If they priced their product more reasonably and there were more benefits for buying it, then I'd imaging more people would buy it. In a global market, the price has got to be set somewhere, and I'm afraid that although it's a great bit of software, £80 per basic home copy, and £100+ for a business copy (for W7 Pro) is too much IMHO.
Lets face it, who actually gets £200 worth of use out of a version of Windows and Office. I've bought them several times over, and the fact that when a new version comes out you get a misery upgrade discount really IRKS me. Sooner pay for an annual subscription or a household license.
Although i'm as quick to grumble as you are about pricing, when i stop to think about my actual use of Microsoft I.P., in terms of cost verses time used, I reckon that it's one of the best value things i've bought.
Certainly more so than something like my TV, or my car.
(I recognise the flaw in my argument is that I need also to have hardware to use the software, however i'm looking from the point of view that i had WinXP and Ubuntu - and therefore the hardware - anyway, and buying Win 7 was my choice).
Probably only my iPhone runs it close from a cost vs time used perspective.
I can see Hu yawning from here.
MSIC
Although i'm as quick to grumble as you are about pricing, when i stop to think about my actual use of Microsoft I.P., in terms of cost verses time used, I reckon that it's one of the best value things i've bought.
Same here, I don't see how anyone could say it's overpriced considering what it does and how often you use it.
MonkeyL
Same here, I don't see how anyone could say it's overpriced considering what it does and how often you use it.
I constantly use my keyboard, it didn't cost me £120 to acquire it.
aidanjt
I constantly use my keyboard, it didn't cost me £120 to acquire it.
i lol'd but its hardly a fair comparison is it:rolleyes:
jackvdbuk
i lol'd but its hardly a fair comparison is it:rolleyes:
I used the example to point out how flawed the notion that frequency of use determines price. Microsoft charges the amount they think they can get away with. That's why they tier pricing according to who's buying.
Yes Windows costs lots - but that doesn't stop it being good value. It's not even like there aren't free alternatives out there, it's not like people have to use it to use their computer meaning they're ‘forced’ to pirate it if they can't afford it. As MSIC said, for the time you spend on it, it really isn't bad value. My computer's on pretty much 24/7, which means my copy of Windows has thus far cost me something in the region of 7.5p per day (granted, it would be nearer 20p/day if I hadn't got a student discount), both of which really are more than reasonable prices IMO once you factor in all the other costs of a typical day. That money has to go towards keeping that product up-to-date for its useful lifespan, which could easily be ten years - and that isn't cheap, especially when everyone's already bought a copy and there's not much upfront money coming in to support that.
aidanjt
I constantly use my keyboard, it didn't cost me £120 to acquire it.
My laptop runs Ubuntu - does that mean that the hardware shouldn't cost me anything? Just suggesting the flipside to your coin. Also bear in mind that it's eminently possible to spend £120 on a keyboard.
Splash
My laptop runs Ubuntu - does that mean that the hardware shouldn't cost me anything? Just suggesting the flipside to your coin.
aidanjt
I used the example to point out how flawed the notion that frequency of use determines price.
Did you miss that?
Splash
Also bear in mind that it's eminently possible to spend £120 on a keyboard.
Sure, only just for people who buy into the ‘gaming foobar’ marketing crap. Which is precisely my point, companies price according to what they think they can get, not how often the item is used.
miniyazz
Yes Windows costs lots - but that doesn't stop it being good value. It's not even like there aren't free alternatives out there, it's not like people have to use it to use their computer meaning they're ‘forced’ to pirate it if they can't afford it. As MSIC said, for the time you spend on it, it really isn't bad value. My computer's on pretty much 24/7, which means my copy of Windows has thus far cost me something in the region of 7.5p per day (granted, it would be nearer 20p/day if I hadn't got a student discount), both of which really are more than reasonable prices IMO once you factor in all the other costs of a typical day. That money has to go towards keeping that product up-to-date for its useful lifespan, which could easily be ten years - and that isn't cheap, especially when everyone's already bought a copy and there's not much upfront money coming in to support that.
You've completely missed my point. MS are charging a price that's within a range globally. That price and the benefit that it is giving to the Chinese is clearly out of kilter with their pricing and expectations.
How much do MS spend on advertising their products in China? How much are they spending on meeting the Chinese needs? If they made it worth them buying it rather than using illegal copies, then they'd have a higher market share of legal copies. They increased the value for me by including MSE, firewall software, including the media streaming. I'm happy I bought it. £100 of my salary is not the same as £100 of a Chinese persons average salary, and the costs need to be brought in line with that. Simply shouting at them aint gonna change that!
Why do you think Apple is not a major player in China. It's an added value product at the top of the range. Beyond the means of the “average” joe.
MS want China to start paying for their product because the alternative is to lower their price and that hurts their margin in the Western World. Supply and Demand…….
They can always just switch to a home-grown Linux version instead. Red Flag Linux is one example.
This isn't to be a “Windows vs Linux” debate. Both are different OS, both are just tools to perform a job/task. That's all. Both does some things well and some things badly.
Both are easy to use? - This depends. Windows - you do need to learn how the OS work, but outside of China, the sheer desktop market share mean that the majority already know how to use it.
Linux - I have no idea about Red Flag Linux - it use KDE etc. But if I was to use Ubuntu as one example - it's actually quite easy to use and tried to strictly follow their own HIG (Human Interface Guideline) so that things work as expected etc. (Microsoft doesn't exactly follow HIG, for example MS Office's Ribbon interface is completely different from the usual Windows application layout etc) But as I've said…I'm talking about Red Flag Linux and I have no idea if that is easy to use like Ubuntu.
