I think you're confusing the seller with the license the consumer gets stuck with. No one objects to an Xbox with Microsoft software on it, because it's sold as a unitary system, as is Apple. If Apple made computers where you could put just any OS and software on them, that would be different.
-zridling
I'm not seeing the difference. You can install a different OS on an Apple computer. A friend of mine has XP running on an Apple machine and has said it's the best Windows box he's had. When you buy an Apple, you're still paying for the OS and still have to accept the license agreement for it.
Sun tried selling Solaris boxes. Nobody bought them. Dell and others have tried putting Linux on machines. Nobody bought them. The market has basically spoken and said that they only want Windows machines. So, hardware manufacturers have continued that. But if anyone is to blame, it's still the hardware manufacturers for not having options and the retailers for not carrying different options.
But I can understand their predicament. Hardware is a cutthroat business with low margins. How can they differentiate and sell machines in the current environment? Retailers are not in the business of customer service anymore. They're in the business of moving product, and the will only stock products that sell well and that sell with high margins for themselves. Who wants a computer with no OS sitting on the shelf when only 1 in 100 buyers will be interested in it? And what retailer wants to get into the configuration business of modifying computers?
It's very very far from being Microsoft's fault. The brunt of the blame belongs to the retail system, and that system is dictated for the most part by retailers and distributors. You need to get into Techdata or Ingram Micro if you want to sell a product (or similar for whatever is in Italy). That's not easy and it's very costly. Then you have to deal with the big retailers and get them to carry your product. Again, not an easy task.
But those are the 2 main obstacles to getting a product into consumer hands. Those are the decision points for what is available to consumers at retail.
However, that exposes many different companies and it's not that easy to go after 50 companies when you can simply go after 1.
I really can't see it being Microsoft's fault for the lack of choice on the shelves when the main obstacles to getting on the shelves are the distributors and retailers.
Does it work out well for Microsoft? Sure. But it's not their fault.
The same argument can be made for almost any product on the shelves, substituting "Microsoft" for some component of that product.
It's like going to a restaurant and ordering a set menu, then complaining that you don't want to pay for the drink that comes with it. It's a set! That's part of the deal! If you don't like it, order a la carte.
The same thing goes for computers. If you don't want the "set menu", don't buy it. You can always get your computer a la carte somewhere.
Sorry Zane, I just can't see this being any more than a "let's pick on MS" party. If they really wanted to address the problem, they'd address it at the cause - retail and distribution. However, they'd be trampling on free market principles (which they are anyways), and they'd have more parties with vested interests speaking out. Instead, they can just ramrod 1 company this way and nobody will speak out because they have no vested interest.
Recent Posts
