Earlier in the week, some Windows 11 Dev Channel users spotted Start menu ads/promos encouraging them to back up their data to OneDrive, sign up for a Microsoft account, and complete their profile. This obviously opened the door to lots of conversations over on social media platforms such as Twitter as well as the comments section on our own coverage as the majority of readers proceeded to bash Microsoft for pushing what they believe to be advertisements in their OS.
To be fair, this backlash isn’t surprising. Microsoft has previously been caught red-handed testing advertisements for Microsoft Editor in the File Explorer. At that time, the company quickly removed them, claiming that they were not meant to be published externally. Even then, I expressed concern that while the banner ads were published accidentally this time, the real problem here is that Microsoft is definitely playing around with this idea and there’s no knowing when the tech giant decides that it’s the right time to green light this initiative for the public.
It’s not going to matter. People who (think they) need Windows will keep using Windows, keep taking the user-hostile nonsense, because they don’t know any better. Windows users are a goldmine waiting to be split open and rushed, and Microsoft knows it.
Cannot really see how this is bad for consumers. If you have money and hate ads, then get a Mac. If you don’t have money but still hate ads, consider a Chromebook. For those with more technical literacy there’s also Linux.
If you just “think that you need an ad-infested hellhole”, then that’s how you roll and we have no right no call you victim of anything.
Unless you have essential software that only runs on Windows?
And yes, I’m aware that it can be run in a Windows VM on Linux, but that kind of defeats the object…
“It’s not going to matter. People who (think they) need Windows will keep using Windows,”
Thom, it would be more accurate to say we realize the opportunity cost of using Linux is much higher than Mac or Windows, so Microsoft and Apple can still considerably screw up before alternatives become competitive. We don’t need Windows, we need time to live our lives and an OS that doesn’t get in the way.
Funny, in all the years of computer usage that I have (close to 40 years, and using many different operating systems), Linux has been the one that has gotten in my way the least because there always at least 3 ways to get something accomplished. MacOS and Windows have both their own weird limitations that randomly pop up.
Similar experience for me too. I don’t feel like Linux costs me anything in time anymore when compared to using Windows.
As always objective evidence > anecdotal evidence. Linux people simply can’t be trusted on this because they are often incapable of taking off the love blinders and analyzing how much time they’re spending on nonsense they don’t have to. Worse, there are many, many cases of people that quit Linux simply because they realized they needed the time for family. Once you start the objective measurements, the arguments fall apart completely.
dark2,
Your generalizations are incredibly biased. There are die hard linux fanboys, but there are also die hard windows fanboys and mac fanboys. Linux can genuinely be the best choice for some of us. Your personal hatred of linux is your own anecdotal evidence, Some people hate it, and that’s fine, but it’s just a damn OS, get over your superiority complex. Being a windows user does not make your opinions more valid than ours.
How is suggesting getting objective measurements biased? Calling out the cognitive dissonance of Linux fans is also very necessary if you want to ensure the data you get is objective. You are definitely the one on the bias high horse right now.
P.S. it’s always the same story with Linux. Objectively bad, but the community always responds with “it works for me” anecdotes, telling people they really only need a tablet, etc.
dark2
You haven’t done that though. You’ve only shared your subjective opinion and that’s it.
Get real, you’re barking up the wrong tree. You are the one here on a high horse being bothered that other people have different opinions than you and putting us down for it. I’ve always accepted that people can have different OS opinions than I do and it’s no big deal. I challenge you to find a post of mine where I’ve put down people for preferring windows. If you can’t do that, then your accusation falls flat.
It might be anecdotal but it’s my experience. Just sharing it. I don’t care what you or anyone else uses as their operating system of choice.
“Worse, there are many, many cases of people that quit Linux simply because they realized they needed the time for family.”
There’s the objective evidence we’re looking for /s
Dark2,
I spend my days using AmigaOS, Atari TOS/GEM, DOS, Windows, macOS, Linux, etc. Hell, I even have an IRIX box I mess with. There are things I like about most of them, but Windows is the only one of which I will use out of necessity, rather than a desire to do so. And it has always been this way for me. I think the best version of Windows to date was Windows 2000. Everything since then looks like they hired someone who thinks it should be form over function, and computers really shouldn’t give a whole lot of crap about that.
I judge an operating system by how much it gets in my way from being able to achieve my goals.
