Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hardly. Profits for Windows is more like 99.9%. The cost of shipping a DVD is negligable. If you're talking about the Windows division within Microsoft, you need to include Windows Live services in it, too.

As of their reports for 2011, there's a server and tools division that has a 4.77bn income. Compared to their Windows division which took in 4.74bn. If you seriously want Microsoft to give their server + tools away for free, they'd lose almost 25% of the company's income.
Microsoft is really pushing the download and upgrade path this time for Windows 7. Even in the previews you have to do a little hunting for the ISO.

Frankly, I trust my e-mail or having a spare computer around enough with another copy of my Windows key or image.
 
It's not catering; it's money grubbing. Windows should be 1 version and cost way less.

No offense but, when a company tries to make a profit off its products its not called money grubbing. Capitalism is such that you can choose a different platform if you don't wish to buy a MS OS.
 
No offense but, when a company tries to make a profit off its products its not called money grubbing. Capitalism is such that you can choose a different platform if you don't wish to buy a MS OS.

Added to which, they are rumoured to be pricing Windows 8 more competitively...Had a monthly copy of Misco's latest offerings in the mail this morning....Just how many tablets are there? There were makes I'd never heard of some running Android, some Windows. I just can't see how the market can accommodate them all. The only tablet I have had hands on ( apart from my own iPad) is an Acer iconia Tab. Seemed well made, nice solid feel....I guess this MS offering will be well made, but sell in numbers? I doubt it.
 
Yeah, it's all in the DOJ's and the EU's head. :rolleyes:

They may have the majority of market share, but they don't have a monopoly. As we know, OS X is making good gains in the market and Dell even ships Ubuntu on some computers. So there is a choice for consumers thus demonstrating that there isn't a monopoly.
 
They may have the majority of market share, but they don't have a monopoly. As we know, OS X is making good gains in the market and Dell even ships Ubuntu on some computers. So there is a choice for consumers thus demonstrating that there isn't a monopoly.

Bad example as OSX is not comparable to Windows in that manner. OSX is only licensed to be used on Apple hardware whereas Windows is available for use upon anything that conforms to the PC standard for which the OS is designed to support. You can't legally choose to go out and buy only OSX and install it on non-Apple hardware as it violates Apple's EULA.

However all Linux/Unix varieties are available out there for people to use however the amount of (official) support you receive varies from product to product. Microsoft will stay on the phone with you to support you if you buy a retail version Windows but you won't get the same if you decide to install Linux Mint for example.
 
No offense but, when a company tries to make a profit off its products its not called money grubbing. Capitalism is such that you can choose a different platform if you don't wish to buy a MS OS.

There is a difference between making a profit and price gouging, because you own the market and you think people don't have a choice. Microsoft's poor business practice will bite them in the a$$! We need another OS option to rival them along side Mac. Maybe then MS will get their heads out and charge what Windows is really worth $1.
 
Bad example as OSX is not comparable to Windows in that manner. OSX is only licensed to be used on Apple hardware whereas Windows is available for use upon anything that conforms to the PC standard for which the OS is designed to support. You can't legally choose to go out and buy only OSX and install it on non-Apple hardware as it violates Apple's EULA.

However all Linux/Unix varieties are available out there for people to use however the amount of (official) support you receive varies from product to product. Microsoft will stay on the phone with you to support you if you buy a retail version Windows but you won't get the same if you decide to install Linux Mint for example.

This is a ******** argument. Is an OS a product? Of course. Does it do anything by itself? No. You need hardware to go with it. Hardware with an OS is in combination, a usable product.

Can any consumer go into a store and have a choice of a computer WITH an operating system? Yes... side by side in a lot of stores. Corporations? Sure... same thing with numerous IT suppliers.

Can you buy OEM hardware and put together a system with a choice of operating system? Sure.

You give reasons why so often Microsoft is the choice in that case; that OS X isn't licensed for non-Apple branded hardware, and that linux is largely unsupported and/or unsuitable for end users.

These are not reasons why Microsoft Windows is a monopoly. They are big self-limitations competing operating systems put on THEMSELVES.

