Aunty Diluvian wrote:
> On 9 Jul 2006 08:28:41 -0700, "Rex Ballard" <rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >It's not inconceivable that Microsoft may have used similar tactics
> >against other publishers, starving them of critical revenue, causing
> >chaos with their budgets, and giving them a clear message not to
> >publish any articles in which Windows compares unfavorably to
> >competitor operating systems such as Linux, OS/2, UnixWare, or Solaris.
>
> Isn't that exactly the same thing that open source companies are
> doing to Microsoft?
Microsoft's prices are based on "Perceived Value Pricing". It's not
too much different from the way big name fashion designers can sign
their name to a design and charge 4-8 times the price charged for
functionally identical, in some cases even superior, merchandise at
K-Mart or Wal-Mart.
Microsoft has the additional advantage of maintaining a monopoly
control of the desktop market. Regardless of what happens after the
machine is sold, OEMs know that given the choice of purchasing more
than enough licenses regardless of whether they were actually needed by
end-users or not, and having too few licenses, with the inability to
purchase more, and at prices which price the end-product so much higher
that competitor products that demand would falter, the OEMs negotiate a
better deal by purchasing far more than they actually need. For
example, if an OEM expects to sell 10 million PCs, and Microsoft is
willing to sell him 10 million at $80 per copy, or 15 million at
$40/copy, purchasing the 15 million copies give a net price of roughly
$60/copy, which is still superior to the smaller order.
Of course, this quantity discount also gives Microsoft the ability to
impose some unusual restrictions. For example, Windows must be
installed on every machine sold. Windows must be the ONLY operating
system installed on these machines. The OEM is not allowed to make ANY
alterations to the configuration, including partitions which would
allow users to install Linux in a separate partition, 3rd party
software that competes with Microsoft products including Lotus Smart
Suite, Netscape Communicator, or Open Office/Star Office. The OEM can
include this software "on the side", and even Linux, but cannot
preinstall the software.
Failure to comply with any of these terms could result in automatic
revokation of licenses, which meant that the OEM was back into the
state of "All Or Nothing", with the option of renegotiating for
licenses (which may involve additional cash payments and nearly always
involved additianal restrictions).
> Cutting their revenues in an attempt to change
> their way of doing business. Using financial clout to effect some
> social, political or corporate change.
Microsoft has used the same tactic. The difference is that OSS
typically offers the license for free, and then offers support and
additional services for a nominal fee. Many companies have begun to
adopt this model, including Sun, IBM, Borland, Red Hat, SuSE, Linspire.
Microsoft has blocked direct access to the general marketplace,
especially through the OEM channels. Microsoft also seems to have had
an impact on the retail shelves as well.
Many software packages, including many OSS packages, are "try before
you buy". For example, you can download OpenOffice for free, but if
you really like it, the StarOffice package can be purchased and
downloaded for about $80, which includes many more wizards,
backgrounds, and macros. Someone can download Eclipse and Struts for
free, but if you really like it, you can get WebSphere Studio or
Rational Application Developer.
In most cases, the value add between the OSS version and the
"commercially supported" version is self-evident. It's easy to see how
you can achieve ROI when the commercial versions are used by
consultants or staff paid at hourly rates.
> >With this high-level corporate censorship, it's not really surprising
> >that "Linux just doesn't fit their perceived model of a computer.".
>
> Linux does not fit the perceived model of a computer of many
> people.
The question to be asked is whether this is because the user or
decision maker is making an informed choice after considering all
alternatives, or if they are simply accepting a choice which has been
made for them, based on political, economic, and social assumptionsn
which may not be entirely grounded in reality.
For example, 99% of all Intel PCs were sold with Windows and IE
preinstalled. Yet over 300 million Firefox installations have been
downloaded from known sources, which does not include downloads from
corporate sites, secondary sites, and other redistributors.
Some browser survey results indicate that Firefox may be used by as
many as 45% of the users in some countries, yet statistically, 98% of
all machines are SOLD with IE as the primary browser.
Open Office is often downloaded and used by users who also use
Microsoft Office. Each has their own advantages. Most OEMs offer
MS-Office at substantially reduced rates if the user purchases the
Office package with the computer.
> It is a cheap shot at capitalism from socialist do-gooders.
Actually, capitalism is based on the assumtion of a free market economy
in which supply and demand establish price, diversity, and
competitions.
I think MOST of those who have published software under the OSS, such
as IBM, SUN, Novell, Corel, Borland, Silicon Graphics, and so on, would
probably take exception at being called socialists. Even the Free
Software Foundation had made provision for commercial and corporate
interests, suggesting that although the source could be freely
distributed, yet encouraging corporate interests to support and
distribute OSS software, even GPL software.
Meanwhile Microsoft wishes to maintain Fascist control, not just over
the software, but also over the information being managed and produced
by the software. Microsoft wants the ability to capture this
information and use it as THEY see fit. When you accept the EULA, you
grant them that permission, even though you probably don't understand
exactly what information could be collected, and how it could be used.
> While that may work well in the third world countries is flies
> in the face of everything that is America.
Sad, isn't it. Amecica used to be a haven for the FREE ENTERPRISE
system, in which competitors were encouraged to compete on a relatively
level playing ground. Today there are many who don't even want to
consider the Bill of Rights a part of the United States Constitution.
|
|