Here is a non-anecdotal thing you can base the ease of use on;
If you run into a problem where you need to look up something online, compare the troubleshooting of copying and pasting the error. 9 times out of ten Linux answers that work will be in the first few links. MacOS I have found likely is going to be about 5 out 10, and windows I almost enevitably have to spend significant amount of time searching and testing various fixes because they have simply moved thongs around everywhere, sometimes within the version you are looking for (windows 10 in this case, and now 11 is out it makes it harder to find things). So keep this in mind when you bash people for their OS choice.
Live our lives? Give me a break. Linux fans have an incredibly arrogant and patronizing attitude towards Windows (and IOS users) perhaps because they have memorized a few obscure commands like rm, cat, dog, elephant etc. Additionally proudly exclaiming one has used Linux for years might be of interest to one’s mother but no one else cares.
bfr99,
I find it astonishing how ironic these comments can be.
We are perfectly OK if all mothers use GNU/Linux. As for the careless and clueless people. By choice. The truth is we don’t care anymore. Hence arrogance or patronizing. It’s just not worth to invest the effort in that anymore. Just enjoy your ad.
Oh ffs, most people who buy Windows don’t buy Windows, they buy a PC that comes with Windows. In general, most people don’t buy OSes, they buy computers. If you buy yourself a nice Alienware or Razer laptop, it will come with Windows and will officially support only Windows. Also, Photoshop is officially supported only on Windows (but please lecture people on how they don’t really need CMYK support because they really don’t need colors to come out right when printing and should use GIMP), and lots of other expensive pieces of software are officially supported only on Windows.
So, spare me the “don’t know any better” nonsense.
I swear, Desktop Linux fluffers are worse than vegans or Windows Phone fanboys shouting “look what Google did to your privacies Android users!”. I mean, duuude, it’s not going to change anything, your app ecosystem sucks and your hardware ecosystem also sucks. For Desktop Linux, I will make an exception to the Steam Deck, but that’s all. And even that doesn’t offer anywhere near 100% compatibility, so you still need a Windows PC for the games that aren’t supported on the Steam Deck.
kurkosdr,
Technically just because something is bundled doesn’t mean they didn’t buy it. Tell that to the toys in my kid’s happy meal 🙂
I know we had a discussion about it recently but many customers are forced to buy windows as a bundle whether they want it or not. I argue these forced OS sales are unethical and inflate windows sales numbers over the true market demand.
I looked it up. Still no end to end cmyk workflow, but it is getting more attention.
https://www.gimp.org/news/2022/06/03/cmyk-in-gsoc-2022/
I’ve said it many times, Linux isn’t for everyone, which is just fine. Although I kind of feel that you should be placing some of the blame on adobe and other commercial software developers who aren’t supporting alternative platforms.
Well, Thom’s comments may be over the top. We need to acknowledge that some people use windows because they prefer windows, simple as that. The problem is when creators are hell bent on spamvertising on your preferred platform, then what do you do? If you do nothing and keep using it anyway then the Thom Prophecy becomes true.
“Although I kind of feel that you should be placing some of the blame on adobe and other commercial software developers who aren’t supporting alternative platforms.”
No, you should blame Linux for not actually being a platform you develop for. You develop for Debian, Fedora, Flatpack, etc. and there isn’t a guarantee anything will keep working after the next update. It’s far more work than developing and supporting Windows/Mac, so they aren’t going to do it.
Even if it was the same work, nobody is gonna do it for a 2%-er OS. They can simply ignore that OS, ship only on Windows and MacOS, and immediately reduce their workload by 33.3% while losing only 2% of their audience. It’s the same numbers game that killed Windows Phone (not that I miss it tbh).
This is why the first versions of Steam OS were a failure, with not even Valve managing to port their entire library to Desktop Linux (lol). It’s also the reason why the current version of Steam OS ships with a passable win32/win64 compatibility layer, so that software vendors can treat Steam OS as some semi-obscure semi-mainstream version of Windows (let’s pretend for funsies that SteamOS is “Windows Vista Starter For Home Servers And Warehouses edition”) and treat any minor compatibility issues as minor Windows bugs affecting 2% of their users running the game on that semi-mainstream version of Windows (and hence maybe worth fixing). Some publishers do just that btw: Not officially supporting SteamOS but silently fixing Proton issues in their windows executables (Apex Legends silently receiving Proton comes to mind).
And that’s how Lord Gaben solved the problem.
*silently receiving Proton fixes
kurkosdr,
Yes, that’s exactly it, a numbers game. The companies don’t bother to support platforms with small markets, and so customers have little choice but to buy into the dominant platforms that are supported. It’s this feedback loop that gives us a desktop duopoly, phone duopoly, and so on.
I agree it’s certainly not ideal, but having a windows emulation layer may be unavoidable to get software to niche platforms that developers are uninterested in targeting themselves.
