OSNews

I, in fact, do not agree. In any way.

An operating system is a vital part of a computer. A computer without an operating system is completely useless. What would my grandmother do if she needed to buy a new computer - and it didn't come with an operating system? How is anybody supposed to explain that to her?

What the EC ought to do is mandate that computer vendors allow the option to not bundle Windows.

If your grandmother is buying a computer and is sold a computer without an OS the salesman skipped a few lessons...

The same people that when you ask them (for tech support purposes) "How much memory do you have?" they might spit out the size of the hard drive or the frequency of the processor, are the same ones that you may find impossible to explain "It needs a specific OS, and you need this one to be able to use the programs you want to use" and as such, you may not be able to convince them that you need to get something separate, because as far as they are concerned, isn't that part of the computer???

On the other hand, if a salesperson detects that the customer is rather ignorant on such finer points, they may be able to bundle a bunch of stuff they have no idea what to do with, but get it because the salesperson says, "You'll really want/need this!" even if it's filesharing ad/spyware for a granny that's deaf (perhaps LimeWire as an example).

Even though the article was lacking in detail, I'm not sure this think tank actually knows what it's talking about.

A computer without an operating system is crazy. The amount of times I have had to explain the concept of operating systems to laymen leads me to believe that a computer without an OS bundled is a recipe for disaster.

On the other hand, forcing at least large OEM's to either provide the option of no OS bundling or the bundling of an alternative, modern operating system would go a long way towards separating the words 'Windows' and 'Computer' in many peoples minds. That alone would already be a significant move to try and break the MS monopoly, which they seem to be trying to advise the EU on.

I seriously think that having to buy Windows with a new PC is wrong, yet I can't see removing the option completely helping anyone.

This is what they say:

Operating systems, it says, are not a natural monopoly, requiring just one supplier. Instead, in a competitive market, there would be a broad compatibility between different supplier's products.

I don't think they mean that you shouldn't be able to buy a computer with a pre-installed OS. Rather I think they mean that OEM's must offer systems without an OS installed, at a fair market price that takes into account the cost of the operating system and installation for the OEM.

Though I must admit it would be a lot of fun if Joe User was forced to install his copy of Vista. We would certainly end up with a much more educated user base.

Let's hope so. Can you imagine what a complete mess it would be if the EU forced all OEM's to sell they're systems without an OS installed?

One thing is for sure though, the volume of tech support calls would skyrocket.

"""

"""

I'd be cool with that. It strikes me that we have all this concern about the convenience of people who want Windows, and almost none for those of us who have to make due with a sharply limited set of choices if we *don't* want to pay for, or use, Windows.

But even if the machine comes without an OS, the vendor would simply sell what we call a "Restore CD" today, separately. It would just be called an install CD instead. It would not be a raw copy of Windows. It would be customized for the machine they purchased.

So instead of taking the machine home, unboxing it, plugging in all the color coded cables, and turning it on... they would take if home, unbox it, plug in the color coded cables, turn it on, the bios would pop the cdrom door open and say "Insert the installation CD and press the key marked 'Enter'". That's the only difference: Inserting a CD and pressing 'Enter'.

The users could and would be just as blissfully stupid as they are now. They'd never stand for anything else.

I *really* like this unbundling idea. :-)

Edited 2007-09-24 22:47

Installing vista is even more brainless then installing XP. Getting rid of the OEM version would just force activation on good ol' joe, which doesn't teach much other then how to bend over.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Removing any OS from being installed upon the sale of a computer hurts the user experience. Not only does it require they waste more of their time installing an operating system (something they may not have the technical knowledge to do), but it also removes value added services like software bundles (that, while annoying to you or I, does have some value to other users). This isn't about making it harder for the consumer. That should not be the goal. It should be about giving the consumer choice. This doesn't fix anything.

It's quite simple:

Your Gran buys a PC.
In the shop or online, she is offered Windows, MacOS (maybe unlikely), Linux, or other(s) in the shop and gets box.
When she gets it, she wires it up (with help from instructions and/or relations).
Turns it on, and inserts her "Fresh Install" disc.
A few minutes later, the PC is ready, it reboots.
And she is online. (not meaning connected to the internets)

If anything in the above confuses your Gran, well, she does have a loving grand-child whom will help her.
No doubt you taught her how to use it, right?

uh, I don't have enough free time as it is, in your scenario, I'd never sleep.