Microsoft has every right to make a profit on their operating system. If their OS did cost too much, then people wouldn't buy it, because there are other ways of achieving, relatively speaking, the same result. You don't HAVE to buy a Microsoft system, but there are compelling reasons to do so, such as backwards compatibility, and hardware independence that's obviously very popular in the market place.
 
These are not reasons why Microsoft Windows is a monopoly. They are big self-limitations competing operating systems put on THEMSELVES.

Microsoft has every right to make a profit on their operating system. If their OS did cost too much, then people wouldn't buy it, because there are other ways of achieving, relatively speaking, the same result. You don't HAVE to buy a Microsoft system, but there are compelling reasons to do so, such as backwards compatibility, and hardware independence that's obviously very popular in the market place.

Sure, they have every right to make a profit but there's a point when you're overcharging for a product that makes you a price gouger and trying to control the market in an unfair way.

I'm all for Linux stepping up and becoming the third option to put pressure on Redmond to start inovating and pricing agressively.

MS should also start making thier own hardware. Stop the whining that they only make software. MS needs to prove to us that they can design a box that has a perfect hardware set for their OS. Maybe then Windows could atempt to compete with Mac OS.
 
Sure, they have every right to make a profit but there's a point when you're overcharging for a product that makes you a price gouger and trying to control the market in an unfair way.

I'm all for Linux stepping up and becoming the third option to put pressure on Redmond to start inovating and pricing agressively.

MS should also start making thier own hardware. Stop the whining that they only make software. MS needs to prove to us that they can design a box that has a perfect hardware set for their OS. Maybe then Windows could atempt to compete with Mac OS.

If you subtract the cost of the commodity hardware from a Mac, in 99% of cases you're paying MUCH MUCH more for the non-hardware part.

By your standards, Apple is the one overcharging for their operating system and gouging its customers.

Microsoft isn't mandated to make hardware because you want them to. They license their OS because they understand their hardware vision wouldn't fit all needs. That's a huge part of why Windows is a massive success.

For example, various OEMs selling a headless single socket but expansible tower. Its not a choice Apple even allows for. The failure of competitors to compete is their fault not Microsoft's.
 
This statement makes your entire argument invalid.

How, in what world, is Windows not competing with Mac OS?

Let me break it down since you didn't comprehend it from my previous statement.

Windows does not compete the same, because 1 they copy in stead of innovate 2 they do not design hardware around software and visa versa 3 they fragment their OS and price based on the fragments they've created.

Those three things sets Mac OS apart from Windows, basically putting Mac OS onto another level to which Windows DOSE NOT compete. Sure, from a superficial stand point they appear to be the same, but when you know both like I do you'll realize that Windows is the "K-Mart" and Apple is the "Nordstroms". You can compere them, but K-Mart can't compete with Nordstroms, the level of service and the quality is too high. :D

capiche?

----------

If you subtract the cost of the commodity hardware from a Mac, in 99% of cases you're paying MUCH MUCH more for the non-hardware part.

By your standards, Apple is the one overcharging for their operating system and gouging its customers.

Microsoft isn't mandated to make hardware because you want them to. They license their OS because they understand their hardware vision wouldn't fit all needs. That's a huge part of why Windows is a massive success.

For example, various OEMs selling a headless single socket but expansible tower. Its not a choice Apple even allows for. The failure of competitors to compete is their fault not Microsoft's.

Apple 30%
MS 80%

There is a big dif.
 
This is a ******** argument. Is an OS a product? Of course. Does it do anything by itself? No. You need hardware to go with it. Hardware with an OS is in combination, a usable product.
Not sure where you're going with this and how this applies to anything I commented about.

You might want to take a second look at what I was responding to, it was geared toward the comment regarding how MS doesn't have a monopoly and my argument was, while there's technically other OS's available, due to how Windows is licensed/distributed, it doesn't readily compare to OSX and does share many similarities of being a monopoly as there's no other entity doing the same thing (or remotely like them).

