Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Sep 2010 20:57 UTC
Microsoft Who said a public outcry - even if it's just on the internet - never helped anyone? Yesterday, we reported on The New York Times' findings that Microsoft lawyers were taking part in raids on opposition groups in Russia. Today, Microsoft has announced a number of steps to fix the situation - the most significant of which is a unilateral software license extended to all NGOs in Russia and several other countries.
Thread beginning with comment 440863
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

A windows release costs an absolutely stupid amount of money.


Correct. Nevertheless, the marignal cost to Microsoft of providing these license to Russian NGOs who either already have licenses, or who weren't going to buy a license anyway, is still effectively zero.

Microsoft are not forgoing any income here. Regardless of how much Windows costs to develop (and how much of Microsoft's labour bill is spent on people fluffing about) the point remains that the marginal cost to Microsoft of providing the licenses that are the topic of this thread is close to zero.

What they are getting, however, is a lot of free PR cred fromm poeple who are apparently too dense to work out that it IS effectively zero cost to Microsoft to provide these kinds of licenses.

Belay that last. Those people who contest this point know all about the true marginal cost of a Windows license to Microsoft, and they are not dense at all ... they just don't want it pointed out to other people. Pointing it out reduces the PR value.

Edited 2010-09-14 04:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

the point remains that the marginal cost to Microsoft of providing the licenses that are the topic of this thread is close to zero.

.. and that's the logic disconnect a lot of people will fail to grasp as well... they're giving it away to people who weren't going to pay for it in the first place, and likely had no plans to ever pay for it. Net Loss ZERO, apart from the PR of "Hey look what we're doing"

they just don't want it pointed out to other people. Pointing it out reduces the PR value.

On both sides of the arguement... since if you do point it out, the question becomes "So just exactly why weren't these NGO's using the legitimately 'free' alternatives?"

Must be strong arm monopolistic tactics and the evil corporations -- couldn't possibly have anything to do with quality of the alleged "alternatives"...

Edited 2010-09-14 05:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

since if you do point it out, the question becomes "So just exactly why weren't these NGO's using the legitimately 'free' alternatives?"


Some of them are. However, the majority are not, and largely this is because the vast majority of people are not IT experts, and vested interests such as yourself keep trying to loudly insist (aka as 'the big lie') that there is no choice but Microsoft, and that legitimately 'free' alternatives either aren't free or won't work.

If you were indeed an IT guru, and you were genuinely interested in trying to help people with their IT needs, then your position would be the opposite of what it apprently is.

Shame on you, not shame on them.

Reply Parent Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

It doesn't matter how much it cost MS, 1 buck or 300 million, the reason MS did it was because they looked like a bunch of saps, a patsy, they looked like like they were either involved with the raid, or manipulated by the Russian government. It's bad PR.

This is MS saying "We won't let that happen again", it has nothing to do with money

Reply Parent Score: 2