However I believe that Red Hat Linux is made to look like Windows so that it's familiar from the start - you can see a screenshot here - wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Red_Flag_Linux
Actually it look just like Windows(!) So it take advantage of people's Windows skill. However it might be a mistake in making it look too similar to Windows - issues, bugs etc won't happen the same way and solutions to fix aren't the same etc.
Cost? Free and it's home grown which is probably better for them as it help them to develop their own home population's skills.
I'd never pay for Windows, money wasted - I'm having it for free instead ;)
Also supporting this “Junkdows” at work makes me sick of it big time.
I'm wondering how much better typical desktop OS would be if Microsoft had serious competition?
£50 max for the top of the range flavour should be their starting point…
You might want to check over your post, you're using Red Flag Linux and Red Hat Linux interchangeably - they are not the same thing.
Edit: Missed post. I disagree £50 (what I paid - preorder) is money wasted for Windows. Sure you can get other OSes for free but it's MS's business choice. Anyway, plenty of people and quite possibly you included frequently pay £40-45 on games which get far less use than the OS on their computer. I think £50 is completely justifiable for Windows 7. And I'm strongly against piracy (as you may know from previous posts) if that's what you mean by ‘free’. But I won't turn this into a rant.
I do agree about the competition bit though, Windows has basically none in the mass market. There are other OSes but as far as most end users are concerned, Windows is just ‘it’, they don't know any different. It's the same as the argument I make towards CPU/GPU MFR fanboys - they don't seem to realise things wouldn't progress nearly as fast as they do and what did exist would be far more expensive without the competition that exists now.
If microsoft where more reasonable with their prices it would probably help them maybe a couple of % at most. The reality of the situation is if you can readily get something for free, and make it work with very little effort then you wont see the need to shell out the cash. If there is a threat of the government taking action, no it isnt going to stop the problem but that ~1% may become a little higher.
Microsoft are working the numbers, the same as any other corporation/company who fight against piracy to make their way in the world; find a way to minimize damages.
I really don't see how they could price it more fairly than £50. If you're not prepared to pay that and still argue it's too much then you're just not prepared to pay for it at all really, are you?
The underlying fact is, China is still a growing economy and “your average Joe” still doesn't have that much money compared to the UK/US. A quick comparison of the largest and smallest bank notes are a clear indicator.
Largest Bank note in China
100 yuan = <£10
Smallest Bank note in China
1 cent = 0.1p
To fork out the equivalent of £50 for *them* will be way too much.
I can forsee the Chinese government banning all windows products, like they have with facebook. If Balmer is not careful. That would spell disaster for MS.
I'm only talking about Western countries. Maybe they could release a separate Chinese version or something? I mean you'd get people moaning it's unfair because they're getting it for cheaper but as you say they don't have as much money so it is really. Something would have to be done to prevent it being imported and used here, of course.
Or, Microsoft could just make it more reasonably priced across the board.
spoon_
I'd never pay for Windows, money wasted - I'm having it for free instead ;)
Also supporting this “Junkdows” at work makes me sick of it big time.
I'm wondering how much better typical desktop OS would be if Microsoft had serious competition?
£50 max for the top of the range flavour should be their starting point…
If it's such junk why bother pirating it then?
I think a lot of people are missing the crucial point that Tattysnuc hit on. I love Microsoft and their Windows as much as the next guy, and I think it is fair value for money; but the point of the article is the high levels of software piracy in China and that is purely down to the wages of the average Joe (or Liu…). Taking an oem copy of Win7 to cost £100, that is roughly 1000 yuan, you could buy an office computer for that price (including a pirated OS). You can see why forking out 1000 big ones for a legit OS is so prohibitive.
Windows software is overprice, without the pre order price for win7 of 50 pounds and sstudents 30 pounds (both of which I have got) then I probably would have pirate bayed it.
Unlike hardware which you cannot get for free and tend to pay more for better quality, you can pay 100 pounds for software which you will use for many years, or put that hundred pounds towards a holiday or whatever and get it for free because you can.
The worst thing is you build a budget pc for 300b pounds and then pay third of that price for windows, or just get it for free.
Nelsaidi
Windows software is overprice, without the pre order price for win7 of 50 pounds and sstudents 30 pounds (both of which I have got) then I probably would have pirate bayed it.
Unlike hardware which you cannot get for free and tend to pay more for better quality, you can pay 100 pounds for software which you will use for many years, or put that hundred pounds towards a holiday or whatever and get it for free because you can.
The worst thing is you build a budget pc for 300b pounds and then pay third of that price for windows, or just get it for free.
I understand what you are saying (I think), that the process of illegally obtaining software is very easy, with a perception of it being unlikely to get caught. This would seem also to be the situation in china (keeping this on topic), and those two factors would seem to increase the risk-taking behaviour, or perhaps lack of percieved wrong-doing in people.
One similar argument might be if a fruit and veg stall were left for 10 minutes (let's imagine a sign that says ‘gone shopping, back in 10 or similar). It would in that scenario be very easy to steal a piece of fruit.
But (and this I think is the key point IMHO) by stealing fruit, a theif would be depriving the vendor of their merchandise. With software, there remains a perception that this is not the case, as it’s just data copying.
Overall then, a person who downloads illegal software /I.P. Would surely have to ask themselves “would I have otherwise tried to have paid for this?”. If the answer is yes, then (ethically and legally) it is theft. If this answer is ‘no’, or ‘unlikely’ then it remains legal theft but I suppose less ethically wrong.
Maybe.