I am computer tech in Texas, many of my calls are not relating to much more than figuring out how to enable the network-connected DSL/Cable service they purchased with the "easy" self-install kit.

The process is insanely simple on any OS, but users just don't care. I try to get them to understand that the computer is a modular machine, that they don't have to buy a new machine every time a new model comes out, and they don't *want* Windows.

I install Ubuntu on nearly every machine I come by which can run Ubuntu properly with Beryl/Compiz, with a dual-boot to Windows, just in case. Most become Ubuntu users thanks to Beryl. Some actually are stubborn with their Quicken and MS Office, so I just show them alternatives and import their data so they can use either.

I also purposefully match the software offerings in Windows to those in Ubuntu so the user can interface with the same applications, wherever possible.

I have had no call-backs on Ubuntu ( guess that hurts me, really, but it helps them.. and that is my game ), but often spyware and such infests Windows and they complain of slow-downs in Windows, but say they don't care about 70% of the time.. " Can we just take Windows off? " they ask :-)

For real people, Linux has hit the point where it can replace Windows for most users. I mean, all they do is have a machine that checks e-mail and lets them check their favorite web-sites.

If we were to make the mozilla suite an OS, most joe-sixpacks could survive wonderfully. The only real issue is when we have web-sites that require Internet Exploder. That *IS* an issue.. a VERY BIG ONE.

I hope the E.U. works on that next.

--The loon

It has a rudimentary OS, it's BIOS. As the rest is an open platform, it can work with a wide variety of operating systems, so anyone who buys it should have an option to buy it without OS, at a price that is correctly discounted. But you can still ask a reseller to put it on.

It's same as if buying a hard disk and finding tons of MP3's on it, because empty hard drive isn't exactly useful.

AFAICT, problem is not in desktop machines as one can pick up machine out of components (and seller can assemble it) without windows, but with laptops which often come only with a MS tax.

are you saying that your grandma is too stupid to insert an automated install cd/dvd into the computer? are you saying she is too stupid to understand what the OS does?

cause i got bad news for you, theres a little thing called genetics..

newsflash for you, theres a minimum level of intelligence required for anything, like for example driving a car, just because someone cant understand that red light means stop, doesent mean we abandon the concept and let everyone drive wild, by that same idea, if someone doesent understand that they have to install an OS on a computer, or insert an automated disc, they simply can not use a computer, just like they cannot drive if they do not quality.

What the EC ought to do is mandate that computer vendors allow the option to bundle Windows.

Trust me. Being the editor of a website like OSN makes you prepared.

Trust me. Being the editor of a website like OSN makes you prepared.

On this one I believe you Thom.

Thom probably got this from Digg.com which presented it as such.

I don't read Digg (only when one of our stories makes it there). This news got submitted by someone to us.

Actually I think this is the Commissions way of indirectly, through a proxy, giving hints to Microsoft what kind of measurments they "could" be thinking of in case they are dragging their feet any longer on making the workgroup server protocols available.

If that is all they are thinking of doing, I'm guessing the OEMs are licking their lips at the thought of getting to charge people for pre-installing an OS with software and a software support contract.

The only way that this could hurt MS is Apple's OS X and Linux are exempt from being bundled.

You'd be surprised.
Well, if you've spent any time online you wouldnt be.

If only 20 full-time paid developers was enough to establish Linux as a viable and useful alternative, it would have been peanuts to companies like IBM to get that done.
No, you're going to need a whole lot developers than that, and a lot of time. Not to mention more applications that can actually compete with non-open source offerings.

If you're going to spent €1M on anything, spend it on usability experts, design experts, documentation experts, etc.
I.e. spend the money where it would actually make a difference rather than on more developers that don't make much of a difference.

Yes you are one. All we want is the choice not to have an operating system installed.

Why should someone who wants to install, Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, openBSD, OpenSolaris, freeBSD, CentOS, PCLinOS, PCBSD or any one of dozens of other viable operating systems be forced to pay for an operating system you don't want.

Interestingly this is a point that left-libertarians (anarcho-socialists) and right-libertarians (free-market, small government, fiscal conservatives like the Globalization Institute) seem to agree on. I guess it is an all round positive sum for the consumer and MS is the only one that gets to loose freedom - The freedom to impose a monopoly.

