rmac
25/9/07 2:32AM |
The 'box shifters' won't like that. They would have to provide 'real' support and that could be a major headache without intelligent, knowledgeable and informed staff. |
torbenm (+0.1)
25/9/07 9:28AM |
It hardly matters for Ionyx if you can't bundle the OS. It can't really run anything else apart from, possibly, Linux, and you wouldn't buy it to run Linux. Same thing about A9 and (to some extent Macs).
So unbundling the OS really only matters for mainstream PC hardware, where unbundling the OS will make the cost of Windows more visible.
As for box-shifters, they can unbundle the OS by unbundling the HD, so you get a choice of a HD with pre-installed Windows or an empty HD. If they get the Windows HDs from the vendors, they don't need to do more support than they do now (except for putting the HD into the PC). |
jymbob  (+1.0)
25/9/07 9:34AM |
If this goes ahead with any degree of fairness, the company that's really going to lose out is actually Apple, as they'd have to let people decide which OS they want on their shiny plastic boxes. The article above seems curiously silent on that issue. |
jess
25/9/07 10:03AM |
I wonder if this would make them officially release a PC version of OS X?
There ought to be exceptions for existing products. What are the RISC OS options? Since RISC OS performs the function of the BIOS in a PC, a RISC OS system without an OS is useless for anything.
I suppose the options are a bootloader (with presumably the option of installing an OS to flash) or a cartridge based OS. |
rjek (+1.0)
25/9/07 10:08AM |
This may also make people who want Windows pay more, as if it isn't bundled, the cost of Windows will be more.
In reply to jess:
Doubtful. Apple are a hardware company, not a software company - they're business is selling expensive ornaments that just happen to run OS X. |
jess
25/9/07 10:12AM |
Actually they would have to sell it separately. So all it would need would be for someone to come up with a loader (which has been done for illegal installs already). |
adamr (+1.0)
25/9/07 10:23AM |
In reply to drobe:
"The plans ... would break Microsoft's monopoly in the desktop PC market."
Of course they wouldn't. They might help, but I suspect it would take more than that to defeat the behemoth that is Microsoft.
In reply to rjek:
"if it isn't bundled, the cost of Windows will be more."
Why? Presumably MS will still give large discounts to the "box shifters".
Adam |
rjek
25/9/07 10:33AM |
In reply to jess:
Even if they didn't include it with machines, there's nothing stopping them putting licensing conditions in such that it can only be run on Apple's hardware.
Also, they already sell Mac OS X without hardware. People already have opportunity to make a "loader". |
jess
25/9/07 10:48AM |
That's only for PowerPC at present isn't it? (and the existing loader just allows it to install on unsupported old models).
breaking license conditions isn't as bad legally (usually) as pirating software, and the conditions may not be legal everywhere (or even under the new legislation).
|
rjek
25/9/07 10:54AM |
In reply to Jess:
No, it isn't just for PowerPC.
Breaking licence conditions is precisely as bad as using pirated software. Neither are illegal, but both are copyright infringement.
I doubt making it illegal to not do business with people for non-race/sex/gender reasons in the EU will ever happen. |
arawnsley
25/9/07 11:12AM |
I'd assume any EU introduction could simply be bypassed by the vendor asking "I assume you'd like the standard software with that?" (or some equally loaded question) for each PC, which would make it something of a non-event. Right now, you're supposed to be able to get versions of XP without Media Player (following an EU ruling), but I've never seen them in the oem channel, and I think they cost as much as the normal copies, so that SKU disappears uinder the waves.
Still, it'd be nice if the EU did something positive with all the VAT earnings they get their hands on!!! |
adamr (+2.0)
25/9/07 12:26PM |
In reply to arawnsley:
But presumably the point would be that as part of the unbundling the retailers will have to advertise both prices - that's the crux - to make the pricing transparent so the concept of "cheap" linux actually starts to mean something to punters. Clearly the XP "N" thing is a bizaare lame duck since no-one in their right mind would buy a less capable (and probably deliberately broken) product for the same price as the full version.
Adam |
cables
25/9/07 12:30PM |
A ridiculous ruling. Far better would be a ruling that customers have the option to buy the PC without an OS installed. That way, I could buy (for example) a laptop and install linux on it without having to pay any licence fee to M$. |
coling
25/9/07 12:35PM |
I can't see how not supplying a computer with and operating system is in in the public interest. Most people with computers couldn't install an operating system, even if it was supplied on a hard disc in another box ready to plug in, so how would it be in their interest? The alternative is to have the ability to specify which OS you want to be supplied with the computer but that would make the computer more expensive.
