home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
- Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watserv1!wes.on.ca!tomh
- From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
- Subject: MS-DOS bundling (was: FCC will proclaim ...)
- Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:34:38 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Dec29.213438.387@wes.on.ca>
- References: <wiegand.725577960@lido16> <1992Dec29.172229.3466@microsoft.com> <8236@lib.tmc.edu>
- Lines: 65
-
- > philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper) writes:
- >> All right, this mis-information being spread is getting a little out of
- >> hand. It is true that *one* type of licensing contract offered to system
- >> vendors charges royalties per computer. It is also true that another
- >> type of licensing contract charges royalties per copy of OS sold.
-
- jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
- > Not necessarily. For example, say that MS charges $8 per machine for the
- > every-machine-gets-one contract, and $20 per license for the completely
- > unbundled version.
-
- Wait, Jay -- suppose IBM says "buy *all* your computer equipment from us,
- and we'll give you 40% off list. If you just buy that AS/400 that you
- need, we can only give you 25% off the list prices." Ooh, they're holding
- an economic gun to our heads! :)
-
- Of course none of us know whether the real numbers are anything like $8,
- $20, 40% or 25%.
-
- > This would be a prime case of MS forcing vendors to sell DOS and Windows
- > with each machine, whether or not the customer wants or needs it. (I can
- > hear the cries now: "But they're not holding a gun to their head!"...to
- > which I answer that force can be economic as well as physical.)
-
- No, they're not forcing anything. All it means is that the vendor pays
- Microsoft a royalty of $X per machine shipped for the RIGHT TO INSTALL
- MS-DOS on all the machines. They can choose to install or not to install,
- it's just that the money they pay Microsoft doesn't depend on the actual
- number of MS-DOS systems shipped, but on the total number of units.
-
- If we use your hypothetical $8 figure, that means that the vendor has to
- add $8 to the cost of every system sold, saving him a hypothetical $12
- for each one of the MS-DOS systems making up 90% of his sales. Sure, there
- is that extra hypothetical $8 for that last 10% of non-MS-DOS systems, but
- that's all that's there.
-
- So, no, the vendor isn't forced to ship MS-DOS. Yes, you will pay for the
- license, but you can't choose everything on your machine, can you? Can
- you delete that silly game port, or drop that never-used "Turbo" button,
- decline the Weitek socket you will never use, or buy your ATI Ultra without
- that "mouse" they include? No, of course not. But that won't stop you
- from buying that particular machine if THE TOTAL PACKAGE is a good deal.
- Why should that hypothetical $8 for MS-DOS be any different?
-
- > (Fortunately, though
- > , this may be changing; at least Dell is standing up to MS' pressure,
- > and I can always go get a PS/Valuepoint...)
-
- How do you *KNOW* that Dell isn't still paying the per-unit royalty, and
- just absorbing that hypothetical $8 if you specify a different operating
- system?
-
- Oh, and why is bundling OS/2 all right on PS/Valuepoints, but including
- MS-DOS and Windows is evil? Shouldn't IBM give us a choice, too, using
- the same criterial you apply to others?
-
- (Now, the machines *I* buy are very unbundled: I'll spec the motherboard,
- disk drive, video card, display -- and I'll add my choice of OS to it.
- But I certainly won't cry about a bundled MS-DOS that happens to come with
- a Unix system, or the useless mouse I get with ATI's accelerator cards.
- I just ignore those "features" when evaluating the products' value...)
-
- [ \tom haapanen "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
- [ tomh@wes.on.ca "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
- [ waterloo engineering software "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
-