux) on his/her own?

      You do realize that most computer users have NEVER installed an OS.

      People on this board are very computer literate. The people that buy computers from Dell, generally, are not.
      notsofast
  • Think tank? More like drunk tank

    and these folks have been hitting the wine far too much.
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    • Hey!

      Still waiting for the titles of your two PowerPoint books and for you to admit you were wrong about DRM, SCO and many other things! ]:)
      Linux User 147560
      • So here are all but one of the posts that WERE under this one...

        [B]Hey![/B] ? Title
        [I]Still waiting for the titles of your two PowerPoint books and for you to admit you were wrong about DRM, SCO and many other things! [/I]- [B][I]Posted by: Linux User 147560 Posted on: 09/26/07[/I][/B]

        [B]Little one, how does it feel to wait?[/B] ? Title
        [I]Because you will still be waiting when hell freezes over. [/I]
        [B][I]Posted by: No_Ax_to_Grind Posted on: 09/26/07[/I][/B]

        [B]So in other words[/B] ? Title
        [I]you lied and are not a real man capable of admitting when you are wrong! Right, we got ya now! [/I]
        [B][I]Posted by: Linux User 147560 Posted on: 09/26/07[/I][/B]

        Censorship doesn't work in today's world the cache is a wonderful resource to call upon. ]:)
        Linux User 147560
    • How about supporting that?

      Obviously you don't agree by the tone and insult of your post. Now how about posting why you don't agree? I'd be curious to hear your reason for remaining with the status quo.
      voska
      • I'll give it a go...

        Not to put words in Axe's mouth, of course, but I see several problems with a naked PC approach.

        1) You will have a number of buyers who buy the naked computer, try it at home, and return it as broken. A *LARGE* number. :)

        2) You will have outraged buyers: "What do you mean trying to sell me a computer that won't run! I have to pay X dollars more to have an OS installed? Isn't that like "Valve stems extra on tires?"

        3) You will have MANY buyers choose a flavor of Linux (Solaris? HP UX? NOT options for the mainstream) and return the computer when it doesn't run their favorite game/hobbist software/vertical market software/whatever.

        4) You will lose the large discount of OEM windows (70%) so a "functional" (to the mainstream user) will suddenly jump $70-$150 dollars in price. See above why it won't be a Linux machine.

        5) Even if Windows were to lose marketshare under the approach (say Windows 50% Mac 25% and Linux 25%) you then have developers trying to hit multiple targets with the same software. They are not going to be happy, they will raise their prices, or concentrate on one platform. Result, less choice of software. How many major flavors of Linux? 4? 5?

        6) Eventually, the market will choose a winner. Given the massive inertia Windows already enjoys it won't be OSX or Linux...

        7) Lather, rinse, repeat. Until someone puts the bureaucrats out of our misery with a lawsuit/criminal charges/shotgun.

        In the end, one OS winner, much money wasted, richer lawyers, embittered developers, annoyed public.

        I lived through the late 70's early 80's. Never again.
        wolf_z
        • That's a lot of assertions

          1) Why would they think it was broken if they knew that "some assembly was required"? Besides, if the installer is broken, then there is a problem that needs to be fixed.
          2) Why would they be outraged? They are surely going to be offered a range of choices; totally naked, or with one of a range of packages. Either way, they get explicitly what they want. They even do it with cars you know (risky territory car analogies, but hey). They offer basic (naked) and a range of packages up to "fully loaded" and no one rages about that.
          3) People do that anyway. It's called being stupid. That was never a problem that was solved by bundling windows with a PC. Also, games for example all have their minimum and recommended PC specs and yet vast numbers are sold/returned because people don't look at what is required to run them.
          4) Why? If the OS vendors have to compete directly with each other that will tend to reduce the price.
          5) Short term they might lose, but longer term they have increased the size of their market. For example, the "Apple 5%" is actually an awfully large number of seats these days.
          6) Why? Has the car market, the insurance market, the produce market chosen a winner? Or does that title merely shuffle around where today there's winner A, and tomorrow they're dethroned.