As I see it it's nothing to do with public interest it's to do with linux users being upset at having to pay for windows, they'd rather pay more for a computer than pay microsoft. |
guestx (+1.0)
25/9/07 12:47PM |
In reply to coling:
"I can't see how not supplying a computer with and operating system is in in the public interest. Most people with computers couldn't install an operating system, even if it was supplied on a hard disc in another box ready to plug in, so how would it be in their interest?"
From what I've heard, even if you buy a computer with Windows "pre-installed" it doesn't boot straight into a usable Windows desktop - instead, it chugs away for a couple of hours finishing off the install started in the factory. So I doubt somehow that making someone pop in a CD/DVD with the right software and having it copy everything over would be any more hassle than things already are.
"The alternative is to have the ability to specify which OS you want to be supplied with the computer but that would make the computer more expensive."
And why is that? Isn't this the whole point of making people unbundle stuff? There's absolutely no pricing transparency at all. You ask not to have an added extra and suddenly the product costs *more*! Sounds like a subsidy is in there somewhere.
"As I see it it's nothing to do with public interest it's to do with linux users being upset at having to pay for windows, they'd rather pay more for a computer than pay microsoft."
It's often worth paying more for a better product, but if the reason for paying more is some kind of penalty for not having chosen Microsoft software, then I think that an investigation is very much in the public interest. What if your Iyonix (or Omega, or whatever) had a £50 levy on it for not running Windows (on top of any price for the OS) because the vendor could have sold you something with Windows on it? I think you'd change your tune. |
coling
25/9/07 1:08PM |
My iyonix has a 500+ukp levy for not running windows and I was happy to pay it.
Mac users also pay a premium for not running windows.
If RISC OS ran natively on a PC I'd get be able to get a cheap computer courtesy of the PC manufacturers - microsoft symbiosis which would cost far less than an iyonix. PC manufacturers make their products with windows in mind and that is what drives the prices down. Linux has taken advantage of the cheap hardware produced by this relationship but the hardware is only cheap because of microsoft.
Why haven't companies decided to sell only linux PC's after all linux is free. The reason is that they can't sell them cheap enough to tempt people away from windows PC's. |
AMS (+1.0)
25/9/07 1:52PM |
To quote the article>"His report goes on to say that interoperability and open standards would be encouraged in a more competitive market."
And then it is inferred that Iyonix (the only RISC OS machine with an open source version oif the OS) is the one required to be supplied without an OS while A9Home which has a "closed source" version isn't. Beggars belief.
As to the quote that "For the Iyonix, it might well be such that Castle would have to sell it without the OS, especially given that it is being sold as a general purpose computer." So A9 isn't a general purpose computer. Well that'll be news for the people who bought it I guess.
A9 has no alternative OS at all. It is totally closed and there is no competition. Iyonix you have Linux, RO5 and the option (albeit unlikely) of Select. Surely the suggestion of fostering competition would more apply to A9 where there is less (as in NO) choice of OS.
But eh why let a bit of logic creep in where it isn't required eh ? 
|
adamr
25/9/07 2:28PM |
In reply to coling:
"the hardware is only cheap because of microsoft"
I can't follow your logic. Why on earth do you think the hardware is cheap because of Microsoft?
In reply to AMS:
I think you're reading too much into some off-hand comments unrelated to the main issue! Also - the Iyonix doesn't have an open source OS.
Adam |
hEgelia (+1.0)
25/9/07 2:58PM |
I'd suggest people actually download and read the report, which is linked at the bottom of the article. I think it will clear up a few things, among which that Apple has been "exempted". By the way, just for the sake of clarity; this report isn't a ruling. Merely a piece of advice.
In my opinion, the think tank's advice can lead to a distinctly positive outcome, if properly debated by decision makers in Brussels. I am of the strong opinion that the current situation is extremely unhealthy for everybody except Microsoft. I'm all for de-coupling Windows as the default OS on IBM-PC compatibles. However, it should not mean a user must purchase an OS separately and install it manually. I'd suggest a consumer should be able to opt for a PC with Windows, a PC with a particular (and properly supported) Linux distribution or simply a PC without an OS.