Ironically the same dynamic plays out with other alternative operating systems having to implement POSIX compatibility.
dark2,
I’m a professional windows developer too and have been even before picking up linux. Given the choice I’d honestly take GNU tools over visual C. VC has been a pain point over the years. I wouldn’t say linux doesn’t have it’s share of problems too because of course it does. I’ve shared many of those on osnews, but my honest opinion is that most of the complaints become exaggerated in order to fit a narrative. Porting to linux wouldn’t be that bad, especially if it’s already ported to macos which shares unix roots. I’m quite certain that if we peeked behind the curtains the barriers are more bureaucratic than technical.
Oh ffs, I clearly meant they didn’t choose to buy the thing, it came as a component with some product they bought.
Yes, many customers are forced to buy a Windows license as a bundle whether they want it or not, that’s how integrated products work: the manufacturer forces you to buy a bunch of pre-installed and pre-integrated components so that the user experience the manufacturer wants is achieved. And most people buy integrated products (computers), not components (OS), and not DYI kits (Clevo barebones). I also don’t like how most OEMs don’t offer a no-OS/FreeDOS option, but you have no legal standing on the matter because they don’t legally have to offer this customization. This topic has been done to death, please go and whine someplace else.
My original comment was that if you have a laptop that only officially supports Windows, most people would still buy the ready-to-roll Windows version even if a no-OS/FreeDOS option was offered. This is what happens with laptop models that do offer no-OS/FreeDOS versions btw. Much like most people wouldn’t buy a no-image Galaxy S22 phone and flash it with some third-party ROM.
That’s exactly what I meant too. They literally bought windows in the bundle (whether they wanted it or not).
And this is what should change, especially if the product one is forced to buy is a monopoly.
I have a feeling your not putting yourself in the shoes of others, but if the tables were turned and you were forced to buy an OS you didn’t want then you would have a problem with it too. It’s convenient for you that the OS you want happens to be the monopoly.
But it won’t change. There is no legal or financial incentive for it to happen. If OEMs could make money from Desktop Linux, they would. But Dell tried it with the “Dellbuntu” notebooks and fell flat on its face (and ever since it’s only selling Ubuntu in special “developer edition” laptops only).
It would be great if the FOSS people got the EU to force OEMs to sell no-OS/FreeDOS versions of every laptop model available so they can order them online (no retailer will stock them) so they’ll stop whining about it, but it’s a niche cause even by EU standards.
Why lie? It is.
Still, I would like to see some Desktop Linux laptops on the shelves giving Microsoft competition the same way I am glad Macs have a healthy retail presence nowadays (compared to Apple’s near-bankruptcy years in the 90s), but the market simply doesn’t want that. If there was a genuine demand for System76 laptops, retailers would stock them. It’s the same reason retailers stopped stocking Windows Phone phones the exact moment Microsoft stopped paying them to stock them. and the same reason Gameloft stopped porting their games to Windows Phone the exact moment Microsoft stopped paying them to do it. You can’t pay your way to network effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect).
kurkosdr,
They can make money selling only hardware, but the natural incentive is for them to make more money selling unwanted and redundant software licenses. It’s plainly obvious why vendors want to do this, but it doesn’t mean they should be allowed to force unwanted software bundles on consumers.
It’s always been a long shot fighting the monopolies and it always will be because they’re the ones pulling the strings and they know they have the power to screw over consumers and get away with it. So you don’t have to tell me about this difficulties. Regardless, I’m not going to stop speaking up and being an advocate for consumer rights.
If you really want to promote this then I don’t object. But as for me I say we still need to call for an end to forced product bundling. Dominant brands should not be allowed to continue to get away with it.
In the eyes of the law, a computer with an OS bundled is the same as a computer with a CPU bundled. In fact, some laws in some countries forbid the sale of computers without an OS (hence the FreeDOS pre-install thing). So, legally speaking, the whole thing boils down to “I want the manufacturer to give me complete component choice in an integrated product they sell”. It’s a niche cause even by EU bureaucrat standards. Deal with it.
kurkosdr,
I wasn’t saying that forcefully bundling a monopoly OS consumers don’t want is illegal today, but maybe it should be.
Believe me I already know how difficult it is to fight the monopoly, one that’s does everything they can to make sure they’ll get sales even if you want to use a competing OS. You would have a problem with it too if you didn’t happen to favor of the dominant OS. Honestly if linux were the monopoly that people were forced to buy, I genuinely would sympathize with and call for your rights to choose something else. I feel it would be petty of me not to just because I preferred linux. Forced bundling of the monopoly OS shouldn’t be allowed because it’s at odds with consumers choosing the OS they want with the hardware they want.