          As far as 7) and on goes, it looked like you were just expressing your feelings :P
          zkiwi
          • You don't get it...

            1) They *won't* know some assembly's required. They go buy the cheapest system they can, from somebody that doesn't know anything (Best buy?) and then they *have no OS* because they didn't buy one. Ergo, they flip the switch and the PC just sits there. Back it goes because it's "broken".

            2) See point 1. Consumers by and large do not know what an OS is, why they would need one or what the difference between Windows and Linux is. Until they start finding out the new game doesn't work or the new printer doesn't work or... And guess what? "My computer sucks, I'm taking it back."

            3) Give the man a kewpie doll. Of course it's being stupid (well, willfully ignorant). And when informed of this they say "Hey, I just want a computer. Make it work or I'll go to somebody who does". They won't care why, and they won't educate themselves as to why. You think it's bad now? Wait until naked PCs... :)

            4) You think so? :) You *really* think Linux or OS/X can compete with Windows when currently *EVERYTHING* runs under windows? And it will stay that way, even if naked PCs become the law. (see below).

            5) Developers aren't so much lazy as practical. They go where the money is, and with a 95%+ market share that's Windows. It will *continue* to be windows, even in an era of naked PCs. Dunno if you're a programmer, but trust me, I am. Started in 1976 so I lived through the era of multiple OS's. It was *NOT* pretty. At all.

            6) OS's are not a commodity. They are *infrastructure*, and the more they do they more they differentiate. Right now SUSE is different from Redhat is different from Ubuntu, to the point programs won't easily (as in brainlessly) travel from one to the other. Mix in GUI's and the situation truly deteriorates.

            And please, don't talk about cross-platform. Either it's Least Common Denominator (and thus crap) or a complete re-write (expensive) or all OS's provide common services (and thus nobody can differentiate.

            Look at Unix's history.

            7) Can you argue the point? :) Politicians and lawyers are scum. They steal with the best of them, and stay in power because they tilt things their way. It has been that way for thousands of years, naked PCs won't change anything.
            wolf_z
          • This is all moot.

            If it's simply a lack of choice, as the "think" tank suggests, as to what comes on a PC, then let's see numbers on what HP and Dell have been selling in the EU. One would expect to see their Linux offerings outselling Windows based on EU suggestions and think tank mentality. Perhaps it's so, but I doubt it. <br><br>
            But mainly, after amstrad and then the decade of silence, where is the money in the EU to back makers like Cibox, Maxdata and Tiny. It was suggested by a poster recently that higher US productivity was untrue and that the EU has a higher GDP, more wealth and isn't owned by "outside" interests. Show me the money! Why are these OEMs struggling, even in Europe? <br>
            What OS is offered on each? Linux only? Windows? what percentage of each companies PCs go out with Linux and what flavor? Anyone know? I'm having trouble understanding why, with the strength of the euro, the US in decline for almost 20 years now, once again according to zdnet's most prolific anti-ms/america poster, European PC manufacturing and Linux is having any trouble at all with the American companies? It seems, to the casual observer, the EU wants to simply take the business which other companies have managed to build, since they can't seem to find funding in their own union which is financially more sound than the US. It makes no sense. Could it be that the market is still dictating what the end user wants and not Microsoft? Sure seems that way to me. Where are the EU VCs when they need them? Surely they exist in great numbers, being the most wealthy union on the earth. Seems the government, with all of the money they are taking from Microsoft and others over the years could back these PC manufacturers and out pace Microsoft in the EU with Linux machines. Why not? (again, which flavor of Linux is the European flavor?. I know full well where the kernel was developed, but as to the bulk of the system? ) As the poster pointed out, the US and it's companies are not all that and a bag of chips, while the EU is strong and vibrant and resilient and produces a better class of people than the US. <br>
            Oh well, like all other times since America has become strong, Europe must rely on them. First they received our blood and a half million lives of men and women who fought bravely to save Europe from falling to dictatorships, in 2 world wars in which untold amounts of money were spent and i'd bet there is a good amount never repaid. Then the years of US bases and more money put into Europe, which supplemented the local economies and provided a deterent and shield against another invasion for 50 years. All of the money that has been pumped into every conceivable natural disaster or financial crisis to help keep the region strong for freedom. So now, owing the US money, they decided they needed America's help again, only this time it's the "screw you jack" type, "we're going to take it from you this time". "All those decades of your gracious unwavering support made us realize something....you're all a bunch of schmucks..HA hAAA"
            xuniL_z
          • I agree with you 100 percent

