Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
French Court decision Re. Bundling Win with PC
-
07-02-2012 11:41pm#1
Comments
-
-
Yes an increase in hardware prices if the manufacturers can't get income from installing all sorts of unwanted software and trial versions.
What will that do to EFI?
I don't see it affecting EFI ...... which is essentially firmware and some BIOS/whatever arrangement is required to be placed there by the hardware manufacturers to make the H/W usable.
There may of course be questions if some manufacturers do not make provision to bypass secure boot.
I do not see how the decision can negatively (from a consumer point of view) impact H/W prices.
What it should do is make things a lot more transparent to customers ...... how many buyers of Win loaded PCs have any clue how much the software costs? ....... or indeed that they do not own that software but are severely limited by its licence as to what they can do with it?
If PC manufacturer (i.e Dell) can offer a laptop bundled with Win on their website, then a customer should be able to purchase that same hardware without Win.
It does not prevent them from selling the bundle.
At the moment it is not possible to purchase from their site the full range of their products without OS ..... there are some that can be purchased, but are not comparable from a H/W point of view with the closest priced unit with Win bundled.
I guess it does put the likes of MS and the PC brand namers into a bit of a conundrum.
If, as seems to me to be the case, MS gives large scale purchasers of their software, huge discounts, so that essentially the OS is a very very small part of the bundled PC, and if that is shown to be the case, then MS would have some problems explaining how they are not ripping people off who buy their OS without a PC, at the prices they presently charge.
It could easily be seen as a monopoly taking advantage of their position in the market.
On the other hand, if some semblance of current price must be maintained by MS, then the brand namers might have to reduce the (without OS) price for their hardware to the minimum to maintain the differential.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out between them
0 -
-
This is going to be problematic. I work in retail, and people are outraged at MS office not coming bundled with their laptops,
Why not add it in for them?
You are there to give the customer what he wants.now they're going to have to fork out form Windows too?
They are already paying for Windows ...... what are you talking about?This will benefit a minority of people, and is going to leave your average joe soap hanging out to dry.
How do you come to that conclusion?The cost to the manafacturers of a windows licence is pittence, so the customer isn't going to see a drop in price, and they're now going to have to fork out another hundred quid for a licence of windows?
I don't know where you get the idea that two Win licences are needed
I agree these things should be transparent, but 90% of people want a laptop that looks nice, runs windows, and can go on facebook, now that's just going to get more expensive...
Why should it? How do you come to that conclusion?
All that has to happen is that the price of the hardware and the software are listed separately on the invoice.
.... and yes transparency is important to everybody ....
There is nothing in this decision that prevents the present bundles of hardware and software from being sold.
All would be required, I believe, is that the invoice show the parts of the bundle separately with their separate prices.
I fail to see how that can have any negative effect on the consumer, and can see quite a lot of benefit to the consumer from it ..... for instance being more accurately able to compare prices of competing product bundles.
In addition to benefiting the majority of consumers in that manner, it should also benefit the minority who wish to purchase the hardware without the software.
As I see it the only loser would be those who rip off consumers by hiding the true cost of parts of the bundles being sold. Suddenly light will be shone upon their practices!0 -
Because, this puts us back in the same position, whereby windows is bundled with the laptop, except for us an OEM licence is circa 100 euro, but for the manufacturers, it's nowhere near that cost. It may shave 10-15 euro off the cost of a machine, but not much more than that.Johnboy1951 wrote: »Why not add it in for them?
You are there to give the customer what he wants.
As above, they're paying a fraction of the cost of what a retailer would charge for an OEM licence. The saving of a couple of euro that the manufacturer makes will be lost when the 100 euro oem licence is paid for after.They are already paying for Windows ...... what are you talking about?
Because the vast majority of people are illiterate when it comes to computers. The last thing they're going to want is to change from windoze to *nix. I don't mean to say that some people won't like it, some wouldn't notice it, but many many more people would complain that it's not what they're used to. As for leaving them hanging out to dry, they're left with two choices, fork up another 100 euro for a licence that they used to get on the machine, or use an alternative OS that they don't want to change to.How do you come to that conclusion?
I don't know how you read that from my post. If the machine doesn't come with a licence, then one needs to be purchased.I don't know where you get the idea that two Win licences are needed
I think we might be on two separate wavelengths here...Why should it? How do you come to that conclusion?
All that has to happen is that the price of the hardware and the software are listed separately on the invoice.
People have a right to know how much they're paying for a product, that's why it should be transparent.
This would require the manafacturers to disclose the amount they pay per licence to the retailers and consumers, I can't see this going down too well.
Again, the licences cost pittance to the manufacturers,all that will happen is:As I see it the only loser would be those who rip off consumers by hiding the true cost of parts of the bundles being sold. Suddenly light will be shone upon their practices!
