Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Sep 2009 18:01 UTC
Windows Microsoft has been very protective over its OEM pricing, and while various figures float around the web, the company has never really confirmed or denied any of them. At the Jefferies Annual Technology Conference, however, Charles Songhurst, general manager of Corporate Strategy, revealed some of the pricing details for OEMs.
Thread beginning with comment 384444
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Microsoft Tax
by jasutton on Wed 16th Sep 2009 19:12 UTC
jasutton
Member since:
2006-03-28

I'm sure we've all heard the OEM cost of Windows referred to as the "Microsoft Tax" but the statements of this guy really show that that's exactly what it is. The price of a piece of software (or a condition of allowing it to run) should not be dependent on what kind of hardware it will be running on. As it is with other goods (which software is; it's NOT a service unless it runs on someone else's hardware), I could see volume being a factor for determining price. But show me another good where the manufacturer will give you a break (or jack up the price) if you're using it for one purpose or another (other than charities/non-profits).

Reply Score: 0

RE: Microsoft Tax
by kragil on Wed 16th Sep 2009 19:31 in reply to "Microsoft Tax"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Agreed.

So the MSFT tax is 5%.

At first that does not sound like much, but when you consider to what length OEMs go to replace parts for other parts that cost like 5 cent less it is enormous.

With the new ARM 2GHz Cortex A9 coming I can see a net centric future were Linux (ChromeOS maybe) will be here to stay on devices.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Microsoft Tax
by kryptonianjorel on Wed 16th Sep 2009 20:24 in reply to "RE: Microsoft Tax"
kryptonianjorel Member since:
2006-06-28

Well that new ARM processor would be good, except for the fact that it wont stand up to the Atom 330. Even then, its not a matter of technical capability, its familiarity. People are going to buy what they know. If Harry Homeowner can't find Internet Explorer on his new Ubuntu netbook, chances are, to him, it doesn't have internet.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Microsoft Tax
by strcpy on Wed 16th Sep 2009 21:02 in reply to "RE: Microsoft Tax"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

It is quite ironic that even if the so-called "tax" would be 15 % or 30 %, people eager to leave Windows behind have money to buy thousand dollar Apples. For a normal customer, the so-called "tax" just adds value to the product.

And btw, it is not less ironic that first the devotees rallied for Linux Netbooks, and when consumers did not want those, people started to rally for ARM Netbooks, like those would be somehow more appealing to customers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Microsoft Tax
by kaiwai on Thu 17th Sep 2009 09:20 in reply to "RE: Microsoft Tax"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Agreed.

So the MSFT tax is 5%.

At first that does not sound like much, but when you consider to what length OEMs go to replace parts for other parts that cost like 5 cent less it is enormous.

With the new ARM 2GHz Cortex A9 coming I can see a net centric future were Linux (ChromeOS maybe) will be here to stay on devices.


And sometimes the decisions are based purely on stupidity too - case in point, why do all the Netbooks either come with Atheros or Broadcom wireless? why isn't there a complete Intel solution which includes Intel wireless which has the best support across the board when it comes to drivers and reliability? What I'd like to see from Intel is them pushing complete Intel solutions (chipset, graphics, wireless, ethernet, processor etc) to OEMs.

Maybe when it is Intel everything then Linux on the netbook will become viable - because right now the ath5k/ath9k are crap and the developers haven't done a single damn thing in the last year to bring it to the same level of feature completeness as the old proprietary hybrid driver.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Microsoft Tax
by vivainio on Wed 16th Sep 2009 20:56 in reply to "Microsoft Tax"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

The price of a piece of software (or a condition of allowing it to run) should not be dependent on what kind of hardware it will be running on.


Er, why not?

As we say in Finland (and probably elsewhere too), the one who is selling and asking too much is not stupid; the the one who pays the asked price anyway is. Microsoft is not to blame for their pricing policy, it's their software and it's well within their right to charge $1000 for the license if they feel like it.

Reply Parent Score: 2