Edited 2007-09-24 19:00

It's best not to resort to name-calling without some better arguments...

Well, let's disregard the hardware ecosystem with its NDAs and "secret" firmware, with Windows being the only thing you can use some devices with until they get reverse-engineered - admittedly a feature of backwards industry thinking than Microsoft manipulation, I imagine, but anyway...

Sure, you can install something over Windows. The point *never* *was* that you couldn't do so: it was that you had to pay for something you didn't need or want. This kind of CPU tax got Microsoft and Intel into a certain amount of trouble before the lobbyists got to work.



The special OEM pricing is obviously a non-issue for vendors who force everyone to pay for Windows, but there's a whole spectrum of issues between vendors who no longer enjoy special OEM prices and those who won't sell anything else. Underlying all of this is exactly how much these prices (special or otherwise) are and whether there's cross-subsidisation going on: when a Windows version of a specific model is suddenly cheaper than the same thing bundled with FreeDOS, who is subsidising who, and why is that? When you ask for a refund and are offered $10 instead of the retail price for the same product, is it a fair amount or are they giving you the brush off?



Ah, the self-fulfilling "consumer demand" philosophy at work: the punters don't know any different, so we won't give them anything different, or at least not if it isn't a "new and enhanced experience" from the same vendor.



I'm sure a lot of people don't care if Windows is on the hard disk or not - just being able to refuse to accept the EULA and get a refund without having to document the entire process and then take people to court would be an improvement on the situation now. In any case, and in contrast to your broad categorisations, many people don't insist on any preinstalled OS - see here for an example (French language): http://www.racketiciel.info/

It'd be better if you didn't need to get a refund at all, because you weren't charged for extras in the first place. I'm sure a bunch of people installed their old copy of XP over Vista, too, so this isn't just a matter of Microsoft vs. the universe.



Typically, I've advocated that people spend their money with vendors who don't keep topping up some Microsoft slush fund. Installing an "alternative" OS over Windows and putting up with the situation, as you suggest, is not exactly going to bring about any change: the money keeps coming in, the vendor thinks that everyone loves Windows, even though they could all be running NetBSD for all the vendor knows and cares, and Microsoft collects its n% of the price tag.

However, from a regulatory perspective, it is alarming that one product (the hardware) is, more often than not, tied to another (Microsoft Windows) from one end of the distribution channel to the other without any adequate explanation of why this is, other than speculation that some kind of pricing agreement exists to force cowardly vendors to sell only a range of products that deliver revenues to Microsoft.

"Third most users *want* windows."

No they don't. Most users want a computer that can perform the tasks they need, they dont care if that computer is running Windows, OSX, Linux or DOS.

Exactly. You should be given the option to not have anything installed, but it should come with something by default.

The problem I think OEMs have is which distribution out of the thousands to use and have to support, if they were to actually give an optional OS specifically, as opposed to leaving the disk blank.

This is what is slowly happening now; Dell with Ubuntu, and HP supposedly doing something soon.

"You should be given the option to not have anything installed, but it should come with something by default."

Well, it doesn't need that. Selecting an OS (or lack of one) would part of the process.
An small unfortunate side effect of this is that it gives more power to the technically clueless sales force that does not necessary care as much for the customer as they do for their sales commission (and possible kickback money from company X).

It should come with several options: install windows, install linux, install freebsd, etc... And none of them should be default.

I agree.
There is hint about denying pre-installation, it is about not allowing to hide the option and the cost.

On the flipside of this though, is you're going to get my mother or Thom's grandma that wants to buy a computer and just use it, and they simply don't care what media player, IM, e-mail, browser it has, as long as it works.

They'll fire up this computer with the power of choice, and be fully frustrated because they have to figure out what to download.

They're not computer geeks, they're users that want to use the computer, not crusade against MS.

I'm not saying you're wrong either, just stating a POV from what I think a lot of users will be at.

Edited 2007-09-24 21:55

1) It would sure be neat to be able to buy a MacBook without OS-X if you just planned to install Linux, so this doesn't just affect MS

2) Un-bundling WOULD NOT as you insinuate, require that vendors refrain from pre-installing Windows, just require that they offer an alternative without it.

3) If MS didn't engage in secret agreements with nearly every large OEM to force ALL of their customers to buy a copy of windows whether they want it or not you would have a point.

