OSNews

Is assault an inherently negative term or something?

I'd say so (especially in the context of the whole story - pressure on Asus, etc). But hey, correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited 2008-05-12 18:07 UTC

I can't think of a positive connotation. In law enforcement, my field of expertise, assault is most definitely a bad thing to do to someone, as it lands you a night or more in jail. Other uses of the word include acts of war, verbal harassment (verbal assault), intimidation tactics, and generally giving someone a bad day.

Yeah, I'd say it's a pretty negative concept.

This would be price discrimination which would actually make it anti-competitive.

I agree: if Microsoft is not allowed to set the price of its product to fight the competition, then it is anti-competitive.

Edited 2008-05-12 23:10 UTC

Look up the definition of price discrimination and loss-leader.

Well, where exactly do you see price discrimination in this case?

Price discrimination also might be used as a predatory pricing tactic -- setting prices below cost to certain customers -- to harm competition at the supplier's level.

1. Where do you see that MS is setting prices below cost,
2. and that it is for certain customers only?
3. How do you know Xandros Linux is not priced below cost to harm competition too?

Edited 2008-05-13 03:05 UTC

A free market only works when there is something called choice. There is reason for antitrust regulation and it is to promote consumer choice.

I know people cringe at hearing the word regulation, but sometimes, regulation is an necessary evil. As someone much wiser said, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. So who's going to enforce that?

Not the US. We're more concerned about countering terrorism these days. DOJ et. al. vs MS was all pre-WTC. Maybe the new administration will care. Meanwhile, Neelie Kroes is this atheist's God.

Fixed that for you.

Asus is the customer. It has already demonstrated that it has a choice between Windows XP and Linux. So, really, the notion that there's an antitrust issue here is ridiculous.

Let me put you right there, what you meant to say was 'Fair competition', I'd agree but since when did the words fair, Microsoft and competition ever be in the same sentence.

Also called "predatory pricing", and there is something wrong with it.

But I won't cry "anti-trust" or anything like that. In fact, it's amusing to see Microsoft do this. It's not often that you see MS willingly undermine the value in their own products, considering they go to such great lengths to protect the perception.

Microsoft has acknowledged desktop linux as a viable alternative to Windows. They would not be dropping the license price if they felt that they could justify the value otherwise. Even if they're limiting that recognition to a narrow market niche, it's still a wonderful validation for all the work that the OSS community has done for desktop linux. They deserve credit for that.

Ghandi's famous quote is often abused now in OSS, but still utterly relevant:

"First they laugh at you,
Then they ignore you,
Then they fight you,
And then you win."

So it seems...

I completely agree with you. First I thought that this would not be good for Linux as people tend to buy the cheapest machine there is. Even a Linux user would consider buying a cheaper version and simply install Linux on it, filling Microsoft pockets (eventhough it's a very small Microsoft tax).
Eventually Microsoft will loose the battle as nothing is as cheap as free.
With Linux (and other open source operating systems) becoming more user friendly and more generally available (as pre-installed OS on new machines) people will eventually turn to a operating system that is free.

Microsoft is heavily discounting a basic version of XP (XP Home) to go on these machines. Possibly it amounts to more than just a discount ... a Microsoft subsidy to get Windows on to the machine instead of Linux.

Microsoft's strategy probably involves them thinking that having purchased a Windows machine, I would now have to buy Microsoft Office ...

That means as a Linux user, I could buy a Windows ULCPC (possibly the EEEPC 900), wipe Windows, install a better Linux distribution (Mandriva 2008.1 works perfectly on the EEEPC), and end up with a better OS and a full set of applications, and Microsoft may have even paid a small contribution to my hardware.

The only disappointing thing about all that would be that my sale would count as a Windows sale.

Perhaps if I applied for a Windows refund ... not that I would expect to get it, but at least it might count for something if I applied.

Edited 2008-05-13 10:08 UTC

Which is exactly the problem. The fact that people think that to buy a Microsoft OS preloaded on any pc that has no Apple logo on it, is the norm, is exactly the problem.

It doesn't matter that Microsoft makes one, two, ten, or a hundred billion dollars out of it. What it comes down to, all that matters is that the millions of people that do not want or need a proprietary Microsoft operating system, can buy a laptop without Microsoft being involved in any way.

Microsoft, just leave us alone, will you.

I seem to recall ASUS' intent was to sell the EeePC 900 at a single price point; so people are actually getting penalized for trying to get Windows XP with the machine. Granted, I bet a lot of people would like a 12 GB machine with Linux for $500, but I guess that's not how they wanted to do it.

Thanks for making one of the few non-stupid comments so far.

The only thing I would argue about is

This may not be their current strategy NOW, but it is the one they used to gain market dominance in the first place. Apple was telling companies that they should do business on 10k USD machines, and MS was offering a "good enough" solution for a fraction of the cost.

It was only relatively recently in the conquest of the server room that they started talking about quality, ease of use, and TCO, because what they were up against often cost half as much (or free), and they really had no other choice.