If there was a genuine demand for a Desktop Linux version of most laptop models, OEMs would offer them. Again, Dell has no problem offering a developer edition of their XPS13 laptop. The thing is, such demand doesn’t exist, in the same way that a market demand for Windows Phone variants of HTC phones didn’t exist (which is why HTC stopped offering them). You are a niche and OEMs have no financial or legal obligation to serve you with anything more than a selection of models such as the XPS13. So they don’t. End of story.
kurkosdr,
You keep explaining why vendors don’t cater to alternatives. You’re just not telling us anything we don’t already know. The reason is obvious to everyone: at 2% or so we’re too marginalized to have a critical mass. We know why the market doesn’t cater to alt-os, but that doesn’t mean we should have to tolerate abusive practices that force consumers to buy unwanted software from the monopoly. “End of Story”.
It’s a “monopoly” only if you ignore Macs and the PC models that are sold with Desktop Linux. So, your definition of “monopoly” is “when every model out there doesn’t cater to my niche”. It’s like listening to a Windows Phone dude complaining that the HTC M8 or the latest Samsung Galaxy doesn’t come with a Windows Phone variant. Yawn. Go away, you are borderline spamming.
No, that’s a ridiculous summarization of my point of view and I have to call it out as a straw man argument. Microsoft didn’t have 100% market share when it was declared to be one in lawsuits against them. If we take monopoly to mean 100%, then virtually no monopolies would exist at all. But regardless of the definition you want to use, it’s very well understood that when dominant corporations control too much of the market, use practices that are unfair to competition, and create barriers to entry, it is harmful for consumer choice and that is what I am complaining about here.
Oh ffs, if you look at the latest Statcounter stats for desktop OSes, Windows has barely 76% of the market. You just don’t like the major rival, which is MacOS. And again, you can order Desktop Linux laptops if you want. But Dell doesn’t owe you official Desktop Linux support on something like an Alienware laptop that only has drivers certified for Windows. No company has to tailor their products to your precise requirements. Go away.
Basically, what you LiveCD dudes don’t understand is that when a company sells Desktop Linux on a computer, they have to offer support with it. Which means they have to test it and certify it for Desktop Linux. Dell will do it for some laptops like the XPS13 Developer Edition to take care of the Desktop Linux niche, but they won’t do it for every single laptop model they sell. Which leaves no-OS/FreeDOS laptops that no high-street shop will stock, which makes them slow sellers (Lenovo will sell you one if you order it from them though). That’s a decent amount of choice for a niche market btw. But again, no company has to tailor their products to your precise requirements. Go away.
My point is, Microsoft will never give you such a refund. Not consistently and fairly anyway. They are secretive about Windows OEM bulk pricing for a reason. If you try to force them legally, they will disguise the cost somehow, such as selling special EFI chips that Windows requires to run and then giving Windows for free, MacOS-style. They can do what Apple did and put some kind of exclusive “secure enclave” or whatever in the EFI chip and make it special to justify the price. So, until you can come up with a way to price software that ostensibly costs $0, you can’t do anything about it, even if we assume there is the necessary political will to pass such a law.
tl;dr: I am not arguing you shouldn’t get such a refund, I am arguing you can’t, neither in market terms nor in legal terms.
kurkosdr,
Ah, we can agree on that!
They could force PC makers to do that, but they have to be careful with how they use their dominant position to control the market as it could be grounds for an antitrust lawsuit. Just think of how much stronger microsoft would be today if they had forced vendors to lock down secure boot in windows 8 all those years ago. Obviously microsoft executives knew this and they are notorious for going for the kill, the con was the consequence of antitrust lawsuits.
If regulators did get involved, they could require a reimbursement of the exact cost that Microsoft charged the OEM for one copy of windows as though it wasn’t purchased at all. Though ideally it wouldn’t be charged to customers who didn’t want windows in the first place.
I agree. The reality is those at the top hold a lot more cards than those at the bottom. Still, antitrust is one of the few tools we have to fight anti-competitive practices. Alas, the US government has not been very reliable at consumer legislation or going after abusive practices. They might throw the book down, or maybe do nothing at all and just look the other way. Frankly it depends on the political environment and the judges involved like a roll of the dice. Not even the supreme court has much credibility these days.
Wow, are we able to conclude the discussion on an amicable note? That’s pretty cool. Cheers!