4) If there were not at several viable alternatives that would cost both OEM's and consumers less money and would more closely approximate their needs you would have a point. (makes the thinking man/woman scratch his/her head and wonder why they do this when it would save EVERYBODY money, but see point 3)

5) If Microsoft weren't being SPECIFICALLY propped up by the US Gov't (who I agree has no business requiring OEMS to install a specific OS) in their conflict with the E.C. then you might have a point

On point (3), you're obviously misinformed (I'm not going to argue the rest). Due to the DoJ case and the consent agreement, every deal that Microsoft does with OEMs is scrutinized by the US government. If they had these secret deals, both the OEMs and Microsoft would have to be conspiring together to hide it from the government, and that sort of thing would get out rather quickly. These deals are one specfic thing that Microsoft is not allowed to do. They are simply not allowed to offer a lower rate for manufacturers exclusively bundling Windows.

"scrutinized by the US government."

Does that cover deals made by Microsoft UK, or Microsoft GmbH, or every single over European-based Microsoft wing?
Unlikely.

"Due to the DoJ case and the consent agreement, every deal that Microsoft does with OEMs is scrutinized by the US government."

Does that include non-US OEM's like, say, Acer and Toshiba and contracts entered into in foreign countries?

PlatformAgnostic already destroyed your point #3.
Points 1, 4, and 5 aren't paricularly pertinent to my argument.

As for point #2:
"2) Un-bundling WOULD NOT as you insinuate, require that vendors refrain from pre-installing Windows, just require that they offer an alternative without it. "

My point is that it's not government's business what OEM's install. Government shouldn't ban OS-bundling, nor should they require offering alternatives. If OEM's see a competitive advantage to shipping naked PCs or to offering alternatives, they will do so, as Dell, HP, and Lenovo are doing with Linux (without government forcing them to).

Government forcing the issue wouldn't speak well for alternative OSes as it would *look* like OEM's are being forced to offer them against their will because the OSes can't compete on their own.

Edited 2007-09-25 01:19

Government forcing the issue wouldn't speak well for alternative OSes as it would *look* like OEM's are being forced to offer them against their will because the OSes can't compete on their own.

Nobody is forcing anyone to offer anything. If you only want to offer Windows Vista as the OS for the computers you sell, then that is perfectly OK. The only thing you are required to do is to also sell your machine without any OS at all.

1. It is not government's business what OS an OEM chooses to install.

Neither the EU or its people owe microsoft anything. I also find your sense of entitlement quite appalling. It is government's business to make sure their consumers have choice.

"Neither the EU or its people owe microsoft anything.

Your statement has nothing at all to do with what I wrote. I didn't mention Microsoft at all, except to list Windows among the various OSes I listed that OEMs might want to pre-install.

I said NOTHING regarding Microsoft being "owed" anything. I talked of the rights of the *OEMs*. If an OEM wants to bundle Windows and only Windows, then that is their right. Same for Linux, FreeDOS, or whatever. If an OEM want to offer multiple OSes, that too, is their right. If they want to offer OS-less computers, then that is their right to. It's not government's business.


"It is government's business to make sure their consumers have choice."

No it's not. It's up to the OEMs to decide for themselves their own OS-bundling policy based on what they see as helping their bottom line. If they see a viable business in offering Linux, FreeDOS, or nothing, then they will do that. Government forcing them to do any of these is wrong.

It could be that offering multiple OSes or no OS would cost an OEM more money than it would make. For example, multiple OSes results in more support calls and more internal testing, which costs money. And any naked PC sold by an OEM is PC sold without the opportunity for the OEM to partake in the market for 3rd-party bundled appets and trial-ware (I hate such software, but OEMs do make plenty of money on that stuff). So it's not a guarantee that the money made from alternative-OS PCs or naked PCs would be greater than the costs (both actual cost and opportunity cost). Maybe it would be profitable, maybe it wouldn't be. But it's up to the OEM to decide that, not government. (It would be terrible if big government forced some small-time OEM into bundling policies that caused the OEM to actually lose money. )

Dell, HP, and Levono are offering Linux already because they see a viable business there, so there's no reason for government to get into this (other than being on a power-trip, which the EC definitely is on).

But as I said before, if this would end the EC witch hunts, then fine, do it.

