Italian Consumer Watchdog Sues Microsoft Over 'Windows Tax'

An anonymous reader writes with this quote from El Reg: "[An] Italian consumer watchdog is suing Microsoft over the 'Windows Tax' – the near impossibility of an ordinary user getting a refund if they decide to delete Microsoft's software from a new computer or laptop. The class action case says Microsoft makes it too difficult for people who buy a computer with Microsoft software on it to remove that software and get their money back. Most users do not realise that starting the software means you have accepted the end user licence."

Re:To be fair, not a Microsoft problem

[sjames]

MS freely offered to provide a refund if you choose not to agree to the terms of the EULA. They then reneg on that offer if you actually take them up on it, even if you bought the laptop with the understanding that the option existed.

They try to pass the responsibility off to a 3rd party that had no part in the EULA.

Since then, there have been cases where the OS and hardware are claimed to be offered as an all or nothing bundle, but that may not be legal everywhere and, of course, there is a question of actually getting your free refund should you not agree with the T&C you can only see by turning the laptop on.

Re:Updated TOS

[dhavleak]

The fact that buying a bare laptop is more expensive is a nasty side-effect of MS's licensing arrangements with OEMs.

There are some unstated assumptions in that statement. I don't know what the real numbers are, but here are some thoughts:

Suppose OEMs did offer a simple checkbox for wheter you want Windows pre-installed:
1. Some % of people buying laptops want Windows on it -- let's say x%
2. Some % of people buying laptops don't want Windows on it -- let's say y%
3. Some % of people buying laptops have no clue and will go with whatever is cheapest (i.e. will exclude windows w/o realizing what they're doing, if it was offered as an option by the OEM) -- z%

For x%, the economics remain mostly unchanged. For y% the economics improve due to no Windows OEM price. For z% the purchase just got quite painful because they saved the OEM price, but now they need an OS, and they are no longer eligible for OEM pricing. Worse -- they get angry at the OEM that sold them a useless machine, and vow never to do business with them, and they spend a lot of time (i.e. spend a lot of OEM's money) on the phone with support trying to figure out what the hell is going on.

The final economics for the OEM depends on the exact percentages of x%, y% and z%, and the final number for how much z% costs them in support calls, alienated customers (future sales), etc. Of course, you also need to factor in the same thing for the y% folks.

There's also a built-in assumption here, that the z% will want Windows -- but it's not a stretch -- not everyone has a nerd at hand to install Linux and configure it to make it work for them.

I don't know the answers to these questions -- but I do question the veracity of the statement that MS's licensing arrangements make purchasing an OS-less laptop more expensive. I think if this wasn't slashdot, an assertion like that would need more substantiation. I suspect that OEMs would offer whichever options give them the best combination of customer satisfaction, and profit margins. The checkbox to purchase w/o Windows being absent certainly does mean that it costs more for them to give us that option -- on this we agree. But the actual cause of that cost is what I am questioning here.