This is what I’ve been struggling to make you understand all along: Microsoft will never give you a fair and consistent refund. They can as well give Windows for “free” and make it dependent on some kind of hardware or hardware part that they sell/license. And that’s why they will never give you a fair and consistent refund even if lawmakers try to force them to. They will work around it instead. All such a law will accomplish is remove the Retail and OEM DSP versions of Windows from existence. If you think about it, Windows is the last mainstream OS that is sold in a box, the rest are given away for “free”. It’s the new Silicon Valley way where all software is supposedly “free” but ends up costing more than software sold in a box somehow.
kurkosdr,
It wasn’t a matter of not understanding so much as it is a hypothetical that could play out many different ways.
1) It is improbable that microsoft would actually make windows free. If they did. it wouldn’t particularly bother me.
2) Hardware activation dongles have never been popular, but to the extent that windows requires one to run, it’s more a problem for windows users, not alt-os users.
3) Using windows dominant position to force OEMs and/or consumers to buy microsoft activation hardware creates it’s own antitrust issues.
4) To the extent that a windows license could be bound to a hardware dongle (usb/pci/m.2/whatever), it could be a step forward for our rights to reuse & resell that dongle. Remember this is one of my gripes today: not only are consumers frequently forced to buy a new copy of windows even though they just need the hardware, but they are additionally denied the right to reuse it, resell it, or even give it away to someone who needs it. So while I’d still call out how it is wrong for consumers to be forced to buy a ~$100 dongle for their computer, at least a hardware dongle could grant us more resale rights than we get today.
I’ll grant you that you can come up with an infinite number of hypothetical scenarios including retaliation. But future antitrust abuse cannot be the justification for current antitrust abuse.
Oh ffs, if you look at the latest Statcounter stats for desktop OSes, Windows has barely 76% of the market. You just don’t like the major rival, which is MacOS. And again, you can order Desktop Linux laptops if you want. But Dell doesn’t owe you official Desktop Linux support on something like an Alienware laptop that only has drivers certified for Windows. No company has to tailor their products to your precise requirements. Go away.
kurkosdr,
Even when I was a windows user, I could still recognize that forced bundling was an abusive tactic. Frankly the consumer rights I’m calling for don’t hurt windows users and it is irrational for consumers to defend corporate actions that deny them of choice, it just doesn’t make sense other than a petty desire to control others. So I truly have no idea what your problem really is – I’m lead to believe whatever your problem is, it’s rooted in unfounded hatred. Who knows why, maybe you actually want alternatives to suffer. In the end though I stand by my right to criticize the windows monopoly. And to be sure you don’t have to listen to me, but I’m not going to be silenced by you telling me to “go away”, thank you very much.
Nobody is forced-bundling anything! They are giving you a computer with the OS it’s certified for, ready-to-use. Please try to put this into your head: OEMs can only sell computers with OSes they are tested and certified for, and testing and certifying computers for an OS takes time. They will do it for Desktop Linux some models, but not all models, because Desktop Linux is a niche. What you LiveCD dudes don’t understand is that when a company sells Desktop Linux on a computer, they have to offer support with it.
Also, Lenovo will sell you a no-OS/FreeDOS version of most of their models (I know because I bought my Lenovo Z70-80 as a no-OS/FreeDOS laptop), and that despite the obvious niche-ness of the market for no-OS/FreeDOS computers.
At this point, I can’t tell if you are a well-programmed bot spamming.
kurkosdr,,
kurkosdr, this is objectively false for the majority of computers sold.
Get this through your head: I never asked them to support any other OS, only to unbundle the and allow you to source it on your own. You’re inventing difficulties here, but we’re not asking vendors to certify niche operating systems, only to sell us the damn hardware by itself, which is reasonable.
It’s not just linux. Even if you ignore the existence of linux completely, forced bundling is still an abusive practice. Even as a windows user I’ve been forced to buy redundant licenses when we already had a legal license. I’ve already gone over this with you before. No consumers should be forced to buy unwanted & unneeded software and what they do with the hardware is frankly none of the vendor’s business.. Obviously we all know why vendors are doing it, but it doesn’t mean it should be allowed.
As I said before, no-OS computers are a small niche that manufacturers aren’t obligated to serve. And yet, Lenovo will still sell you a no-OS version for most of their computers. Again, that’s how I bought my Lenovo Z70-80 (as a no-OS computer.) You always seem to pretend this isn’t a thing.
kurkosdr,,
A competitor being a tiny niche is not a justification for monopolistic business practices. Even if <1% ran something else, that's not a justification to force consumers to buy bundled monopoly software. Like I said even windows users should have the right to bring their own software licenses without double paying for windows. It's an anti-consumer policy that is very hostile to competition.