Nelsaidi
Windows software is overprice, without the pre order price for win7 of 50 pounds and sstudents 30 pounds (both of which I have got) then I probably would have pirate bayed it.
Unlike hardware which you cannot get for free and tend to pay more for better quality, you can pay 100 pounds for software which you will use for many years, or put that hundred pounds towards a holiday or whatever and get it for free because you can.
The worst thing is you build a budget pc for 300b pounds and then pay third of that price for windows, or just get it for free.
So what you're saying is that Windows is overpriced, and any more than free is overpriced. I don't think that business model is going to work too well.
snootyjim
So what you're saying is that Windows is overpriced, and any more than free is overpriced. I don't think that business model is going to work too well.
I don't know, it's working out pretty well for Canonical and Red Hat.
I wouldn't argue that Windows should be free, but certainly a reduction in price wouldn't hurt, especially when they practically give it away to the big OEMs.
aidanjt
I don't know, it's working out pretty well for Canonical and Red Hat.
I wouldn't argue that Windows should be free, but certainly a reduction in price wouldn't hurt, especially when they practically give it away to the big OEMs.
I just think that if your attitude is that you'll pay for hardware because you have to, but won't pay for software, because it's easy to pirate, then it's pretty pointless getting involved in a debate about fair prices for software.
Splash
If it's such junk why bother pirating it then?
What are you suggesting dude?
aidanjt
I don't know, it's working out pretty well for Canonical and Red Hat.
Ah yes, those big companies with the massive profits we keep hearing about. I mean didn't they almost turn over $30M, wow.
I am certain that all the microsoft stock holders are wishing that they had that kinda revenue.
spoon_
What are you suggesting dude?
Well, logically, if you think something is rubbish, you wouldn't want to use it?
snootyjim
I just think that if your attitude is that you'll pay for hardware because you have to, but won't pay for software, because it's easy to pirate, then it's pretty pointless getting involved in a debate about fair prices for software.
It always comes down to price, everything does. In China you would need to have your head examined if you paid for it. The price of the software far exceeds reason, and the government does little to nothing to enforce against violating foreign IP. If the price was what the Chinese consider reasonable, that 90% piracy rate might change to 10%. Obviously I'm not going to claim that a big price cut will cut out 100% of piracy, but it would significantly incentivise going legitimate.
TheAnimus
Ah yes, those big companies with the massive profits we keep hearing about. I mean didn't they almost turn over $30M, wow.
I am certain that all the microsoft stock holders are wishing that they had that kinda revenue.
The question wasn't whether they turn over billions in profits, but whether the business model is feasible.
+1 to spoon. The only reason I have the hunk of junk that is windows is due to steam. If I could get steam on linux with all my games then I would. Linux is a far better built OS, performance, stability and customisation wise and its free! Being open source it also tends to be more innovative. Microsoft have the monopoly that is Directx. The sooner game devs move to opengl the better.
Also yes I agree with aidanjt, it is far too expensive for the chinese market. Would you be willing to pay £1000 just to make your computer comparable with everyone elses. I feel the chinese government know this and turn a blind eye.
spoon_
What are you suggesting dude?
You say it's junk, then you make a thinly veiled reference to pirating it. You *need* it for games? Why not just get a games console?
I can understand people's suggestions that the OS *could* be cheaper, but frankly it's Microsoft's product and it's up to them to charge what they feel the market will bear. Canonical, Red Hat etc make their money in support agreements which is absolutely fine, but their is an entirely different business model.
Essentially if I were a software developer I'd want to be able to pay my bills, feed my family and the like from my efforts. Microsoft have to be able to pay their devs and make as much profit as they can for their shareholders or they're failing as a company, and someone else will take their mantle.
As for Astridax - take a look at
this link. Steam *can* run under Linux. You're not going to persuade game companies to buy into opengl over directx by supporting directx, are you?
Splash
I can understand people's suggestions that the OS *could* be cheaper, but frankly it's Microsoft's product and it's up to them to charge what they feel the market will bear.
That's the point, the market isn't bearing it. The market considers it to be excessively expensive, and thus it's turning to illegitimate sources to acquire it at a price it considers more reasonable.
Imagine if Windows 7 cost £1,200. Would you pay for it? I know I sure as hell wouldn't. That's effectively what Microsoft is demanding from Chinese customers. Frankly I'm surprised the piracy rate is only 90%.
Splash
You say it's junk, then you make a thinly veiled reference to pirating it. You *need* it for games? Why not just get a games console?
As for Astridax - take a look at this link. Steam *can* run under Linux. You're not going to persuade game companies to buy into opengl over directx by supporting directx, are you?
Half of this response is true, half of it is false. First of all I know I can run steam under linux using wine. However, it isn't anywhere near as stable since they are having to use their own implementations of the windows and directx api. Which to be fair, since they are closed source, they have done a bloody good job! However they are still missing this compatibility and stability.
Several reasons I hate consoles:
1) The graphics on a console will never be as good as my computer, since I can update it :D.
2) Console games are so expensive. Why do I love steam, several reasons, but the most major one is their awesome sales! I managed to spend around £60 and get around 40+ games with that. Like hell could I have done this on a console. However developers still get a decent wage. On TF2 when the new Mann Co store opened, the developers of 2 hats both earned $40K in one week, just from royalties. However the cost to the consumer was round ~£5-10. Steam sales make the developers loads of money, since when could each Command and Conquer 3 for £3 on XBL or on disk? So from this argument we can draw, you will make more sales from the impulse buy price of £1-30. Than £150-300. Granted Microsoft shouldn't be selling it for £1, however I did buy it from the student discount for £30. That was far more acceptable than paying £200 for a boxed Pro copy. Piracy tends to stop when a fair market price is charged for the
target market.3) Steam is better implemented and integrated than even, dare I say it, XBL.
piracy doesnt stop for any price, there will always be people who download it and crack it even if it was priced at a pound. I think lower pricing would definitely help but as i said in my earlier post, its a game of minimizing damages.
