Gregg said:
The financial effect on the manufacturer is the same. If you pay
for one and use four, it has the same financial impact on their
bank account and yours. They are out the price for three units,
and you have gained the price of three units by not having that
amount taken from your account. You have gained financially,
negating your "fair use" claim.
Well, I'm about to gain a bunch of money by not buying Vista. Will
MS sue me for using Ubuntu instead? The reason I am switching is
their unfair EULA and buggy, draconian kill switch, phone home
anti consumer crap. So, using your "logic", I will be "stealing"
the money I don't spend at MS for Vista.
Shenan said:
Actually - you cannot apply Gregg's logic in your case.
Gregg used one manufacturer/one product in his example.
I suppose Microsoft and Windows.
You used two manufacturers/products.
I suppose Microsoft/Ubuntu and Windows/Ubuntu (Linux for Humans).
If you purchase nothing from a single manufacturer and use nothing
from a single manufacturer, you did not "steal" anything from
them, you simply denied them their sale. You have that right as a
consumer. You do not *have* to buy and/or use anything you don't
wish to.
If you purchase one product from one manufacturer and use that one
product from one manufacturer in the fashion stated as legitimate
by said manufacturer - then you got what you paid for.
If you download one free (open-source) product from one
manufacturer and use that one product from one manufacturer many
times over (open-source generally allows that, by definition) -
then you got what you thought you would.
In other words - what I get out of Gregg's "logic" (example you
quoted Gregg as having said) is:
-----
If you purchase something from a company that is easily 'copied'
so that you could use it in multiple places, but said company
infers (or directly states) as part of using that single item, if
you want to use it again elsewhere - you will have to buy another,
but you choose to ignore that agreement and use it multiple times
- you are denying the company the income from said item you are
getting use out of. If the company made no such
inference/statement - then you aren't taking anything from anyone
- but using said product as intended. -----
Is the Windows OS over-priced?
That's subjective, but in comparison to "free", yes.
Could Microsoft make some better 'packages', such as selling a less
expensive "family license"?
Sure - Apple does it with their single license OS X costing $129
and a family '5-pack' costing $199.
Has Microsoft done some bad things?
Made bad choices?
Implemented bad policies and enforcement methods?
Yes.
Is the EULA that comes with Microsoft Products possibly unfair?
Could be.
Do consumers have choices other than Microsoft for their OS/other
products? Yes.
What I always find interesting about these threads (other than the
fact they get so long and seem to be religious arguments) is that
some people say they are changing to another OS (have been for who
knows how long) and others say how unfair the EULA is and how
strongly they are against it and/or how unfair it is you do not
get to read the EULA before you purchase the product(s) and/or how
hard it is to return (if they even can) after they have
opened/used the product - but those same people state how they
have several computers with several legitimately purchased
licenses of Windows. If they didn't agree with it the first time -
why'd they buy another copy (or several more copies) that they
know will have the same agreement?
There's nothing *technical* keeping someone from doing that. Sure
- switching to a new OS - there in-lies some technical know-how
and/or training. However - after years of legitimately using the
other product (sometimes in several locations) - they seem
suddenly interested/intentioned to switch to some other product.
The other interesting things is how it brings out the worst in
everyone. There ends up being little logic and much emotion. People
accusing or misinterpretations that crop up. Most everyone
ends up on the defensive instead of discussing and trying to come
to some reasonable compromise they could present in some logical
fashion. It turns into "my belief is right, your belief is wrong"
and with those blinders on - nothing ever gets done. For either
side of whatever the topic of the day might be...
Nina said:
Consumers may have a choice, but it is not really a
choice. Let me explain. For things that there is a choice for, I
have at least been testing on Linux for years already. Such as
media center, here we run MythTV on Fedora Core 5. We run
apache web server and samba file sharing services on our linux
server. On my linux machine, I can post to usenet, get email, browse the
web, listen to music, and do all the basic things I can
do on my Windows machine. But lets face it, depending on how
much you use some applications/games that work only on
Windows, Linux is not equal in all aspects.