I’m genuinely glad you could do that, however there’s still a lot of abuse going on and it doesn’t obviate the monopoly/antitrust issues still happening on a wide scale. IMHO consumers need the right to unbundle computer hardware from computer software so that they can choose the best combination for themselves without being forced to pay for something they don’t want. A vendor can certify whatever they like, but at the end of the day it’s none of their business what we actually do with the hardware. I’m rooting for everyone to have the right to choose the hardware and software that’s best for themselves, which includes you!
I gotta say I’m having a tough time following your motivation. Why is it so important to you to promote less choice for others? I’m under the impression that your position is rooted in hatred of linux and/or its users and that’s all there is to it, can you convince me otherwise? Why can’t you agree that everyone should be able to make their own choices and that we should be cutting down barriers that are hurting users of alternatives? What is it about this that hurts you specifically?
And how are you going to do that for something like a Galaxy S22? How are you going to legislate unbundling the ROM from a Galaxy S22? It doesn’t even have a price. If you only legislate it for OSes that have boxed and/or OEM DSP versions, don’t you see how this could incentivize Microsoft to go ROM-only/preinstall-only so there is no specific retail or OEM DSP price for Windows? They have already kind of done that for Windows RT. That’s a side-effect I don’t want to see happen personally.
I am pointing out the absurdity of demanding that a whole industry does things your way when they have made it clear they are in the business of selling integrated ready-to-use products and have no legal obligation to do otherwise. With the exception of Lenovo, which will sell you exactly what you want, but somehow you won’t vote with your wallet and buy from them.
Plus the issue I mentioned above.
kurkosdr,
How? It’s already the case for galaxy s22 today. Neither users nor samsung are paying google for android. Google does not make money with upfront sales, it makes money through services, advertising, app store fees, etc. Many android phones allow custom ROMs including samsung-s22.
https://www.getdroidtips.com/custom-rom-samsung-s22-ultra/
There are challenges with phones to be sure like fragmentation and a stiff duopoly. IMHO we need to advocate for consumers on all fronts, both for phones and computers.
I’m asking very little to protect consumer rights and is crucial to dismantling the barriers to entry for alternatives. Remember, I’m not even asking vendors to explicitly support/certify alternatives. That’d be nice but it’s more than we need. The truth is that the very same same standards that are required for windows PC certification help linux compatibility as well. It’s the forced bundling of monopoly software that needs to stop.
I gotta be honest, it doesn’t sound like you’ve made a case that you would be greatly harmed if consumers had a right to buy hardware minus software. Your position on the other hand continues the impediments that alternative & niche operating system users are experiencing, which is a problem for us.
It’s great if you manage to find the hardware you want with the software you want. But the choice of computer hardware and software should be up to the consumer. It can be hard to find computers based on physical hardware requirements & preferences even before constraining one’s options down to a limited set that support linux.
And yet, nobody cares. Not even the EU. That’s why I am telling you it’s a niche cause very few people care about it. So, instead of demanding OEMs are legally forced to unbundle the OS (the only way I can see it happening for every OEM is if they are legally forced), which isn’t going to happen because nobody cares, please vote with your wallet instead and buy from Lenovo who will do exactly that unbundling for you (for PCs).
Those programmers that Samsung employs don’t work for free buddy. Samsung’s ROM is a heavily modified ROM of stock Android, even with its own custom UI. So, how do you put a price on Samsung’s ROM? Also, let me ask: how do you put a price on iOS? Aka, how do you legislate to unbundle Samsung’s ROM or iOS from their respective hardware considering they don’t have an announced price?
This is a potential side-effect of your “unbundling” proposal that could harm me: If you only legislate an unbundling regulation for OSes that have a retail or OEM DSP price, Microsoft could simply ditch their retail and OEM DSP versions and go ROM-only/preinstall-only to avoid that regulation. I mean they already went ROM-only/preinstall-only with Windows RT, so it’s not a stretch for them to do it. The only way your unbundling proposal could avoid risk harming me is if you find a way to price OSes that don’t have an announced price like Samsung’s ROM or iOS. Good luck with that.
@Alfman
In fact, please answer this question for me: How could Microsoft be forced to unbundle something like Windows RT from the Surface RT? How much does Windows RT costs exactly? And how would you put a price to it? There is no retail or OEM DSP version of Windows RT, so Microsoft could claim it costs 0€ or 0.01€. Same for Windows Phone 7/8 and Windows 10 Mobile.