I believe it's totally cool if Microsoft started manufacturing their own PC's, like Apple builds their own PC's. Like Acorn, Atari, Commodore, etc. used to. People tend to forget that a Macintosh simply isn't a IBM-PC compatible, even though it technically almost is. The fact that it can run Windows isn't anything new, nor should it mean it should therefore come without OS X and Apple should sell OS X for IBM-PC compatibles. Macintosh computers have been able to run Windows for years, but until now it can only do so through specially designed software. A RiscPC can run Windows or Linux natively. If Castle still sold them, would they therefore also have to be bundled without RISC OS, so that a consumer can opt for it to solely run Windows or Linux? No, simply because a RiscPC (or Iyonix for that matter) isn't an IBM-PC compatible and it requires special software to run an OS other than RISC OS. |
jess (+1.0)
25/9/07 4:06PM |
They recommend that an Apple Mac isn't thought of as a commodity computer, if that were the case then the Iyonix certainly isn't either.
However, they need to come up with a definition that achieves what they want without being unfair. Much as I dislike M$, a rule needs to be fair.
Even if they say that the rule applies to any OS with a certain market share. (which of course wouldn't be likely to affect Vista for a while  )
Perhaps they could define it as any OS run from any re-programmable medium. Which would allow RISC OS and symbian, wince etc. |
guestx (+1.0)
25/9/07 11:51PM |
In reply to coling:
"Linux has taken advantage of the cheap hardware produced by this relationship but the hardware is only cheap because of microsoft."
Nonsense! Hardware is cheap because of the demand for hardware and high volume cheap manufacturing in the Far East. You can claim that Microsoft drives demand because "they make computing so easy", but that would be quite an incredible thing to claim in the RISC OS scene, given that even platform naysayers like myself are fully aware that RISC OS was usable enough for punters almost twenty years ago, and we all know that driving demand isn't as simple as that, anyway.
Perhaps Windows 3.1 and 95 stimulated demand (alongside the hype) beyond what DOS and Windows 3.1, respectively, previously offered, but I think you'll find that a range of alternatives could have kept the punters just as satisfied. If OS/2 had been dominant, I'm sure you'd be thanking IBM for making hardware cheap instead. |
torbenm (+1.1)
26/9/07 8:35AM |
Coling wrote:
"Why haven't companies decided to sell only linux PC's after all linux is free. The reason is that they can't sell them cheap enough to tempt people away from windows PC's."
I rather think it is because their licensing deals with Microsoft makes them pay a license fee for every computer they sell, regardless of whether it was Windows or not. So there is no incentive for them to sell with another OS. And while they can get a licensing deal that makes them pay only for machines with Windows installed, that is a much more expensive per-machine license. This is, IMO, a clear case of abusing a de-facto monopoly.
Forcing vendors to unbundle the OS will make a per-machine license unenforceable, which helps competition. |
coling
26/9/07 8:59AM |
It seems obvious to me - but my logic always seems to be at odds with everyone else It has nothing to do with my opinions of the operating systems involved I would think the same if the roles of linux and microsoft were reversed.
Microsoft make an operating system and the machines that it uses are designed to run windows. It's no different than riscos and iyonix except that more than 1 company is involved. The price is driven down as manufacturers all want a piece of the microsoft hardware pie and think that they can make a profit making windows boxes cheaper/faster/better.
You can't tell me that any company starting up a hardware business making PC hardware don't have at the top of it's agenda that the hardware must work with windows. They don't care about any other operating system The only profit in the game is to sell windows boxes because you can sell them fast.
Then there are the box shifters. As long as microsoft has such dominance they only need stock boxes of windows PC's if they had to stock boxes with other operating systems the waste of floorspace taken up by computers they can't sell as quickly will drive the average price of a box up. If windows boxes outsold linux boxes 5 to 1 then you would have to make 5 times as much profit on the linux box to justify keeping it in stock and that is why buying a windows box and putting linux on it is the cheapest way of getting linux. |
torbenm
26/9/07 9:09AM |
In reply to coling:
If you don't preinstall operating systems, you don't have to stock computers with different operating systems - you just stock OS-less computers and have boxes of CDs (that take up next to no space) with different OSs. Or better yet - you download the newest updated version and give it to the user on a CD or flash card.
As for hardware being made for Windows, the only way this is visible is that the vendors supply drivers to Windows. Most devices these days use standard interfaces (USB, ATAPI, etc.) that aren't specifically targeted to Windows. And if it was not for Windows dominance, all devices would now carry their own drivers in bytecode on a flash ROM and upload it to the host when plugged in. No more messing with drivers etc. - you get real plug and play. |
druck (+1.1)
26/9/07 9:32AM |
I don't think this proposal if enacted will actually change anything on the ground. A punter will still go in to PC World or some other idiot-shop and come away with a PC with Windows installed on it, via some dodge or another. The only benefit is if the retailer is forced to state the price of an OS-less machine with the price the manufacturer is paying for the Windows OEM licence removed, so people can see what the real cost of Windows and any bundled software is.