If MS hadn't forced all the major OEMs to sell only Windows on their
machines, we would have a real choice today (Like OS2Warp for
example) which could run all the same apps and games as Windows
without an emulator.
See what I mean?
All of my XP machines here at home are OEM machines purchased with
the OS preinstalled. That is why I am still in license compliancy.
*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.
A major OEM becomes a "major" anything because of smart choices on how they
sell their products, market them, etc. Would Dell be as huge if they sold
only Linux with their systems? Who knows - I would think not, however. You
cannot use the argument that if they had chose to sell something other than
Windows - that Windows would not be as large because there is no way of
proving that they would not have just gone out of business or stayed in
their small little niche market. Nor can you say that another OS would have
been larger than Windows if one of the "major" OEMs had chose to sell that
OS instead. Dell gives choices to consumers - it just doesn't present them
as clearly. Call Dell, spec yourself a good computer and buy it from them -
with Linux.. You can do it you know. You have to do it by phone for most
configurations - but you can do it.
OEM's chose to go with Windows because that was what sold - what was easy
for Joe-user to understand and utilize. It was what was widely available at
the time. There is a whole host of things - but the OEMs were not forced by
*Microsoft* to choose them. They could have walked away. They may have had
to agree to things afterwards in order to participate in and get benefits
from the OEM programs - but they were not forced to become part of the OEM
programs (or stay a part of them) of Microsoft's by anything other than
their own bottom line. They chose. Perhaps it was the only choice they
could make and still eat/feed their family - but supply and demand played a
role there. Consumers wanted computers that were easy to use and that ran
all the software they had seen and could easily acquire/use. Windows did
this. *nix and OS X and BeOS and OS/2 Warp (which ran my DOS games like a
cheetah on crack I might add.. And yes - that is a good thing) did not
offer the consumers what they wanted, so being a person whose livelihood
depended on it meant selling what the consumers wanted and/or (in reality)
you knew they would have to have tin order to do what they wanted with their
system and then maybe come back to you and recommend you so you can make
more money.
When I sold computers for many years - I did not sell OEM products. I told
my customers they would be getting retail software - so they would have more
choice and freedom as their computers aged. I had few - if any - arguments
about the extra $100 or more - depending on the products they chose. I
chose to educate my consumers and/or sold to those who chose to educate
themselves on the few options available to them. However - most
resellers/computer shop owners look at the bottom line. The cheaper they
get their machine out there - the more they stand to make (because of
increased sales to an uninformed (and mostly uninterested) public and
because they spent less, but can charge the same in some cases.) It only
makes sense. Business sense. There's almost always a niche market
somewhere - but in OSes - those niches are not usually enough to feed a
family. heh
I know of many OEMs (anyone can be an OEM - that just means "Original
Equipment Manufacturer") that have chosen not to sell Windows XP. It's
happened many times over the years and many OEMs actually do give a choice
other than Microsoft OSes - some you think do not actually do - if you call
them and don't just "click-click" your way through the order. Joe-Home-User
will not do this. Joe-Home-User does not usually know enough to do this and
they may discover they wouldn't choose to do this anyway, because of what
their stated purpose is for the computer and how much time they are willing
(and able) to put into using the system when they get it.
It is a question - in the end - of usability. No matter how it happened
(lethargy on the part of competitors, luck, good timing, business sense,
"mob-like" tactics, combination of all of these, whatever) - Microsoft is
the dominant OS. If you want to sell computers to Joe-Home-User and eat off
the profits, you choose to sell (at least offer) the OS that has the most
return for thje end-consumer. If you manufacturer software to make your
living, you create it for the OS that is out there en-masse. Doesn't mean
you cannot sell the other operating systems. Doesn't mean you cannot
manufacturer your software for other OSes. Just means you didn't choose the
path of least resistance.
That has a snowball effect that is obvious now. Pre MS-DOS, anything could
have happened. There were so many ways the market could have gone. We
could all be running macs right now with OS XXII or something. But it did
not go that way, nor can anyone say that there wouldn't be people
complaining in the same manner as they are now if it had. The names would
have changed, perhaps - but no one can say that if Macintosh OS had become
the dominate OS and had gotten to rule over 50% of the marketplace - people
would/would not be complaining now or if the price points we now associate
with their OS (which I mentioned) would even be in existence.