So, even if you manage to whine at the EU enough to convince them to push your “unbundling” regulation, Microsoft will just end the retail and OEM DSP versions of Windows, go fully vertical on mobile (like they already did with the Surface RT) and start making their own motherboards on the Desktop, and then simply claim Windows costs 0€ or 0.01€, much like Apple bundles MacOS for “free” with every Mac. And that would harm me because I will be at the mercy of them providing upgrades, like it is the case for Android and iOS, instead of me buying a disc and installing the latest version of the OS independently.
Oh btw before you ask, Microsoft is currently tolerating Lenovo’s unbundling because Lenovo will not give you a price cut equivalent to OEM DSP if you choose the no-OS/FreeDOS option In fact, they are unclear about the whole thing and the price difference between no-OS/FreeDOS and Windows option varies by model. But if Microsoft is legally forced to give an OEM DSP price discount to every buyer cunning enough to ask for unbundling (so they can then install Windows pirate edition), there is a chance Microsoft will go vertical. Microsoft is very secretive about how much they charge OEMs for Windows, so it’s not too far-fetched.
So, I ask you again: how would you put a price on something like iOS or Windows RT, considering these don’t have a retail or OEM DSP version/price and only come with purpose-built hardware ostensibly for “free”? The OS vendor can always claim the OS costs 0€ or 0.01€. Your entire “unbundling” demand hinges on providing a satisfactory answer to this little detail. Good luck with it.
kurkosdr,
That “nobody” part is false. But I concede that for those who are marginalized, it can be difficult to get others to care about their rights.
Microsoft hardware is not really on my antitrust radar the way their windows software monopoly is. Microsoft hardware makes up less than than 5% of the market and could even be considered a niche in its own right. If we could at least stop forced bundling by the major OEMs, it would significantly reduce the barriers to entry for alternatives even if smaller niche hardware players continue do to their own thing. Their small market share limits the negative impact of their policies on alt-os. I am honestly less concerned with what the smaller players do so if you want to make a big deal about them then it can be more your battle than mine. My primary focus is the OEMs that exercising their dominant influence over the market in ways that hurt niche & alt-os users.
And what you don’t understand is that Microsoft can make Windows (the real thing, not RT) Surface-only tomorrow, and Surface hardware will suddenly make up much more than 5% of the market. Desktop PC builders and laptop OEMs can make do with Surface-brand motherboards and barebone laptops they can dress up with their own plastics accordingly. Or, you know, Microsoft can just sell them the EFI chip and make Windows compatible only with their EFI chips. “But Microsoft, why do your Surface motherboards/EFI chips cost $300 more compared to non-Surface ones? Uh… it’s just really good hardware, our OS totes costs only 0.01€” Isn’t this similar to the excuse that Apple uses when people ask how much their MacOS really costs? (answer: yes, it is)
You see, my little child, OEMs learned their lesson about these kinds of things when they pressured Apple hard on MacOS pricing and Apple made the next MacOS exclusive to Apple hardware as a result, and they won’t do the same mistake again. That’s why you will never see OEMs throwing temper tantrums about Windows pricing, not since Microsoft launched the Surface line anyway. But if users or the EU try to pressure Microsoft on that front, for example by mandating “unbundling” of Windows licenses coupled to mandatory OEM DSP refunds, I can easily see Microsoft going the Apple way of selling only with overpriced hardware and claiming a ridiculously low price for the software.
In fact, Microsoft is already de-emphasizing Retail and OEM DSP, as Windows 11 was for a while only available with a brand-new PC or as an upgrade from Windows 10 (and they weren’t even obligated to provide the “upgrade from Windows 10” part). So, be careful what you wish for kid, because you may soon see Windows cost “0€” or “0.01€”, but not in a good way.
So, this goes back to my original question: How do you price something like Samsung’s ROM, iOS, or Surface RT? Please answer for all three OSes. Because Microsoft is really the nice guy here for allowing you to buy Windows on a DVD and not forcing you to buy it together with new (overpriced) hardware. But keep in mind they can rescind that offer anytime they want if pressured on things like legally-mandated unbundling coupled with mandated OEM DSP-price refunds. In fact, they already rescinded that offer briefly for Windows 11.
So, I am not in favour of legally mandated unbundling until you answer the question in bold lettering.
kurkosdr,
I’ll voice my objection when it becomes an antitrust issues, until then it’s hypothetical.
You know, as much grief as the linux community gets for being condescending and patronizing, there’s a lot of unprompted insults being thrown in the other direction.
If MS were imposing punitive damages to companies that respect owner rights, then I agree that needs to be outed and looked at by regulators for antitrust abuse. I do think industry wide regulations could help protect consumer rights across the board including apple and google. But you keep posting whataboutisms with other companies, none of that dismisses the fact that as things stand microsoft is clearly the dominant player in computer operating systems, and that calls for microsoft getting more attention over unfair market practices even if you might not be comfortable with it.