Of course there is always going to be somebody who will. But I'd say you'd get that piracy rate down to 1-2% if you made windows within the purchasable limits of one to two days wages for the average Chinese worker.
snootyjim
So what you're saying is that Windows is overpriced, and any more than free is overpriced. I don't think that business model is going to work too well.
Nope, I'm saying charging 100 pounds for a home edition. isn't, I paid 50 pounds for my pc from the recorder price and 30 pound studen price for my laptop and I am happy with that price, but for double that I probably would not have not bought it twice, let alone once.
Everyone will have a differenn
Astridax93
Of course there is always going to be somebody who will. But I'd say you'd get that piracy rate down to 1-2% if you made windows within the purchasable limits of one to two days wages for the average Chinese worker.
This is exactly it. 1000 yuan is more than a month's wages for the average worker and as a business it just wouldn't make sense to have to spend more than a month's wages just to set up an OS for an employee's computer. Microsoft can either suck it up and continue like this, or they will have to reduce prices if they want to reduce piracy in China. There is little the government can, or will want, to do until that happens.
The other issue with this though is that many people view Windows as a requirement for a working (non-mac) PC. This is music to MS ears, but obviously something that they must be acutely aware of if they try to push anti-piracy measures too hard. Since a legit copy of Windows is clearly disproportionate to wages (from what everyone here is saying anyway, i havent seen the evidence myself) then they risk pushing regular chinese PC users towards free, legitimate and decent Operating Systems such as Ubuntu et al.
And if those OSes ever gain market traction, MS would be done for…
1,000.00 CNY = 94.9865 GBP
According to XE:
http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi?Amount=1000&From=CNY&To=GBPThis is before tax and everything else, although it is low anyway… happens to be why their economy is booming!
So basically you are paying 1 month's gross wage to get a copy of windows. Not likely to happen to be fair.
Astridax93
On TF2 when the new Mann Co store opened, the developers of 2 hats both earned $40K in one week, just from royalties. However the cost to the consumer was round ~£5-10. Steam sales make the developers loads of money, since when could each Command and Conquer 3 for £3 on XBL or on disk? So from this argument we can draw, you will make more sales from the impulse buy price of £1-30. Than £150-300. Granted Microsoft shouldn't be selling it for £1, however I did buy it from the student discount for £30. That was far more acceptable than paying £200 for a boxed Pro copy. Piracy tends to stop when a fair market price is charged for the target market.
That analogy doesn't work - Windows isn't ‘impulse buy’ software, and the dev and maintenance costs are much,
much higher than for any game.
watercooled
You might want to check over your post, you're using Red Flag Linux and Red Hat Linux interchangeably - they are not the same thing.
Thanks, I realise that but ended up typing red hat by habit!
miniyazz
…the dev and maintenance costs are much, much higher than for any game.
As is the revenue, which they'd get more of if they stopped trying to swim against the rapids, and waste less dev man hours to boot.
miniyazz
That analogy doesn't work - Windows isn't ‘impulse buy’ software, and the dev and maintenance costs are much, much higher than for any game.
I understand that windows.isn't impulse buy. It was to proove a point that you don't need to charge huge amounts to make money. I however fail to see how microsoft get away with charging double the amount for the retail version over oem, which is already too expensive. Linux is free and yet more stable, with less bugs in the kernel. I'd rather have a free OS and pay for boxes/support if I needed it.
aidanjt
snootyjim: “So what you're saying is that Windows is overpriced, and any more than free is overpriced. I don't think that business model is going to work too well.”
I don't know, it's working out pretty well for Canonical and Red Hat.
I wouldn't argue that Windows should be free, but certainly a reduction in price wouldn't hurt, especially when they practically give it away to the big OEMs.
Canonical and, to a lesser extent Red Hat, make most of their money from services - software support, training, etc. That said, last time I looked (
wanted to boost my RHCSA certification to include RHEL6) RHEL wasn't cheap - about the same price as Windows Server.
+1 on the OEM pricing - I managed to “score” a copy of MS Office Pro+ on the Home Usage Program (HUP) recently and the difference in price betwixt HUP and retail (even online) is frightening. So I shudder to think how few pence it's costing Dell, Acer, HP et al to bundle W7HP with their kit. Certainly goes some way to explain why Linux hasn't made more in-roads than it has.
Zhaoman
This is exactly it. 1000 yuan is more than a month's wages for the average worker and as a business it just wouldn't make sense to have to spend more than a month's wages just to set up an OS for an employee's computer. Microsoft can either suck it up and continue like this, or they will have to reduce prices if they want to reduce piracy in China. There is little the government can, or will want, to do until that happens.
Sensible posting - although I thought that MS charged different pricing in each country, depending on local conditions. Certainly I've seen many postings around the news sites that Win7 is cheaper in the US than the EU. From what's being said here that appears not to be the case.
Nelsaidi
Nope, I'm saying charging 100 pounds for a home edition. isn't, I paid 50 pounds for my pc from the recorder price and 30 pound studen price for my laptop and I am happy with that price, but for double that I probably would not have not bought it twice, let alone once
As others have pointed out, the launch pricing on Win7 was
very attractive - heck, I bought a copy of Win7Pro at the time and didn't install it until last month, more than a year after I bought it!
