What abuse is occurring here? The customer is attempting to get money back for something he was not charged for in the first place-Josh
Not so. The cost of Windows is not nil. Therefore the cost is bundled in the whole package and he will be paying more than if Windows were provided free to Dell.
If the cost to nil were nil, then MS would be potentially subject to anti-monopoly legislation.
Dell is not selling very many desktops with Linux because the demand simply is not there. These linux distribution makers could work with dell to get it included on their systems, as they have the netbook/notebook sector, but they apparently aren't working hard enough. It should not be a hard sell given that Linux is free from the start thus negating the cost or "monopoly abuse" factor, it just appears that the consumer does not want/care for Linux. They want what they are used to. -Josh
It is probably largely true that most of the public will pay the extra cost of Windows rather than use Linux. But this
is very much affected by the difference in price. The netbook market showed that people were happy to buy computers with Linux when their was a large price difference but switched away when the difference became very small. As things stand, the consumer does not get the chance to consider a difference in cost as a factor since Windows is included 'free'.
, this gentleman seems intent on trying to get money back that he did not spend. He is NOT paying for Windows, he is paying for the hardware.
-Josh
Not so. He is paying for a hardware/software bundle. He would have paid less if Windows were not bundled.
But basically it is an issue about monopoly. MS don't maintain their power and profit by being best, but by being ubiquitous. This is just one small consumer's attempt to say that they shouldn't be able to get away with these business practices free of challenge.
Recent Posts
