Buy PC Without an OS... Get a Visit From MSFT?

[MOOS]

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday April 05, @11:54AM
from the sure-would-be-tragic-if-something-happened-to-your-kneecaps dept.

sebFlyte writes "'Don't sell PCs without operating systems or we'll send the boys round.' That seems to be the general message coming out of microsoft's antipiracy unit, according to ZDNet.

While MS seems to accept that people might want to get hold of PCs without Windows so they can put Linux on them, they don't think that's a good enough excuse. "We want to urge all system builders -- indeed, all Partners -- not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business," says Microsoft.

The FSF has given this policy short shrift, saying: "It looks like a private sniffing service which is supposed to spy on these who do not want to pay the Microsoft tax anymore. It is an incredible piece of impudence."

source - http://www.Slashdot.org



Translation....

ROFL.. calling all system builders... MS is losing money.. and they want you to buy their OS... or they will come around and try and charge you for it.

How the heck will then police this ?

..... still laughing.

[thornyone]

[FrYGuY]

Arg, this is the third place I've seen this completly false write up...

Microsoft is telling PC vendors they SHOULDN'T sell "naked" PCs because it is a missed opportunity for the vendor to sell software as well, and also they get better prices for their volume licensing agreement... in other words, they're saying: Why just sell a box, when you can sell a box, an operating system, AND software for it?

They're not saying: "Sell Microsoft Windows with every computer or we'll bust your legs". Hell, to be honest, they never even said "Sell Microsoft Windows" for the arguement, it's just implied... the arguement works for Linux or FreeDOS/ReactOS too...

[greffov]

Usually it doesn't, since you can get those for free. Simple fact is that people don't want to buy something they can also get for free. (Even when that's not legal.)

[FrYGuY]

Originally Posted by greffov

Usually it doesn't, since you can get those for free.

But you can still charge for the labor of putting it on there, you'd just charge less because there's NO license cost. The arguement still does apply. Microsoft is saying that if you sell it with an operating system, you can sell software and labor... with a "naked" PC, you can't do that...

Keep in mind that I like building my own PC, so this is all academic for me anyway, but I can definately see the business point of what Microsoft is saying...

Simple fact is that people don't want to buy something they can also get for free. (Even when that's not legal.)

Funny, I see that exact same argument in reverse when defending P2P...

Still, Microsoft's point is valid: As a business, why intentionally make a choice to not sell something? Even if that something is pure labor in installing a free OS? Or if you're strictly a Microsoft shop, why make the choice to not use your volume liscense agreement?

[greffov]

You are true, from a business model perspective it looks dull to sell a "naked" pc. However, it's like you enforce people to buy a whole CD instead of only the tracks they are interested in. Selling only full CD's is also a business model, but I doubt whether this yields in a higher customer satisfaction. Of course the business model only deals partially with that, because it relies on a vendor lock-in.