Since we're talking about Window pricing on this thread, has anyone been looking at the pricing changes recently? I bought a “full” copy of Win7HP last month (9th December) and it cost me £89 from Amazon. Today,
from the same vendor, that software is now £115 - nearly a 30% increase in the space of a month. Now okay, you'd expect some heavy discounting around Christmas, and we've had the VAT increase since, but even so - I find the upswing quite inexplicable! :surprised:
Astridax93
If I could get steam on linux with all my games then I would. Linux is a far better built OS, performance, stability and customisation wise and its free! Being open source it also tends to be more innovative. Microsoft have the monopoly that is Directx. The sooner game devs move to opengl the better.
The thing is, people when pirating have the option of all the different OS's out there, why aren't more choosing linux?
There is one main thing I find linux does better than windows for the home user, and that is manage installed user mode programs. The modern package manager is much better than the dpkg that once decided to nock my server offline by removing all of the required libs for sshd back in 2004.
Windows doesn't have anything that comes close, even if you only use MS Office and IE, your still going to have adobe flash/pdf cropping up.
But windows is also a lot better at patching the core OS without the feckup fairy coming for a visit, when you consider all the hardware variations that are going on, all the virus scanners which are doing frankly pervse things, redirecting int2e, hooking the ntdll dispatch table etc. Its rare something goes wrong.
Without going off on a rant, I do find it quite funny when people spout all this crap about linux been superior, for my line of work it has never been able to demonstrate this, its always been a poor man's copy of a very out of date design of an OS, the kernel is just horrid and writing device drivers a comparitable nightmare. Don't get me wrong, as a software architect there are things that make me dispare and just loose the will to ever dev on Microsoft, but on the whole they have a very good platform.
The fact that you then say directx is hard to replicate because its closed source shows just how little understanding you have of designing such a hardware layer. It is a very well documented set of APIs, how the black box works inside shouldn't be needed because you know what all the inputs and outputs need to be. Given how massively different the model for WDDM it is ultimately this that is the biggest stumbling block for anyone wishing to implement it on another platform, they have taken some lengths and some utter horrible decisions to minimise the IOCTRLs.
So, why are the chinese citizens choosing to break the law, rather than use a free alternative? Surely a boost in user base and revenue would be better for the <insert favourate OS here> rather than MS keeping market share?
aidanjt
The question wasn't whether they turn over billions in profits, but whether the business model is feasible.
Yes and No.
It has to be ‘more’ feasible, that is the key I would say. All public traded firms have a duty to their shareholders to keep the company in the most profitable manner. One could argue the current model is short sighted but in all honesty I think there is moral hazard with charging support. The classic example is my mum (note this does not apply to my Dad, he isn't allowed on mum's PC for reasons of a different rant).
My mum has a cheapo laptop I bought her, it was one of the cheapest decent spec machines I could buy the same day in Cornwall as I needed to set it up for her before going home. Turns out Argos are the least raping high street retailer and she has a 64bit VAIO thing that cost £400 a year and a bit ago.
It runs windows 7, and she hasn't needed any support ever, because I set it all up for her, cleared the pre-installed crap out.
So charging for support would be a waste of money, for viewing lolcats, playing spider, emails and such she just doesn't need any support. Ok she isn't a power user but its typical of 80%+ of home users?
Now if your business model relies on selling such support contracts you either end up doing a dixons and selling after-care support packages on the digital camera which are worthless/overpriced imho, or you end up not been correctly incentivised to make the OS bug free. That latter part is the worry.
For most home users they shouldn't begin to need a support contract, the same way that hardware should damn well last three years without worry (I'm looking at you Dell Apple etc selling the extra year care packages!).
What would be more use to them is some kind of interactive HOWTO type thing, but why get that from your OS provider.
A long and hard to read post I've cut short:
Linux isnt easy to use (yet), has a steep learning curve for the noob user and trouble shooting it without a pHd in linux is difficult, clean installs (2 of them) of ubuntu adding two grub enteries every time it updates, scripting knowledge needed to make wirless work even after a reinstall and a few hours of searching googleing.
Alot of sotware which is only available for windows wont run correctly under linux, some are needed for education and job, but wont necesarily work.
Mixed opinions on how good linux is, but it is a fact that it isnt for everyone, and that is why people choose to pirate windows over linux, and other people probably dont even know what linux is.
Nelsaidi
A long and hard to read post I've cut short:
Linux isnt easy to use (yet), has a steep learning curve for the noob user and trouble shooting it without a pHd in linux is difficult, clean installs (2 of them) of ubuntu adding two grub enteries every time it updates, scripting knowledge needed to make wirless work even after a reinstall and a few hours of searching googleing.
Alot of sotware which is only available for windows wont run correctly under linux, some are needed for education and job, but wont necesarily work.
Mixed opinions on how good linux is, but it is a fact that it isnt for everyone, and that is why people choose to pirate windows over linux, and other people probably dont even know what linux is.
I think that's a little unfair to be honest, and i'm speaking as a Linux user and non-IT professional.
However this isn't a Linux vs Windows debate, so let's keep things on topic!
Yes Windows is a more complete system granted. But that is only because it has had billions and billions of dollars behind it. If Linux could garner some support, and somebody make a simple to use version, granted even Ubuntu can be a bitch to get configured, they might have a winning combination on their hands!
When I tried out Ubuntu a few months ago I found it so user-friendly it was annoying. Really seemed as though it was designed with idiots in mind.
I can't see any good reason why more people couldn't use it.
snootyjim
When I tried out Ubuntu a few months ago I found it so user-friendly it was annoying. Really seemed as though it was designed with idiots in mind.