In the end - it always comes back to what the end-consumers want and if
there is a viable choice available and marketed to end-consumers. Sure -
there are some manipulative games one can play to push that in their
favorable direction for them - but that avenue is open to everyone involved.
Happens every day. If the end-consumers don't care and expect the one that
screames the loudest at them to be the one they need - that's what they buy
and you get the situation you are in now.
You can argue back-and-forth here all you want - but what it comes down to
is the end-consumer.
If they don't buy it, then there is nothing to sell.
If today - all consumers decided they were not going to buy Vista - they
were going to sit down and learn *nix, Mac OS X, etc.. Then the trend would
shift. Software writers would start writing for whatever OS begins to be
"the market leader" and the end-consumers could just continue using their
Windows XP OS for the necessities until the shift had been made far enough
to get rid of the old clunker and use only the new OS and all the new apps
written/adapted for it.
Will it happen? Doubtful. Humans are lazy. If it works, is there - can be
"improved upon" and some of the old stuff continue to work for a while -
yeah - they'll go down the easy path. Could it happen? Sure. My doubtful
does not close the door. Not all human beings are lazy. Some people like
learning and adapting (I hope they still exist - or we have reached
extinction and all this is moot anyway.) The choices are there. The
ability to take and run with those choices are there. There is nothing one
corporation/person can do about any of this either way. It comes down to
the choice of many people. Microsoft did not build their "empire" alone.
Lots of people made the choice to help add a brick or two. Millions of
people have decided in the end. (end-consumers, software writers, system
builders, larger resellers, you name it..)
As for all of your machines having been purchased with the OS
pre-installed... and you being in compliance - etc. I don't care. I
really don't. Pirate, don't pirate, use Windows, use *nux/OS X/etc -
although it may have an effect on me indirectly - I choose to not care what
you do/use. If you did business with me and I only had Linux and
Open-Office - things might be different. Otherwise - you will make up your
mind and then me discussing it until my fingers bleed from typing is not
going to serve any purpose. It's cool that you did that. It's cool that
you chose to buy your systems with the OS preinstalled. It's cool that you
choose to use applications that run on those systems. Heck - it's cool that
you choose to use other operating systems daily too. It kinda sucks that
your choices have been somewhat limited by the choice of millions before
you. That is the choice of what OS to run and the choice of what
applications you can utilize (because you have to be using what everyone
else is using or risk not being able to do business/communicate with them
and possibly not eat.)
However - know in the end that it was your choice to buy the system that
came pre-installed with a Microsoft OS. Know that, with a little effort,
you could have made a different choice. Yes - it would have made things
tougher on you, it could have caused you grief when using your computer to
communicate with others for personal or business reasons. You would
(possibly) have had to come up with work-arounds for choosing to be
different than everyone else. And you might have folded at some point
because you saw the rest of the world was not going to change the way you
hoped and you grew tired of adapting to work with it while maintaining your
uniqueness. It all could have happened. Or it all could not have.
Maybe you walk everywhere - or ride a bike (non-motorized). Maybe your car
is all electric or a hybrid. Maybe you make your own bio-diesel from the
McDonald's leftover grease. Perhaps you use solar power or some alternative
in your home. Maybe you buy only naturally grown produce (no pesticides,
etc.) Use only eggs from chickens that ate natural food and either eat no
meat or only eat meat from cows who grazed on grass/wheat/etc. Maybe you
chose beta-max instead of VHS.. Perhaps you invested in laser-disc. Maybe
you use natural gas to heat your home and your hot water. Maybe you have
made your choices to be unique all the way and just folded when it comes to
the Operating System that runs on your computer <- I don't know.
In the end - they are all still your choices. Doesn't matter how much
effort you might have had to put in to make them, the choices exist. They
may not be as heavily marketed as some others - but someone decided to make
the tougher ones or the alternatives wouldn't exist at all - at least not
for very long. There's is always a choice. Just because one or more is not
easy does not mean you shouldn't take that path.