Can any consumer go into a store and have a choice of a computer WITH an operating system? Yes... side by side in a lot of stores. Corporations? Sure... same thing with numerous IT suppliers.
Again not sure where you want to go with this. You can't go into a store asking for a brand new Sony laptop preinstalled with OSX. You're limited to choices based on licensing and what the company chooses to offer. Anything else is soley up to the user to decide.

You give reasons why so often Microsoft is the choice in that case; that OS X isn't licensed for non-Apple branded hardware, and that linux is largely unsupported and/or unsuitable for end users.
The difference is in the support. Linux is open source and free. If you choose to use it, you're largely on your own to provide and seek support should you run into any issue you can't resolve alone. Most of the support you'll find for Linux distro's are primarily user-to-user.

Microsoft divides their products between retail and OEM with the key difference being that retail products are supported by MS directly, if you have an issue they'll help you for as long as you need over the phone. OEM requires you to acquire support from where you bought the OEM product, not MS (for example Dell, Lenovo, an authorized OEM partner, etc.)

OSX is licensed for only approved Apple hardware, should you need support, Apple is there. Should you decide on installing it on non-Apple hardware (i.e. hackintosh) or in a VM within another OS, Apple has no obligation to support you even if you bought a legit copy of OSX.

Redhat Linux was the first of the open-source OS's to be contrary to the lack of official support, they were the first to sell retail box copies of their distribution where the cost was purely about having an official support center to help you should you need it. So while the product was free, you were pre-paying for the support.
 
Last edited:
Except when said MS OS platform is in a monopoly position. Then capitalism fails to offer alternatives.

As noted, they're not a monopoly, there are viable alternatives, including Unix, Linux, and of course our favorite - OSX.
 
Bad example as OSX is not comparable to Windows in that manner. OSX is only licensed to be used on Apple hardware whereas Windows is available for use upon anything that conforms to the PC standard for which the OS is designed to support. You can't legally choose to go out and buy only OSX and install it on non-Apple hardware as it violates Apple's EULA.

However all Linux/Unix varieties are available out there for people to use however the amount of (official) support you receive varies from product to product. Microsoft will stay on the phone with you to support you if you buy a retail version Windows but you won't get the same if you decide to install Linux Mint for example.

So you're substituting a "bad example" with the worst example ever? Who cares? You don't want windows, you don't have to get windows. OSX is a competitor to windows, what hardware you're allowed to use it on is a separate discussion entirely.
 
As noted, they're not a monopoly, there are viable alternatives, including Unix, Linux, and of course our favorite - OSX.

Sorry, I fail to understand how you can seriously claim this. Microsoft is still in the same position they were in the 90s. They're just better at making you think there's competition in the OS field. Unix, Linux and Mac OS did not prevent Microsoft from being caught for Monopoly abuse and vendor lock-in through anti-competitive measures by both the EU and the US DOJ.

----------

They may have the majority of market share, but they don't have a monopoly. As we know, OS X is making good gains in the market and Dell even ships Ubuntu on some computers. So there is a choice for consumers thus demonstrating that there isn't a monopoly.

Same arguments didn't hold water in the 90s, they don't now. Just because Microsoft can't actively force Dell to ship only Windows (and frankly, try to find the Ubuntu/RedHat stuff on their site, it's always been well hidden and frankly, they've been adding and dropping it occasionally) like they did back before the DOJ investigation does not mean they aren't in a monopoly position. They still have quite the sway over OEMs and command a position of control over the industry choices.

The EU still believed Microsoft to be in a monopoly position and thus subject to antitrust regulations as recently as 2008.

Some of you people would have history repeat itself by dropping your vigilance. Microsoft is not reformed, they're just under surveillance and thus can't really actively act as they did before these state investigations.
 
(and frankly, try to find the Ubuntu/RedHat stuff on their [Dell's] site, it's always been well hidden and frankly, they've been adding and dropping it occasionally)

The point isn't whether or not it's easy to buy one of the dozens of Linux distros pre-installed. (Most Linux shops will have a favorite distro, and would wipe the pre-installed one and install their own Linux flavor-of-the-moment.)