X company says they pay 10 euro per licence, people get outraged that MS charge 200 per licence, or 100 per OEM, so MS then just charge the companies more money.
This is if the breakdown is shown, but if it's not bundled then:
laptops become on average 10-15 euro cheaper, but instead come with no OS preinstalled. Customer buys laptop, realises they no longer have windows(with which they are comfortable), goes back to retailer who explains the situation, and then proceeds to tell the customer that the licence for a machine is an extra 100 euro...
Sorry for the long post, Long day at work...0 -
Advertisement
-
You are making an assumption that there will be no bundles like at present. There is no indication that this would happen.
So there would be no need for the customer to buy an OEM licence from you or a retail licence from someone either.
What should happen though is that the price gouging by a near-monopoly will be exposed.
Why should a retailer pay 10 times the price that a PC manufacturer does, for a piece of software that costs (near) nothing to copy or distribute, and the consumer pay twice as much again?
I know of no commercial reason for such a price structure .... except that it is possible in the present circumstances and so it is done for exorbitant profits.
So
there is no reason why a machine cannot come with a licence.I don't know how you read that from my post. If the machine doesn't come with a licence, then one needs to be purchased.
There is reason why it should be shown separately on an invoice.People have a right to know how much they're paying for a product, that's why it should be transparent.
This would require the manafacturers to disclose the amount they pay per licence to the retailers and consumers, I can't see this going down too well.
Exactly! People have the right to know!
Some fancy footwork will happen to try to hide it, I expect
If MS succeeds in getting the PC manufacturers to shown the price of the software as high - say €80 - then the hardware price will have to be shown low so the sale price is not affected.
That means for anyone buying a 'bundle' the price does not change.
But, if someone wants the hardware without software (they may already have a family licence for Windows), then it must be offered at a price not more than is charged in the bundle. The same manufacturing/delivery/etc costs apply. So the person buying hardware only should benefit from
1. the availabilty of the hardware
2. a competitive price for the hardware
Of course, as I mentioned in an earlier post ....... it does rather depend on whether MS can get the manufacturers to show the cost of software as artificially high or not.
If not, then MS is in a bind ...... if the manufacturers show say €10 for software in the price of the bundle, then a lot of questions will be asked about the OEM (say €100) price to a retailer, and the retail €200 prices for essentially the same product.
The decision should have interesting consequences .....0 -
True, I was. I believe if this does happen though, and software is bundled with hardware though, that chances are, the manufacturer will realise the problems, and pass some sort of markup on to the consumer, meaning that the bundles will be more expensive then they already areJohnboy1951 wrote: »You are making an assumption that there will be no bundles like at present. There is no indication that this would happen.
So there would be no need for the customer to buy an OEM licence from you or a retail licence from someone either.
Totally Agree.What should happen though is that the price gouging by a near-monopoly will be exposed.
This price structure exists everywhere in retail, Centra etc buy at far cheaper prices than they sell to us due to bulk buying.Why should a retailer pay 10 times the price that a PC manufacturer does, for a piece of software that costs (near) nothing to copy or distribute, and the consumer pay twice as much again?
I know of no commercial reason for such a price structure .... except that it is possible in the present circumstances and so it is done for exorbitant profits.
There is a markup from the manufacturer for a profit, and a markup from the retailer, it's a business, not a charity.
With regards to the line, that the software costs nothing to copy or distribute...
At a guess, 1000 people on the windows seven team, (engineers, not including promoters, or testers) at probably 80k a year(dollars), for 2 years, just for the core operating system, no updates, fixes, or anything...
That's a lot of money,
(this is just a guess on my part, but it's probably somewhere in the correct region...)
Again, they're not a charity, this has to be paid somehow.If you think that some people would happily s[pend 80-90 quid on a night out once a month, the cost isn't so great considering the amount you get.
Agreed, but that's more than the cost of a licence to many retailers i'd imagine.So
there is no reason why a machine cannot come with a licence.
There is reason why it should be shown separately on an invoice.
Exactly! People have the right to know!
Some fancy footwork will happen to try to hide it, I expect
If MS succeeds in getting the PC manufacturers to shown the price of the software as high - say €80 - then the hardware price will have to be shown low so the sale price is not affected.
That means for anyone buying a 'bundle' the price does not change.
