bbgruff wrote:
> 7 wrote:
>
>> Homer wrote:
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>> ____/ bbgruff on Tuesday 03 June 2008 12:28 : \____
>>>
>>>>> The new Asus 10" model has been announced.
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/03/asus_eee_1000/
>>>>
>>>>> The headline is that the XP verion (1000H) is cheaper than the
>>>>> Linux 1000 version - but beware. the XP version has an 80GB HD,
>>>>> while the the Linux version comes with a 40GB SSD.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> I haven't looked yet, but based on what I've seen earlier, it's the
>>>> other way around. Linux gets double of everything (RAM, HD capacity,
>>>> etc). I'll check this in a moment.
>>>
>>> Yes, Microsoft demanded the lower-spec machine so they could sell XP and
>>> still come in at a lower price point. However, I think that strategy
>>> will seriously backfire. Customers will look at the hardware specs of
>>> both machines, and conclude that the Linux one is better, thus
>>> stigmatising XP as the second-rate choice ("Oh don't get the XP version,
>>> it's not as good"). This works out rather well for the customer though,
>>> since they get better hardware /and/ software.
>>
>>
>> It is a major anti-trust issue to not sell a product with the WINDUMMY
>> OSen or Linux for each hardware configuration.
>>
>> Complaints to th EU should be filed right away to put and end
>> to this kind of market distorting fraudulent marketing practices.
>
> Calm down a bit 7, just for a moment?
>
> Tell me (or somebody else tell me), *why* do *all* these manufacturers
> seem to be selling different configurations with each OS?
> It seems so much easier (to me) to offer a selection of configurations,
> with the option of the OS/price.
> Perhaps I've missed it, but I've not noticed any given configuration with
> a choice of OS.
That is illegal as your choices are artificially restricted by
restrictive trade practices.
Would you let a DIY shop dictate to you
that you can only order pink paint with white wallpaper?
That is restrictive trade practices and it is illegal.
The reason Micoshaft is forcing restrictive trade practices
on its suppliers is so that it (Micoshaft) can sell WINDUMMY PCs at
the same price as Linux PCs. That is restrictive trade practices.
In a free market such market distortions are not allowed to
continue. There is no compelling reason why laptops must be sold
with different hardware but at equal price so that micoshaft with
its market unfavourable licensing fees may be protected to survive.
That is why it is beneficial for Sun, Mandriva (which pre-install
Linux with many suppliers), Ubutu (likewise), RHAT etc should
all complain to the EU competition commissioner immediately.
This would not only eliminate the practice, but also
put Micoshaft in massive financial fine positition again with the EU.
That is not good for Micoshaft - a convicted monopolist.
> (Granted, we would then have the "I can't sell you it with XP and 2GB, or
> XP and a 160GB HD, because I am not allowed to sell you a licence for XP
> to be
> used on that configuration" in some instances. My question relates to
> configurations which are "valid" for the ongoing XP)
|
|