            Who of you lives where? as per naked pc's here in europe it would bring disaster into chaos. Considers this: here in europe (my home) you buy your pc next to the milk bin between the pampers and the tooth paste. Grab and go and the cashier can't tell the difference. Documentation, information, and customer care in NILL. The best it gets is at one of the computer super stores where ignorants sales people are hiding from customers. Again, NOBODY cares.

            The EU group in favor of naked pc's are going only after their OWN benefit not for the public at large.

            Besides, aside from a small number educated computer users the vast majority of PC owners use the PC as a giant paper weight on their desks or to play stupid games. Games? how are they going to run those games without windows.? The games isles in the computer shops contain more titles than productivity software. Microsoft has shifted into entertainment because that's what people here in europe want. I wonder what the real goal of this naked pc group is.

            I know windows since DOS, what makes windows bad is all the hacking and parasites, what need to be done is cut the hands (both) of any one creating viruses and malware for any OP.

            What do you think?
            diriambino@...
          • What's all this stuff

            That runs under Windows? Granted, the shelves are full of Windows-based applications, but how many do you buy or install? I look at the computers in this house, or at the office, and what do I see? A browser and three vanilla office applications. Used to be you relied on the desktop for all your computing or you had to run client software to access the application, today some remote server handles it through your browser. Who really cares what overkilling operating system is on the box? You guys really spend a lot of energy fighting yesterday's battles.

            I know there will be gamers that protest mightily. Granted, games take special software tailored to some specific OS, so some percent will need a specific OS. But how many game computers do you use in the house? At the ofice?
            IT_User
          • It's not just gamers.

            It's the 10s of thousands of niche products out there for every conceivable market that only run on windows. Perhaps you've forgotten, but Microsoft was very popular over the last 15 years or so and even though you may not know the names of each vendor, i know first hand there are basically only windows vendors (very high percentage) serving the market in which i work. <br>
            Your anecdotal evidence is fine, but there is still a lot of people in the software section each time you visit office max or the electronix boutique etc. There are many business related titles too...specific business related titles beyond Office.
            xuniL_z
          • I'd say much the same about you

            Conjecture is all well and good, but so as you know, even if the EC decided to implement this proposal (unlikely but who knows), it'd not be the end of the world, life would go on.

            People used to do quite ok with getting their PC's set up back in the "good old days." You seem to be thinking that installers have gotten dumber as well as the regular guy/gal. Such is life. I just beg to differ. Especially seeing as more people are somehow managing to make Linux work for them at home.
            zkiwi
          • wolf_z

            give it up. These same people were saying just 6 months ago that the number of Vista choices would confuse the consumer and they'd not understand what to do. Or that Joe average is not smart enough to implement a home network, which I see happening a lot. i've argued against this for a long time, but now they are doing a complete flip flop and saying the average guy/gal out there would have no trouble implementing Linux. <br>
            This is just a game. The rhetoric moves with it. Most here are spineless creatures on somekind of twisted mission.
            xuniL_z
          • Wake up

            Not everyone in the whole world is techie geek. The guy is right. Average buyer would assume it to be a good deal, buy the PC and get pissed off on finding that it does not work. Average person would rather spend 50 bucks more and buy a ready to use system. If people cared about choice so much they would have lapped up Linux Laptops and macs in the market. Wake up to reality. Most people will face trouble finding drivers for their hardware as we have seen with Linux adoption even by IT aware people. The most annoying thing still would be lack of software for some platforms.
            micks_tricks
        • Here's what will happen though

          You buy a PC, no OS. The price of PC drops by the OEM price of the OS. The OEM then offers the OS for the OEM price and the OS comes on an Install CD. You put the CD in and wait some 20 minutes and then Vista asks you the same questions it would have asked you if it was pre-installed. If you want Linux they could do the same with a Linux install disk and charge for that too or if you are techie enough you could take it home blank and install Linux or your Retail copy of Vista, Xp or what ever.