I don't know of anyone with a family licence to Windows. Anyone I know that has a licence, has an OEM licence, bar a few people who have retail copies, or education licences. TBut, if someone wants the hardware without software (they may already have a family licence for Windows), then it must be offered at a price not more than is charged in the bundle. The same manufacturing/delivery/etc costs apply. So the person buying hardware only should benefit from
1. the availability of the hardware
2. a competitive price for the hardware
he cost doesn't have to be the same. If you go into centra, you can be offered a deal with your tea, that you get a bag of sugar free, even though it costs the manufacturer to make it, and the retailer to sell it, it can still be offered free with a purchase. You know how much the retailer is charging for it, you know how much is being charged for the tea, but if you just want the sugar, are you entitled to the sugar for the same price as it is in the bundle(free)
But if they do show up as artificially high, then this whole endeavor will have been pointless!Of course, as I mentioned in an earlier post ....... it does rather depend on whether MS can get the manufacturers to show the cost of software as artificially high or not.
If not, then MS is in a bind ...... if the manufacturers show say €10 for software in the price of the bundle, then a lot of questions will be asked about the OEM (say €100) price to a retailer, and the retail €200 prices for essentially the same product.
The decision should have interesting consequences .....
And interesting is definitely the word!
I agree with you, but I think this could have the opposite effect that we would hope on quite a lot of people.
On the original post, if I was the person who sold him the laptop, I would have taken the laptop off him, wiped the HD and given it back to him tbh!0 -
-
Why should a retailer pay 10 times the price that a PC manufacturer does, for a piece of software that costs (near) nothing to copy or distribute, and the consumer pay twice as much again?
I know of no commercial reason for such a price structure .... except that it is possible in the present circumstances and so it is done for exorbitant profits.This price structure exists everywhere in retail, Centra etc buy at far cheaper prices than they sell to us due to bulk buying.
There is a markup from the manufacturer for a profit, and a markup from the retailer, it's a business, not a charity.
Indeed, everyone must get their profit margin ..... but a factor of 10 is not a markup, it is a rip-off.With regards to the line, that the software costs nothing to copy or distribute...
At a guess, 1000 people on the windows seven team, (engineers, not including promoters, or testers) at probably 80k a year(dollars), for 2 years, just for the core operating system, no updates, fixes, or anything...
That's a lot of money,
(this is just a guess on my part, but it's probably somewhere in the correct region...)
Again, they're not a charity, this has to be paid somehow.If you think that some people would happily s[pend 80-90 quid on a night out once a month, the cost isn't so great considering the amount you get.
The cost of creating the OS or of supporting it is irrelevant -- I specifically mentioned "copy or distribute".
So if you accept that there is a cost to create the product in the first place, and that cost can be recouped in X number of sales at €Y each, you can add to that a margin of profit to give the sale price €Y+Z, that the creating company will be properly recompensed and profitable. In our example €Y+Z=€10
As in this case we are speaking of digital data, there is a miniscule cost to copy and distribute it, and bulk users, like some PC manufacturers can duplicate it themselves. In fact anyone can duplicate it, so the distribution cost is whatever it takes to host a link to the files.
Now look at it ....... it costs nothing extra get a copy of the software to me than it does to Dell or to any retail outlet.
Yet I, as a consumer will pay some 20x what Dell does (maybe more).
That cannot be accounted for by profit margins.
So, the cost of producing the product is fixed.
The cost of distributing it is near zero %
Then look at the prices ...... if MS can 'afford' to sell Dell licences at €10 each in bulk, then they can easily afford to sell single licences at €20 to the consumer.
If Dell buys a licence for €10, then it can easily afford to sell that licence to its retailers for €15 or less ........ a 50% markup on cost is most generous as there is no handling, storage, distribution etc etc involved.
Yes the retailer would have to 'package' that for its customers ...... and so they would 'add value' and charge accordingly.
As far as I can see the whole existing system is designed to rip off the customer, by hiding the actual 'value' of the software within the bundle.
Other prices are then inflated to continue that perception of great monetary value in the software.
Breaking the two apart so that everyone can see what they are paying for can do nothing but good for the consumer.
Heck, maybe people will even begin to realise that they do not actually own their copy of the OS they have paid for!
What a revelation that will be to most!But if they do show up as artificially high, then this whole endeavor will have been pointless!
And interesting is definitely the word!
I would disagree ..... it will allow the purchaser to see what is being charged (even though the figures are 'massaged'), but more importantly it will allow those who already have an OS to purchase the hardware without paying the inflated OS price on top.I agree with you, but I think this could have the opposite effect that we would hope on quite a lot of people.
I - presently - am failing to see how it could negatively affect the consumer.On the original post, if I was the person who sold him the laptop, I would have taken the laptop off him, wiped the HD and given it back to him tbh!
You would not have been given that option. The laptop was legally purchased; on first boot the owner is given the opportunity to refuse the terms of the MS licence and told they can claim back the cost from the supplier.
Anyone doing so is within their legal rights ..... refusing the licence and claiming a refund.
Dell and others have repaid varying amounts to those who have insisted on getting a refund of the cost of the OS.
I seem to recall the amounts about €80 being mentioned.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Advertisement