There is a only a very fine line between being a monopoly, and abusing said position. Artificially raising the barriers to entry in a marketplace is generally seen as anti-competitive measure by the courts. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Isn't that the exact opposite of what is happening here? You have your wrong MS argument out steve, today its "Anti-competitive", not "Bloated and expensive"

(tongue is firmly planted in cheek)

At a price difference of US$ 50.- I could accept 20,- coming from using a smaller hard drive, the rest is Microsoft dumping itself into the market.

Remember, there now already exists a Version of Linux which is custom - taylored to the Asus EeePC. Hence, the per-unit cost of Linux is US$ 0.- for every additional computer sold.

Tayloring Windows XP to the Hardware costs something upfront, I expect Microsoft to do the work for Asus.
But additionally Microsoft would need to somehow beat the $ 0.- price tag of Linux, which must be a hard thing to do. Beating a US$ 0.- price tag by approximately US$ 30.- would mean, that Microsoft actually pays ASUS to use XP, or they pressured them by threatening higher OEM license fees than ASUS pays right now for the non-ultramobile stuff.

Well, MS can do that for some computers some times, but never for all computers all the time.

What today is an UMPC could be upgraded to 13, 14 and 15 inch displays as displays get thinner, cheaper and lighter, the processors in this cheap segment will continue to get more and more power, and Microsoft will see the Market becoming bigger and bigger.
Other producers will also get onto the Linux bandwagon, seeing that ASUS got a REAL good deal out of it. Because if you are the New Manufacturer On The Block, and you want to bargain with Microsoft, you better had 1 Million sales a month OR got to market with the lowest price and Linux and let yourselves being approached by Microsoft.

Linux gaining critical mass at a market close to the desktop market Microsoft currently dominates must be their greatest fear, that is why they are willing to spend big money on preventing that happen.

Given enough time, the Windows OEM price might come down to a few dollars. On that price tag we can see if the market starts working again. In the UMPC market that seems to be the case.

Remember, there now already exists a Version of Linux which is custom - taylored to the Asus EeePC. Hence, the per-unit cost of Linux is US$ 0.- for every additional computer sold.

And who told you that the cost of the Linux OS they are using is US$ 0.-?

I was thinking about that too! Since when was Xandros a non-profit organisation or some kind of saintly charity.

For all we know, they could have been charging an unusually high price for their software and/or services to Asus in the belief that there was little to no competition, and that could explain part of the reason for the size of the price difference.

But isn't Xandros GPL? (I have no idea)

If it's the case, that means that appart from support, and the initial cost to adapt it to the eeepc, each new copy cost Asus $0.

If not, they can switch to Mandriva tomorow, since it fully supports the eeepc as is, right now.

Edited 2008-05-13 13:43 UTC

Xandros sells their version of Linux. They're allowed to do that under the GPL, and they do. Yeah, you could also get free Linux, or take their stuff and rebrand it, but I assume Asus is getting something out of their deal with Xandros, like support.

No, no, please, don't hope for UMPCs to turn into...oridnary laptops, basically.

When tech advances, give me lower price and/or longer battery life, not bigger displays.

Do you even have to ask? ;-) You'll be doing well to tote your new purchase out off the sales floor without violating the license in some way. Such violations will not be prosecuted except when they really threaten MS. Such are the hazards of selective enforcement.

Apart from the legal maze that MS beagles put in the EULA, you'd also be getting a WindowsXP Home license. If that's all you need, give me a day or two and I'll mail you my MS Bob license, it's about as usable.

(I kidd of course, there's no Bob license anywhere in my boxes at home. )

Xaero,

Linux did just win. When you force your competitor to do something that he would otherwise not have done, and didn't really want to do... that is a win, of sorts. Admittedly not as obvious or satisfying as obliterating them outright. But a win nonetheless.

Edited 2008-05-12 19:31 UTC

Xaero,

Linux did just win. When you force your competitor to do something that he would otherwise not have done, and didn't really want to do... that is a win, of sorts. Admittedly not as obvious or satisfying as obliterating them outright. But a win nonetheless. "

I think it's a minor win for Linux also. Microsoft are not in their comfort zone now and haven't been for a while. They're not exactly terrified but it's better than their being comfortable and simply dictating terms to everyone involved.

Someone, with some diplomatic skills, needs to really push for ease-of-use on Linux (and BSD by extension) to provide some solid OEM installations. Even putting a Linux distribution in a dual boot configuration with Windows would be an improvement. People will take the easiest path--they're not going to look for Linux.

what version of xandros does the laptop use?

one of the free or paid for versions?

edit: http://www.xandros.com/products/home/home_edition.html

xandros is not free to you and me, so how much does asus pay for each license?

Edited 2008-05-12 19:38 UTC

Linux's biggest advantage here is its scalability and customizability. Xandros customized a very effective tabbed interface for a system like the eeePC. All right Linux "ubergeeks" installed Ubuntu over it and Windows "powerusers" (ROTFL) installed XP over it and slowed it down and bloated it.

But for anyone just wanting to use it for what its intended, web browsing, email and basic office utilities the original interface is just what's needed.