          I think my only beef here is a law forcing this. In free market if there is demand for this type of thing then great but forcing with a law is purely anti-free market and not something I'd support.
          voska
      • Ok, as you asked.

        The PC OEMs are in the best position of knowing what it takes to meet their customers needs. Most of the top OEMs offer alternative OSs (Linux) on a variety of PCs but the vast majority of users don't want it. Face it, anyone that actually wants an alternative knows how to buy what they want.

        Second, it is not up to any governing body to disreagard the consumers wishes and there is no doubt the end user wants Windows installed and ready to go when they buy a new PC. (The version of XP without Media Player was SOUNDLY REJECTED by the buying public in the EU. It simply is NOT what they want.)

        Third, it is not illegal to have a monopoly position, even in Europe. Only abuse of the monopoly is illegal. From all I read in the PDF the goal seems to be to reduce Microsoft's market share regardless of what users want and vote for with their wallets. You may make an argument users don't know any better but that is false as the report talks about servers and people running a server are not Joe Average and are very aware of their options.

        Forth, the Average user would not know how to set up the OS AND all the required device drivers nor would the machine be tested to support their OS of choice. (OEMs test the hardware/OS combination extensively and all support is based upon that testing. That is why they include a recovery disk with the PC.)

        Finally, this market (any market) is best served by the market forces (assuming no abuse from a monopoly) and user demands. If HP, or Dell, or anyone thought there was money to be made by building stripped down boxes they would jump on it in a heartbeat. The fact is, there is no market demand for such a configuration. (There are companies doing it and their sales are barely percievable.) Again, the government of the EU can and should end any abusive tactics of a monopoly, but that is a far cry from doing everything they can to destroy the company or its position in the market.
        No_Ax_to_Grind
      • One more to consider.

        The buying public doesn't buy "stripped down" anything as a general rule. (Go to any car lot and see how many stripped down cars they have compared to fully equiped.)

        To put it simply, the vast majority of users want to buy something, turn it on and simply have it work without any fuss or muss. Now you may not agree with them, but they have a right to their choice and overwhelmingly the choice has been for a full install of Windows. (The version of XP without the media player was/is a complete flop, no one wants it.)
        No_Ax_to_Grind
        • Interesting you meantion the car problem

          Not that I'm saying computer will be the same here but this what I've noticed about the stripped down car, you can't buy them. I've seen them advertised and dealships usually only have 1 in stock so as not be to be accused of false advertising. They also seem to always be in the most unpoplular color. What they use them for is to get you into the dealership. They advertise this cheap car, one you can afford but when you get their they make it extremely difficult to buy. They push you buy the fully loaded and slowly move down the features till they sell you a car just out of your price range that you wanted. A lot of people would buy the stripped down car because that's what they can afford but instead they try to sell them on used car for about the same money that has more features.

          The car dealerships do this because they make less profit on the stripped down car than they do on fully loaded new cars are used cars in general.

          My brother in law used to be a car salesman so I got all the details on this and they really over charge on the features, that's where the profit is.

          Personally I don't see this as the same with computers as it seem that area is race to bottom in terms of pricing. It makes sense because you can sell a lot more computer than you can cars so you can take less profits per unit if you sell more units.

          As far as no OS I don't think it's that big of deal. They'd get around that with the OS installed for an extra fee. Of course in you live in Free Market like we do this whole thing is kind of nuts.
          voska