Indeed, if you can't figure out how to use Ubuntu, you should probably contact your doctor as you may in fact be clinically brain dead.
snootyjim
I can't see any good reason why more people couldn't use it.
Gaming. Or at least that's the only thing which has me keep a Windows installation around. Wine does a great job of running windows binaries, but it still has large portions of the winapi incomplete, and much of the existing code has bugs (or indeed has bugs missing), as software does, so few games run completely bug free, or at least bug compatible. If virtualised 3D graphics improve sufficiently, I'll probably go for that instead, I hate having to reboot between OSes.
There's also all kinds of disinformation about Linux, and general anxiety with using something unfamiliar. It's outside their ‘safe’ zone, and baser instincts kick in.
aidanjt
Gaming.
True. I have to admit, I was really thinking about “Aunty Molly” and all the other stereotypes of your average PC consumer when I made that statement, as opposed to the far rarer PC gamers.
If Chrome OS takes off in any way, it will just go to prove that people don't need or want Windows. My dad is a perfect example - he's an ex-mainframe programmer, so fairly adept with PCs. Yet, his computer is used for Gmail, eBay, photo storage, and nothing else.
Ubuntu in its current form would fit the bill perfectly.
Yes. I can't wait for there to be an alternative to windows. Compiz windows are sooo nice XD! Besides, I could wave good bye to having to update every program/driver etc individually….
Damn wine, somebody put some money behind it. I can't really understand how The Animus is correct. If the winapi and directx api's are so well documented how come it hasn't been remade so to speak, by people at wine. My guess is similar to when you publish a library in dll format. The programmer can pass values to the functions, knowing their inputs and outputs. Knowing how they work and they processes behind them is another thing. Just because I use the .push() function in AS3 doesn't mean I know the code that makes it. I can guess how it works, and probably have a fair decent go at coding it, since Pushing onto an array is a well documented and understood algorithm. However if they had something special inside that class function, I would have no idea. Only until my implementation doesn't work with somebody else's code would I know I am missing a feature. Imagine this, but instead of a simple problem, it is a function to setup a driectx window.
So really until microsoft decide to release directx and winapi source code… Wine will have a hell of a job guessing as to how to implement microsoft functions. You can only guess so much. That's why emulation of consoles can take an age to become stable, cause a lot of it is guesswork from inputs and outputs.
If this doesn't make coherent sense or is punctuated badly, accept I am tired after an exam, it is late and I have another one on Wednesday :).
snootyjim
True. I have to admit, I was really thinking about “Aunty Molly” and all the other stereotypes of your average PC consumer when I made that statement, as opposed to the far rarer PC gamers.
If Chrome OS takes off in any way, it will just go to prove that people don't need or want Windows. My dad is a perfect example - he's an ex-mainframe programmer, so fairly adept with PCs. Yet, his computer is used for Gmail, eBay, photo storage, and nothing else.
Ubuntu in its current form would fit the bill perfectly.
Oh yeah, absolutely. I started my Uncle with computing on OpenSUSE 10.3 when I knocked together a spare-parts rig for him, which went great for a few years, and built another spare-parts machine, this time with Ubuntu, since KDE3.5 was dead, things went great. This year he treated himself to a new laptop, he hasn't had it a fortnight and Windows 7 is already loaded up with viruses. So yeah, dear ole granny can easily get to grips with the likes of Ubuntu.
TheAnimus
But windows is also a lot better at patching the core OS without the feckup fairy coming for a visit, when you consider all the hardware variations that are going on, all the virus scanners which are doing frankly pervse things, redirecting int2e, hooking the ntdll dispatch table etc. Its rare something goes wrong.
Funny you should say that - I've had the opposite experience, when Linux update screws up (which thankfully is very rare) because it's not that interconnected you can usually backout relatively easily. OTOH, if a Windows-based update (based on desktop OS use only) screws up then it can easy render your machine unbootable - I had that happen two weeks ago with my new Windows7Pro install when an Asus-supplied chipset update did something horrible (couldn't even get a Windows “booting” prompt - it just hung).
TheAnimus
Without going off on a rant, I do find it quite funny when people spout all this crap about linux been superior, for my line of work it has never been able to demonstrate this, its always been a poor man's copy of a very out of date design of an OS, the kernel is just horrid and writing device drivers a comparitable nightmare.
Granted there's a lot of cruft in there - but then again the kernel devs are cleaning it up at a respectable rate. I'll be the first to admit it's far from perfect, but for a lot of apps it's just an easier fit - especially if you're talking about headless servers a couple of hundred miles away. That said, I have as little respect for the “if you're not using Linux then you're an a-hole” bunch as I do for the “all hail Windows - the worlds best OS family” mutants - there's plenty of space/uses for both. Oh, and I remind you that Windows Server/7 were described as “Windows NT with minor tweaks and a nice GUI” by a very cynical commentator in the US. :D
TheAnimus
The fact that you then say directx is hard to replicate because its closed source shows just how little understanding you have of designing such a hardware layer. It is a very well documented set of APIs, how the black box works inside shouldn't be needed because you know what all the inputs and outputs need to be.
Original poster is maybe thinking of the oft-quoted assertion that there's a lot of DirectX that's either undocumented or actually works slightly differently from the “as described”. Not developing with DX I can't comment either way.
Nelsaidi
Linux isnt easy to use (yet), has a steep learning curve for the noob user and trouble shooting it without a pHd in linux is difficult, clean installs (2 of them) of ubuntu adding two grub enteries every time it updates, scripting knowledge needed to make wirless work even after a reinstall and a few hours of searching googleing.