Ubuntu and Intel already have a cooperation agreement to work on this. Microsoft has just cut themselves out of this market with there hardware limitation announcement.

I think it was leaked documents provided by some nameless vendor too the news agency rather than an MS anouncement; I suspect, MS was hoping that the letter to it's "partners" would remain between the two respectively. Luckily, human decency prevailed and those documents slipped out a door somewhere.

I'm usually in agreement with the "quit fighting, team up, and get back to work" philosophy. But... exactly how do you expect this to happen? Through some new deal between Novell and Microsoft? Who do you mean by "Linux"? And, for that matter, who do you mean by "MS"?

There are fundamental issues to be resolved before anyone could even pretend to be buddy, buddy.

How, exactly, would this monolithic, centrally controlled, Linux you allude to dectate terms? Or dectect terms of business, should it ever earn the status to dectect those terms?

Edited 2008-05-12 21:30 UTC

linux won't behave exactly the same as MS, because there is competition in the linux world. if Linux had 90% market share, it would be devided between suse, fedora, red hat, xandros, debian, ubuntu, linspire... Between commercial and non commercial distributions, so if one company would behave the same as MS does now, the manufacturer would just take another linux flavor.

For MS it's easy to ask such prices, everything they get for XP now is some extra money, of course they would prefer more vista pc's, but well that one won't work decently on those machines so they are forced to sell an almost eight year old (matured though) OS. Nice thinking, and in the end it's a win for Linux, MS is forced to lower the price, or they get a competitor on the desktop market, and now no one would want that, would we... euhu :|

I think you don't understand what Linux is.

Linux is a kernel, no more, no less. Groups, companies and sometimes even individuals bring together software, make it play nicely together, and then release it in what's called distributions. The fact that many of these distributions are interchangeable means that if you don't like the direction or cost of one, it's pretty trivial to jump to another. This means that no one entity distributing Linux could ever wield the kind of power and control that MS does.

As for people from Linuxland taking responsibility for HW drivers working with Linux distributions, all you need to answer that one is to look up the vast amount of driver development in the Linux kernel. Most of those drivers where independently developed, i.e. not paid for by the companies who released the HW, and is regularly updated and patched.

MS does nowhere near the amount of driver development as the Linux kernel devs do. In fact, HW manufacturers are expected to develop their own drivers for Windows.

So frankly, the points you are trying to make don't actually make much sense.

Right, so Microsoft haters do stop complaining about Vista and fork Windows XP already! ;D

"
but reality is that linux distro will do exactly same thing if they have 90% marketshare
"

First, the two are motivated by different things.

FOSS and by extension, Linux and OS based on Linux, are more conserned with engineering persuites; make clean code, make the program do what is meant to do and do that well, add features, improve and evolve what came before you. The motivation is for better programming code, more usable features (without becomign bloat) and in general, what benefits the end user.

MS is a coporation by corporate law which states that a corporation must always choose in favour of the share holder when given a choice; market share and profit margins are important above all else. Software has to be good enough to sell but can't miss deadlines and can't better than what will sell lest the expense cut into profits. For a company where software is the primary product under a closed source model; it eventually comes down to keeping market share. There is nothing more important than keeping your market share so you can continue to pass profit margins back to your shareholders.

So, no, if a company providing an OS that happened to be based on the Linux kernel or any other FOSS kernel project it would not be remotely as likely to attack the market the way Microsoft often does.

MS has literally said "these computers have to remain below these specs or we won't play nice with you anymore".. how does that benefit the end user? If processors, memory, drives, screens, keyboards or any other components become available for lower cost at better quality; how does not increasing resources withough incraseing retail pricing through natural market forces benefit end user?

"
MS takes PARTIAL responsibility that hardware and preipherals will work smoothly on preloaded Asus. Can anyone from linux land come forward and claim that HW
"

The Kernel developers, those who actually write the "Linux" are interested in including any hardware support they can get specs for. More hardware vendors are starting to provide interface specs if not driver source code also but the high end desktop hardware market remains the domain of video games still. We'll see how ATI and nVidia manage at changing that.

The X.org develoeprs, those who write X so you can have pretty graphic programs are also interested in including any hardware support valid for the back end of a GUI. I'd personally like to see better TV Tuner native support in X.org but my 8800 GPU works perfectly so far.

There is a Linux Drivers project which is specifically focused on getting interface specs, getting driver source or writing the driver source for OS based on Linux.

Would those three core groups be enough to consider "anyone come forward from Linux land"? You give MS kisses and hugs for taking partial responsability for hardware support and use that to slam FOSS because Linux, X.org and other FOSS developers have traditionally had to take *all* the responsability for writing hardware support and gosh they've done well with no help from manufacturers.

Yes, it would be nice if hardware makers provided at least the bare minimum; driver interface specs. They'd find that drivers for many platforms magically apear with the expansion of there potential customer base. I wouldn't go blaming an OS kernel or an distribution based on it for the synthetic limitations placed on it by third parties.

Now, if there's a specific bit of hardware you'r having issues with. I'd recommend posting that in the form of a question and I, if not many others, will offer any help we can.