Ultimately one thing is clear, we’re not going to agree. So let’s agree to disagree.
How is Microsoft the dominant player in computer operating systems? According to GS Statcounter stats, Android is the dominant OS with ~43% market share, Microsoft follows with a distant ~30%, and iOS is third with ~17.5%.
Arguably, Microsoft’s only “mistake” here was that they quoted you with an OEM DSP price (a Windows version normally only available to system integrators) which had the side-effect of providing you with a number to waive around while shouting “muh refund! I want an unbundle and a refund!”, even if you didn’t necessarily pay OEM DSP price. You’ve never asked for Android OEMs to unbundle their ROM and provide you with a refund, am I right? Or do you believe the Android ROM in an Android device and any drivers it contains really cost $0? Yeah, sure, of course it does. Those programmers totally work for free. So, Microsoft could make Windows available only with a new hardware, and you would presumably ask the same amount of refund you ask from Android device OEMs: $0. In fact, Microsoft did for a time provide Windows 11 only with new hardware, which means that during that time you didn’t have a number to demand a refund for. Not that this prevented you from doing it. I wonder how much you thought Windows 11 cost during those months.
So, my point is: you have to make sense. Until you come up with a way to price software that doesn’t have a quoted price (good luck with that), you can’t demand that any such unbundling results in anything more than a $0 refund. Because that’s how much the OEM will claim the software costs.
BTW if you think the $0 refund is a joke, there is a story I can’t find right now where an OEM claimed that Windows was given to a customer “for free”, and another OEM claimed the bundled Windows license costs $6: https://slashdot.org/story/127580
Which goes back to what I am saying: Until you come up with a way to price bundled software that doesn’t have a quoted price (good luck with that), you can’t demand that any unbundling results in anything more than a $0 refund. So, get your $0 refund by deleting the partition and be done with it.
kurkosdr,
You are conflating smart phones with computers. Microsoft is the dominant player in the computer market.
The prices that OEMs are paying microsoft is a good place to start. Microsoft does not deserve to be paid for OEM software licenses that consumers don’t want. This is fair, reasonable, common sense. You can take a contradictory position, but I think that’s short sighted and leads to hypocrisy when the tables are reversed. If you were forced to buy ubuntu software licenses as part of a mandatory bundled with the majority of computers, it’s extremely doubtful that you wouldn’t be complaining about it for being wrong and unfair, and you’d be right. I would empathize and call for your right to chose the computer hardware and software that you want. Advocating against niche users is a dick move and knowingly or not it compounds the monopolization of our industries.
“but please lecture people on how they don’t really need CMYK support because they really don’t need colors to come out right when printing and should use GIMP”
To my best understanding, Krita supports CMYK. No need to use The GIMP.
Their entire pricing structure for the Windows Workstation OS points this out.$200 for Win 11 Pro vs $140 for the Home version. I anticipate that Enterprises will opt for the Pro version which, I take it, will be ad free by default , or include a registry entry or group policy to disable ads, Whereas, you’re suck with ads in the Home version.
spiderdroid,
I’m not sure if you are aware that there is an enterprise version too, which is only sold to “enterprises”. Home users can upgrade to pro, but both of them face some of the same limitations with regards to things like forced updates whereas enterprise users have more control. If MS does green light more ads, my prediction is that it would affect both home and professional editions, the enterprise edition will be spared, but it’s just my speculation at this point.
@Alfman,
You’re more up2date than I’ve expected. LOL
We already know that. Whatever Microsoft will do with Windows in the future. And it’s clear they want to do something with it. But they are not yet sure what that is. The idea they will copy Apple or Google or both. That won’t happen. Anyway. Literally everybody will switch to GNU/Linux. As that will be the final straw. Whatever it will be. That will show Microsoft. Reality check. Regardless of what Microsoft does with Windows. In general nobody is doing anything. People in general just don’t care these days. And people in general accepted ads. Nowadays it’s more or less about ads anyway. The whole system is ad based. And the moment Microsoft or Apple find a way. From that moment onward it’s all about ads and everything that goes with it for them. It’s not like anybody will ask Windows or Apple users if they are OK with it.
“Literally everybody will switch to GNU/Linux.”
I’m a die-hard Linux zealot of about 25 years, but I’ve no idea what you’re smoking. Whatever it is, I want some.
To be honest its been there since Windows 10. The start menu tiles would sometimes show tiles for software you didn’t actually have installed. Clicking on them would install them.