As we've seen in comments about the EU vs Microsoft judgement by ordinary punters in places like the BBC News website, people think Windows is free because it comes with the machine, and Microsoft shouldn't be punished for being so generous. They aren't aware of the either the real cost to them, or the vast profit margin on the pre-installed OS and Office.
The proposal would hopefully put an end to the ridiculous situation where companies such as Dell make it as difficult as physically possible to actually obtain an OS-less or Linux pre-installed version of the boxes they claim to sell (to escape allegations of unfair practices), but when you actually find them, the machine with "free OS" costs more than the identical one with Windows installed. |
jymbob (+4.2)
26/9/07 10:11AM |
Having just scanned through the article, I'm somewhat appalled by the lack of thought that's gone into it.
Apparently, according to the logic of the authors, the Mac is a niche product that isn't aimed at the mass market.
To quote directly from the article "We consider the Mac to be a premium, niche product ... which is difficult to justify in the business world outside of the publishing sector. We therefore do not think that the Mac, despite claims of its superiority, provides a meaningful competitive threat to Microsoft."
I'm sure Apple would disagree. Their "Get a Mac" campaign seems to be driven at demonstrating that a Mac can do everything a (Windows) PC can. More and more people are buying them as desktop computers.
However, according to Alex Singleton's quotes above, the IYONIX is an entirely different matter. Clearly that's a mass market computer whose mere existence causes the boys at Redmond sleepless nights at it continues to threaten their dominance.
Drafting this article and failing to include all desktop PCs was a bad idea, makes the thing look very much like another "We hate Microsoft and love Apple" rant and will almost certainly turn out to be a waste of time.
Incidentally, if I could buy a Mac mini without the cost of OS X, I'd be tempted. I'd stick linux on it anyway. |
coling
26/9/07 10:21AM |
Surely it is a backward step for users to have to install the operating system however easy that is made? You wouldn't expect to have to do that for other devices that have operating systems would you?
There are many users who just use the machine as it comes out of the box and never install a program. Part of the boom in home computing and thus the force for driving down prices has been the capabilities of the computer out of the box.
Yes there are standard interfaces for devices but they are targeted at windows - as you say yourself things would be different if you didn't have windows. You have to remember that you have many manufacturers of the same computer, ie a windows box, and it is in their interest to collaborate to keep their costs down and it is this collaboration where the 'standard' interfaces come from.
They are effectively not standard interfaces but windows box interfaces that computers like the mac and iyonix use to keep their costs down. No-one is making a device with a new interface for an Iyonix. If 90% of computers were BBC computers the Tube would now be a standard interface.
|
rjek
26/9/07 10:59AM |
In reply to Jymbob:
If you could buy a Mac mini without OS X to just run Linux on, why don't you buy one of the myriad of similar devices that are already cheaper? Or, to paraphrase Charlie Brooker from his hysterical article ( [Link: www.guardian.co.uk] - read the first comment, too), are you just after a rubbish aspirational ornament? |
jess
26/9/07 11:34AM |
In reply to coling:
users have to do a lot of the OS install on Windows (and even a little on the mac). They don't come ready to use. Booting up from an install DVD isn't going to be any more challenging.
If the manufacturers have any sense they'll supply machines ready partitioned, with any required drivers on the second partition.
It would also mean not having to buy a new OS if you replace your computer and wipe the old one. |
guestx
26/9/07 11:43AM |
In reply to coling:
"Surely it is a backward step for users to have to install the operating system however easy that is made?"
Are you telling me that at no point is any buyer of new hardware asked to insert some CD or other to get access to the manual (which isn't the generous paper affair that Acorn used to provide) or to install some extra thing or other?
"Yes there are standard interfaces for devices but they are targeted at windows"
Just because RISC OS support for standard interfaces has been on and off over the years doesn't mean that USB, Firewire, PCI, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and so on are all Microsoft-driven innovations. I think you have to give Intel the credit for most of that. Compare and contrast these standards with dirty stuff like Winmodems and the like which is what happens when a bunch of chipset manufacturers get together with Microsoft and cook up the kind of thing you think is going on with all the other stuff.
"They are effectively not standard interfaces but windows box interfaces that computers like the mac and iyonix use to keep their costs down."
You have heard of Intel, right? |
| Use the forum for more comments on this article |
Computers should be sold without a bundled operating system, free-market think tank 