A big part of the DOJ case was about requiring everyone to buy Windows whether or not it was wanted.

What part of this menu makes Linux "well hidden"? And OMG, look at the prices for Linux - it makes Windows look like a bargain!
 

Attachments

  • dell.jpg
    dell.jpg
    244.8 KB · Views: 89
So you're substituting a "bad example" with the worst example ever? Who cares? You don't want windows, you don't have to get windows. OSX is a competitor to windows, what hardware you're allowed to use it on is a separate discussion entirely.

It is a very good example of the point I was making. Many people simply compare MS Windows to Apple OSX on the same level in terms of how each product is marketed. Now if we were talking about Adobe Premiere, Sony Vegas and Final Cut Pro, then we'd have a great discussion because each product are directly competing for the same target market and audience.

Apple has never marketed OSX as a direct competitor to Windows as a choice to using it by itself, this matters because no matter how much I love OSX, if I don't own an Apple computer, I can't legally experience it (under the EULA) until I do.

Apple's goal isn't to get Windows users to go out and spend $30 on OSX and install it on their Dell and Sony machines, their intent is to have the user make a complete system purchase so it's not as simple as buying OSX, a Windows user will have to buy a complete machine which could cost hundreds if not thousands just to get the official OSX experience.

For a current Mac user, can you get the MS Windows experience without having to buy a PC machine? Yes. So the price invested is purely for the MS OS itself.
 
Last edited:
The point isn't whether or not it's easy to buy one of the dozens of Linux distros pre-installed. (Most Linux shops will have a favorite distro, and would wipe the pre-installed one and install their own Linux flavor-of-the-moment.)

Shops ? What about consumers ? ;) (yes, I doubt they'd install Arch on LVM for me with the proper filesystem configuration, while respecting my favorite lv/vg naming conventions).

A big part of the DOJ case was about requiring everyone to buy Windows whether or not it was wanted.

A big part of the DOJ case was about Microsoft forcing OEMs to only sell windows, to include it on every PC sold no matter if the consumer wanted an OS-less or a different OS, and to not sell competing OSes.

Then there was the whole Internet Explorer bundling deal (it can't be made seperate! yeah right... that's why explorer.exe and iexplore.exe are still seperate executables...).

Also, there was the whole "open up your damn protocol specifications so that others can interoperate with your systems", which was the first issue the DOJ tackled and won (resulting in documentation for SMB and CIFS getting produced).

What part of this menu makes Linux "well hidden"? And OMG, look at the prices for Linux - it makes Windows look like a bargain!

Well hidden, meaning it's not available each time you click "Configure" on laptops/desktops and most of the time, you have to go to the "Small/Medium business" section, choose a laptop from there that's the same model than in the "Home" section and then you get the option when you configure.

It's not always just there in plain view and it's not always an option for the same model depending on where on the site you are.
 
It is a very good example of the point I was making. Many people simply compare MS Windows to Apple OSX on the same level in terms of how each product is marketed. Now if we were talking about Adobe Premiere, Sony Vegas and Final Cut Pro, then we'd have a great discussion because each product are directly competing for the same target market and audience.

Apple has never marketed OSX as a direct competitor to Windows as a choice to using it by itself, this matters because no matter how much I love OSX, if I don't own an Apple computer, I can't legally experience it (under the EULA) until I do.

Apple's goal isn't to get Windows users to go out and spend $30 on OSX and install it on their Dell and Sony machines, their intent is to have the user make a complete system purchase so it's not as simple as buying OSX, a Windows user will have to buy a complete machine which could cost hundreds if not thousands just to get the official OSX experience.

For a current Mac user, can you get the MS Windows experience without having to buy a PC machine? Yes. So the price invested is purely for the MS OS itself.

Irrelavent. OSX is a competitor to windows and apple has marketed it as such (I'm a Mac/I'm a pc commercial) and they were specifically targeting Vista. I don't see how not being able to buy it and put it on a machine of your choice suddenly makes them completely different and non-competing products.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.