Username or EmailPassword
Does Apple refund you for MacOS X if you buy your Mac to install Windows/Linux?
/EDIT: Confirmed, it does not:
"For Apple Software included with your purchase of hardware, you must return the entire hardware/software package in order to obtain a refund." Edited 2011-01-25 16:03 UTC
I agree that Apple should offer a refund. I've never purchased any Apple hardware or software...is the OS listed as a separate line item on the invoice? If it is, then it should be refundable.
There unfortunately is a long-standing tradition of stomping Microsoft every step of the way for proprietary shenanigans but looking the other way when Apple commits the same sins. (In this way, the geek community is collectively like a corrupt wrestling referee who clearly favors one fighter over another.)
As a BSD zealot, Apple gives me a warm gooey feeling inside, and I commend them for their engineering and industrial design prowess. As for respecting user freedom, however, I eye them with as much suspicion as that Redmond company.
All proprietary shenanigans should be stomped equally, regardless of vendor.
This as well might be illegal to do, since it violates antitrust laws. However it's still quite tricky, and companies are trying to find all kind of perverted ways to get away with it:
In Microsoft's case, they dont make PC's. Apple does. So while Apple can claim that they are selling a single product, Microsoft can not. Apple also doesn't sell their OS to just anyone. You have to have a Mac. So Microsoft is really a different animal when it comes to this type of thing.
Also, Microsoft's own EULA dictates that they can receive the refund. It may have been part of the settlement over the anti trust issues, but they still agreed to it. Making it difficult for the end user to actually collect the refund is what is getting them sued.
A few months ago I was going to buy a Lenovo laptop. I email their customer services and asked if they offered refunds on Windows. They said there was nothing to refund, because the laptop I was asking about had a FREE version of Windows pre-installed.
I asked around and some people said it could have been true, they could have a deal where MS provides Windows for free, in return Lenovo push Windows on all of their laptops.
I in the end I decided not to buy Lenovo laptop, too expensive and the screen quality on most of their laptops is really bad. I went to novatech.co.uk and got a cheap NetTop without any OS, then installed NetBSD, Linux and Solaris. So there are some hardware retailers that give you the option of buying desktops/laptops without MS Windows. People just have to vote with their wallets.
Buying a computer without Windows is simply... easier said than done. Good luck to anyone who manages to do this, without building your own machine from scratch.
Practically any computer shop can build a machine with no OS. Tiger Direct and other online stores have dozens of no-OS ready-built models to choose from.
Laptop selections seems rather limited, but they're out there.
Or buy a Linux-installed computer, and replace the pre-installed Linux with the distro of your choice.
Nothing wrong with building your own either. I'd guess most computer enthusiasts do just that. Any six-year-old is capable of snapping the parts together.
Or buy a Windows computer and complain about it...
The difference is that Apple does not own majority. You have an option to not buy Apple. But Microsoft has majority. You have almost no option to not buy Microsoft Windows as all "free" PC hardware has Windows preinstalled. And Microsoft play unfair to reach 100% penetration (the retailer refunds you but Microsoft does not refund retailer - if retailer wants to sell Windows preinstalled, then must pay for all PCs beeing sold to Microsoft even there were refunds).
In addition to taking your business to stores that don't force-feed you Windows -- such as some "mom 'n pop" outfits in my area -- there is always the option of buying second-hand.
Linux- and BSD-based operating systems tend to be less demanding of hardware resources, so an older machine can go much further without bloated commercial offerings weighing it down. (Even more to the point, NetBSD users already know they could probably get their OS running on a soggy cardboard box with a dead squirrel in it.)
Also, this is a better environmental choice, and allows you to not reward whatever third world sweatshop manufactured the machine.
Perhaps the above is indicative of the basic mindset differential between proprietary and FOSS. With proprietary systems, the hardware has to conform to the OS. With FOSS systems, the OS is meant to be adjusted, modified and/or reduced to your system's needs. Edited 2011-01-25 20:59 UTC
I don't see why you think Apple shouldn't have to play by the same rules as Microsoft. Just because they have a smaller market share on the desktop market doesn't mean they don't have to play by the same rules. Also please keep in mind that Apple is just as big as Microsoft. They both make billions of dollars every year.
I dont think its the case of people not reading the EULAs as much as it is that the EULA is not being honored. Thats why this made it to court. People being whiny would have been thrown out before now.
LOL, I want a refund for the last six motherboards that included onboard sound that I never use, didn't want, and had no choice.
And I can't see why so many people buy Windows-installed computers if they don't really want Windows. There are options, even in laptops, for no-OS or Linux computers.
But yeah, if Microsoft says they'll give refunds then there's no reason why they shouldn't. And it should be prompt and simple.
"I don't see why you think Apple shouldn't have to play by the same rules as Microsoft. Just because they have a smaller market share on the desktop market doesn't mean they don't have to play by the same rules. Also please keep in mind that Apple is just as big as Microsoft. They both make billions of dollars every year."
It very much has to do with the marketing model, Apple is a hardware company and the end product (both hardware and software) is considered to be one product. Microsoft Windows is essentially third party software installed on genaric machines.
That being the case, I understand the argument for refunds for people who do not want Windows on their machine, however, I think it is pretty shady to require (require being the key word) a company to offer a refund on a perfectly working product that they knowingly and intentionally purchased.
It ain´t shady at all as long as the EULA states that you have the right to ask for a refund if you do not accept the terms of said EULA ...
The thing is that even if you do buy a computer knowing it has a pre-installed version of Microsoft Windows *, you still don´t know what the terms of it´s EULA are ... and theres when the "is it more beneficila for me to accept the terms of this EULA or will I do better if I don´t?" question kicks in .. if you don´t, well ... the same EULA states that you have a legal right to get a refund for the price of the software in question.
The "knowingly and intentionally" factor only affects the features of the product ... not the terms of the EULA, which of course, you don´t know in advanced ...
Now ... go get´em tigger Edited 2011-01-26 06:53 UTC
You can perfectly clarify EULA conditions *before* you are buying anything. The problem is, that hardware vendors aren't scared to violate customer protection laws, assuming that only a small minority will have a determination to call them to court. Microsoft is only very happy with it, since it upholds their monopoly. Edited 2011-01-26 16:50 UTC
A lot of details of this issue are covered here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_refund Edited 2011-01-26 16:43 UTC