Edited 2007-09-25 01:56

If you look at this objectively, Microsoft own >90% of the global market in operating systems, this means that there is no competitive market, meaning that there is very little price competition or feature drive. As the EU is designed to protect Consumers, not Companies, they are trying to act to restore this balance for the benefit of Consumers.

The fact that MS has limited influence in EU governance, along with the fact that EU Rulings actually end up being enforced, unlike the US rulings, says more about the corruption in the US than anything about the EU.

1. It is not government's business what OS an OEM chooses to install.

Oh, but it is. When markets are not behaving realistically, parties such as the competition commission can step in to analyse the problem.
You cite an example of Linux being preinstalled failing in the market. That is hardly evidence that the market is free. If might even highlight the reason the EU would step in.


2. On the other hand, if banning OS bundling would end the EU's witch hunts

"witch hunts"?
I think you need to reread your Power Evangelism pamphet, middle of slide 22, in case you forgot.

Because, you know, the U.S has no subsidizing, import restrictions or other artificial legal hurdles for foreign businesses...
Can we just stop this EU bashing? It's as boring, pointless and offtopic as U.S bashing.

A computer is a complete product just like any other. Regulating the OS would be like regulating the knobs on a toaster.

On the contrary a computer is just a commodity. So to break a major player from using it's influence to manipulate the market into becoming a monopoly is a simple straight forward anti-trust proposal.

You just suggested that Microsoft was "using it's influence to manipulate the market into becoming a monopoly", yet that is not what we are talking about here. What you allege might be illegal, and that is IF they were doing it. But if they were doing that, we'd be reading the words of lawyers and not think tank employees.

The Globalisation Institute paper did not suggest what you suggested! They simply say that Microsoft has such a large portion of the market share that it is not in the interest of consumers. And their suggested solution is preventing computers from being shipped with operating systems.

And I'm saying that mandating that is crazy pills. IMO at most the EU should mandate that PC makers must ALSO sell computers without operating systems. That is to say, maintain the status quo, but format the hard drive and offer a refund if the consumer asks for it.

And the success of BeOS pre-installed on systems?

The market didn't put an end to that, Microsoft did.

Give me a break! Talk about a romanticized version of history.

That is not a fact. That is a very debatable opinion held by what I predict is a small group of people.

Erm, Microsoft prevented the OEM from selling bootable copies of BeOS, how is that debatable.

first, with the proliferation of broadband, less and less people are using traditional modems, software or otherwise. i realize you're just giving an example, but it brings up an interesting point. if it wasn't taken for granted that a particular operating system would be installed on a machine, vendors would pretty much be forced to use more open hardware. and there's a trickle-down effect, too. software modem manufacturer losing business may start to open up, or at the very least, provide drivers for alternative OSes. this is how we will get peripheral manufacturers to start playing fair!

the OEM should be able to suggest windows, or offer installation of windows at an additional expense. it just shouldn't be forced on anybody.

it's bad enough that MS's EULA / bundling practices pretty much force customers to buy a new copy of windows each time they purchase new hardware. however, it's absolutely unforgivable that customers that don't even use windows in the first place are required to buy a useless windows license each time they purchase new hardware.

one can argue that there are third-parties like system76, etc. but, it's pretty disheartening that it's usually still cheaper to buy the HP machine with windows than to buy an equally spec'd machine from a small white-box OEM.

so basically, i get your point and understand your concern. but, things have to start somewhere to break the chain of forced reliance.

Edited 2007-09-24 20:34

"RE: I disagree
By niemau on 2007-09-24 20:30:39 UTC in reply to ""

It's bad enough that MS's EULA / bundling practices pretty much force customers to buy a new copy of windows each time they purchase new hardware. however, it's absolutely unforgivable that customers that don't even use windows in the first place are required to buy a useless windows license each time they purchase new hardware.

one can argue that there are third-parties like system76, etc. but, it's pretty disheartening that it's usually still cheaper to buy the HP machine with windows than to buy an equally spec'd machine from a small white-box OEM. "


You said it all right there. Because the licensing is so cheap it makes sense that a new one has to be bought each time a new pc is bought. Is the consumer really losing something if they buy a new pc with a windows license (tied to that pc) for cheaper than you could build one separately? How is the consumer losing out on this deal? I don't get it. This is a strong statement in favor of economies of scale doing it's thing and the consumer getting a great deal.

You said it all right there. Because the licensing is so cheap it makes sense that a new one has to be bought each time a new