Troubleshooting ANY misbehaving OS is hard - whether it's Linux, Windows, or MacOS - it's a truism that if an OS goes bang then you're probably in for some pain.
Wireless+Linux, yes that's still not nice, although it's getting far better. E.g. the last five installs I did (three laptops and two netbooks) the wireless card was recognised and I just used NetworkManager to setup the SID, WPA2 key etc and I was in business - simples! (Three different versions of Ubuntu plus one Meego and one OpenSuse install if you're interested). Yes, the grub thing in Ubuntu can be annoying - but two minutes with an editor and it's back to tidy - Ubuntu does this to give you a fallback position if the latest OS install barfs. There may even be a GUI for doing that.
Linux isn't easy to use (yet)?, may I refer you to our esteemed Hexus colleague aidanjt
aidanjt
Indeed, if you can't figure out how to use Ubuntu, you should probably contact your doctor as you may in fact be clinically brain dead.
(This made me laugh - perhaps Cannonical should employ aidanjt as their PR bod?) My nine year old daughter has NO problems using Ubuntu (she chose it over Windows after seeing both). Okay I do the admin stuff, but that's because I've got root access, she doesn't. Oh, and her last build (she's changed distros twice) she did
herself with me sitting by for advice. :p
Getting back to the original article - did Ballmer just berate the PM, or were they actually suggesting some concrete measures? And besides, I thought this “activation” nonsense was supposed to prevent piracy? (
hurriedly getting back on topic!)
aidanjt
As is the revenue, which they'd get more of if they stopped trying to swim against the rapids, and waste less dev man hours to boot.
They wouldn't, though. They'd get a relatively small amount more units sold, but because it's so ubiquitous (and Microsoft's own data suggests only around a third of Windows installs are pirated), they really wouldn't gain much by dropping the price. Dropping the price by a half or even 3/4 isn't going to increase their user base by 50%, so their revenue would drop. And how would they waste less dev man hours?
Astridax93
I understand that windows.isn't impulse buy. It was to proove a point that you don't need to charge huge amounts to make money. I however fail to see how microsoft get away with charging double the amount for the retail version over oem, which is already too expensive. Linux is free and yet more stable, with less bugs in the kernel. I'd rather have a free OS and pay for boxes/support if I needed it.
OK, but game developers can bring out several games a year, all charging that lower price for, and although I don't know, I would be surprised if the development costs for all of them put together equate to the costs of developing and maintaining Windows. Once customers have bought Windows, they don't pay for it again - not until the next version at least (with associated costs), which is several years down the line. Granted, they do have a larger user base, which will go a long way to compensating for that. A quick Google suggests that as of June last year, COD:MW2 had sold 20 million copies while Windows 7 had sold ~180 million. Now a look at Activision's release calendar suggests they released five new games in Q4 of 2010 alone, and while I don't expect many games to reach COD's popularity, a quick extrapolation suggests that they've released over 20 games since Windows 7 was released - so if the average game popularity is even half that of COD:MW2, the units sold by Activision will exceed those sold by Windows.
Given that a fair proportion of those Windows sales will be either pre-order or student at <£50, while the majority of games will be sold at >£30 (COD:MW2 is
still £40 from Steam), there's a significant but not massive difference in revenue, despite hugely higher maintenance costs for Windows (disregarding development costs for the moment).
Regarding retail vs oem, simple - manufacturers selling a computer to joe bloggs only need a licence that'll last the computer. He's not going to upgrade the computer and keep the OS. By the time he upgrades there'll probably be a new one out. So a discounted version for those who'll only use it once - or rather, a more expensive version for those who are willing to pay to use their copy of Windows on more than one motherboard when upgrade time comes. Makes business sense, although it is a bit on the cheeky side from any other point of view.
Sorry for the slight ramble.
Tattysnuc
£80 per basic home copy, and £100+ for a business copy (for W7 Pro) is too much IMHO.
Please tell me where you're getting those prices. I am seeing £115 nearly everywhere, currently, for Windows 7 Home Premium Retail. To think I got two of them on pre-order for £45 each, I should have bought another! Oh, MS, you have some good products but you are
greedy sods! I'd pay £115 for another retail copy of Win 7 Pro, but certainly not the best part of £200!
chis
Please tell me where you're getting those prices. I am seeing £115 nearly everywhere, currently, for Windows 7 Home Premium Retail. To think I got two of them on pre-order for £45 each, I should have bought another! Oh, MS, you have some good products but you are greedy sods! I'd pay £115 for another retail copy of Win 7 Pro, but certainly not the best part of £200!
I presumed he meant those were OEM prices. Win7 Pro Retail looks to be roughly £170 (£110-115 OEM); interestingly Ultimate Retail is only a tenner more than Pro.
miniyazz
They wouldn't, though. They'd get a relatively small amount more units sold, but because it's so ubiquitous (and Microsoft's own data suggests only around a third of Windows installs are pirated), they really wouldn't gain much by dropping the price. Dropping the price by a half or even 3/4 isn't going to increase their user base by 50%, so their revenue would drop.
Perhaps their revenue would drop, perhaps it will expand. Either way, Windows sales is the furthest thing from their cash cow (ya know, the way they give it away to big OEMs), and them having more legitimate users can only be a good thing as it's the scale of the Windows platform itself which makes them the big bucks, not the Windows OS.
miniyazz
And how would they waste less dev man hours?
By not wasting brain power on creating and maintaining futile DRM schemes which only works superficially.
aidanjt
Perhaps their revenue would drop, perhaps it will expand. Either way, Windows sales is the furthest thing from their cash cow (ya know, the way they give it away to big OEMs), and them having more legitimate users can only be a good thing as it's the scale of the Windows platform itself which makes them the big bucks, not the Windows OS.
In fairness its a simple optomisation task, and as piracy is only a 3rd, and plenty of people are vocal about their itent to not buy it at a third of the price…. Seems logical to me to conclude that they wouldn't see a major upshot in sales.
Whilst its not their only cash cow, I doubt they would want to sacrifice a signficant reneue stream for the hope of selling more copies of office.
aidanjt
By not wasting brain power on creating and maintaining futile DRM schemes which only works superficially.
And ultimately that is a big problem, because that cost is put on the end user too. (ok one could argue the saving is priced into the end user as well).
However some of the DRM is requested by partners / content providers, so their need to be some design patterns in place for this.
aidanjt
By not wasting brain power on creating and maintaining futile DRM schemes which only works superficially.
They already got rid of WGA :)
miniyazz
They already got rid of WGA :)
When? To the best of my knowledge, only OGA was abandoned, WGA is still in place.
TheAnimus
In fairness its a simple optomisation task, and as piracy is only a 3rd
In China, it's 9 in 10 installations are pirated. For good reason.
aidanjt
In China, it's 9 in 10 installations are pirated. For good reason.
Very true, but is that best solved by trying to create a massively differening regional pricing structure? It would be quite hard to simply stop the software crossing the economic borders.
Without any cost efficent solutions its best to look on it globally surely? I think we have seen that they can get away setting the price point that way quite easily.
What might be bigger concern is not getting that end of the netbook market, or low end PC market, I wouldn't be surprised if the windows 8 for ARM is a heck of a lot cheaper with some big restrictions in place. Creating a ‘different’ product is a good way of providing it legally for those who can't afford the other, and then its the job of the sales drone to upsell those who can. The car industry seems to be a master of this.
But on my point in post 51, specifically the moral hazard of support contracts, if I were to go and do a vanity economics degree (as in I already have a perfectly good degree and it won't help me earn any more money in all likelyhood, obviously the tax payer should foot the bill for this) I would like to do a proper study on technology frims offering this, from the big giants who sell you something very inelastic like a SAN, where the cost of changing even if its a crock of dung is too high, to a laptop provider that lasts a 6 months before been changed. My hunch would be that the SAN provider takes the piss, but it would be interesting to see by how much. Obviously the desktop OS provider has those same abilities to lock in.
miniyazz
Regarding retail vs oem, simple - manufacturers selling a computer to joe bloggs only need a licence that'll last the computer. He's not going to upgrade the computer and keep the OS. By the time he upgrades there'll probably be a new one out. So a discounted version for those who'll only use it once - or rather, a more expensive version for those who are willing to pay to use their copy of Windows on more than one motherboard when upgrade time comes. Makes business sense, although it is a bit on the cheeky side from any other point of view.
Sorry for the slight ramble.
Oem is only for people who don't upgrade their machines! I thought it was opposite. Ok fair enough when you buy a machine, it comes with an OEM copy. However, I built my machine and bought a student copy and I'm always upgrading my computer. Like hell is that retail, it's identical to OEM. I didn't even get a box, mine came in a paper CD holder in the post. The only people I have seen buy retail is people who shop in PC World.
OEM: Windows Ultimate: £149.99
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=SW-131-MSRetail: Windows Ultimate £179.99
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=SW-123-MSThe price difference has reduced a lot since launch. There was a time in PC World when a copy of retail Ultimate was around £300!
So essentially I am paying £30 extra for a box and some telephone support from Microsoft that comes with the retail version.
Still it begs the question as to why the OEM version without support from Microsoft, is £149.99!
Think of OEM as tied to a motherboard. You can upgrade and swap so far within an OEM licence, but once you change the motherboard you need a new OEM licence.
So a retail copy can actually make very good financial sense for most people who post on Hexus.
MSIC
Think of OEM as tied to a motherboard. You can upgrade and swap so far within an OEM licence, but once you change the motherboard you need a new OEM licence.
So a retail copy can actually make very good financial sense for most people who post on Hexus.
This. Buying a retail version allows you to reuse the license key with a new motherboard.
aidanjt
When? To the best of my knowledge, only OGA was abandoned, WGA is still in place.
Oops, my bad :(
MSIC
Think of OEM as tied to a motherboard. You can upgrade and swap so far within an OEM licence, but once you change the motherboard you need a new OEM licence.
So a retail copy can actually make very good financial sense for most people who post on Hexus.
That was my understanding too - there were a certain number of changes you were allowed before MS would refuse to activate automatically. And then you'd have to speak to support and “justify” why you should continue to be allowed to use the license. So you
could reactivate on a mobo change, providing it was a swap due to failure, so moving from Asus to Gigabyte was okay; moving from 1156 to 1366 chips would not be.
Similarly, Astridax93, there's restrictions placed on the use of the ‘student’ license. So those of us who were admiring those fancy new i486 chips @ college wouldn't have this as a possibility, (
where's me zimmer?). I've also heard that MS are - on occasion - blocking folks from using a student license ostensibly bought for/by a member of the family, e.g. no “student” license granted for a five year old.
By the way, do “upgrades” still need to see physical media, or is having a license key enough? I've got a 2nd-hand lappy here with the usual XP license key underneath and was wondering whether that qualifies me for a 7Ultimate upgrade (need Ultimate I think because it's the only one that's allowed on VM's)
I've only ever had to “justify” it to a computer, so it hasn't been particularly challenging.
“How many computers do you have this copy of Windows installed on? Press 1 for ‘one’, press 2 for ‘two’…”
From there on it's a battle of intelligence really.