Software Piracy Due to Expensive Hardware, Says Ballmer 814
frdmfghtr writes "ZDNet is running a story where Steve Ballmer tries to pin the blame of software copyright infringement on expensive hardware: 'One way to stem piracy is to offer consumers in emerging countries a low-cost PC, Ballmer said. "There has to be...a $100 computer to go down-market in some of these countries. We have to engineer (PCs) to be lighter and cheaper," he said.' Does he think that cheaper hardware will make copying software harder to do?"
What's MS going to Do? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now ... PC hardware drops to $100 ... so now the cost of the OS is 50% ... becomes a LOT more visible to both the manufacturers and also the end-users.
And finally, as the parent points out, what happens when a service is provided and the hardware is provided for free ... ala how Cell Phones are done today.
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets say out of the 250Mil or so middle class in india, 50mil get a computer because of cheap computers and OSes that is an extra 15billion in MS pocket...
Really cheap computers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reducing the price of hardware to less than $100 has no reduction effect on piracy. Indeed increasing numbers of poorer users are likely to increase piracy absolutely and as a percentage.
The real thought in Ballmers mind is that a fundamental redesign of what people refer to as a PC to something like an Xbox 2 with PowerPC processor crossed with MSN TV would enable them to get full blown palladium implemented without the the requirement to be backwards compatible with older software. That's the sub-text here.
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:4, Informative)
You'd be really surprised. The $50 install on the Dell/HP/Gateway boxes often does not include a full version of the software on CD with it. This means that if the user needs a driver or their OS needs saved and the useless Recovery CD does not do the trick, they have to go to the store and buy a copy. This is amazingly very common. If you have a full version copy, your very popular...
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:5, Informative)
The other thing is, XP copies all its known drivers to your hard drive anyways, same with Windows 2000. Those will never ask your original product CD. I believe 2000 only does so if you add "windows components" via their add/remove programs interface which lets you like add/remove solitare and such.
This should be a wakeup call for hardware venodrs (Score:5, Insightful)
This should be a wakeup call for hardware vendors to DROP M$ LIKE A ROTTEN POTATO .
They've just come out and said, you guys don't provide value to the equation, we do. We want the biggest part of the pie.
The Dells and Gateways of the world can still make their piddling single digit margins selling their hardware the penguin people just as well as 'doze users. (Hell, if they don't have to pay the M$ extortion, that's more money for them).
Microsoft, on the other hand, has nothing else to offer. They must convince consumers that they provide some sort of value for their money.
The only way M$ can make a rational argument for this is in a package lease kind of deal, where the customer coughs up $25 / month. Out of that, the pie has to get split up among : 1) the hardware provider, 2) the ISP, 3) the software providers.
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Denile is a Bitter Surprize. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Denile is a Bitter Surprize. (Score:5, Insightful)
excepting lawsuits
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:5, Insightful)
What do those computers you mention have in common? There were 'no seperate operating system(s)' to purchase. You got them with the computer (and paid for them in the purchase price, even if you were not aware of it) because you had no choice. If I recall correctly, Bill made money by creating an option.
1987. I am programming away on my parent's Apple 2e, and my dad brings home a copy of something called 'MS-DOS'. I couldn't figure out what it was for, until I realized that I could use it instead of Apple DOS. (Ironically, I thought it sucked. Guess I was ahead of the times...)
Don't pay $100 to Bill for an OS if you don't want to. But, to call it insane that you actually have the option to use a non-propritary OS on your computer is...well, insane.
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:4, Informative)
The apple had 6502 cpu with a completely different instruction set, it just wouldn't understand the 8080 instructions. My Radio Shack CoCo with a 6809 wouldn't understand and neither would my COSMAC ELF with it's RCA 1802 processor and a Whooping 255 Bytes static ram. Besides the other thing that gives you away as a troll is you called it an Apple2e, any self respecting Apple used would have called it an Apple][e or Apple IIe!
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:3, Insightful)
The other bad thing about network computers is that you are at the mercy of the people who maintain the programs to install the latest programs and hopefully have what you want. I could see it work in an office environment but not for home use.
The only reason he claims this is that a lower cost of hardware would allow them t
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:3, Informative)
Netboot. Rather than having your normal PC, you now have a diskless workstation.
Of course, you'd need a _LOT_ of bandwidth (I have 512k, which is nice, but even that is not enough).
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:5, Insightful)
The parent said boot and connect to a google-like service without an OS. That's entirely possible through PXE. Once you connect, your system downloads a minimal linux OS, and *then* runs the applications on the service.
would you really store your sensitive data on a public system?
Sure, that's why we have strong encryption.
What if it's compromized?
Like home machines don't get 'pwned' now? Their data is probably better off on some major service that actively takes steps to ensure system integrity. Crashes are no different.
And paying for something that's free now?
As for paying, well that's been tried before, free pc if you subscribe to a service; that didn't go over too well with people, so that's about the only part that would be a problem.
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I'd rather have a copy of Windows XP/2K, or any other locally controlled OS on my machine (which has never been "pwned" BTW) than surrender that sense of control to an OS/Server source somewhere "out there." I'm willing to pay to have this control, too, if neccessary.
Now before people jump
OS-as-service (Score:4, Insightful)
As for your questions
What if it's compromised
There was posted news on slashdot many times, that Windows system on broadband connection is going to be compromised in 20 minutes without qualified sysadmin supervising.
System offering public service would be supervised by team of qualified admins, so it is much less likely to be compromised.
What if it crashes
Do you have backup device capable of backing up your hard drive? Do you use it daily? What would you do if your system crashes? Spend a day reinstalling everything and loose data?
If public server crashes, it is likely to be fixed by its admins very soon, and your data restored from backups.
It is much more probably that your connection to this server would crash. And deprive you from working with entirely functional server. It is a drawback of OS-as-service solution.
And paying for something that's free now?
Are you sure it is free now? I'm running couple of X terminals home. One of them is more than 10 years old and never need hardware upgrade. But if I count all the money I spent upgrading my home computer last 10 years, it would probably cost more than $50/month. And countless hours administering the system. How much your work-hour cost?
Re:OS-as-service (Score:3, Insightful)
The most common reason for a top of the line system is gamaing - that's something that cannot be done on a remote server (there's just not going to be enough bandwidth to s
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:5, Interesting)
I always thought AOL should have moved to this arrangement. They already had a user-locked interface, now if they could just introduce a platform that wasn't really a full-blown OS-driver computer, put applications like photo editors etc that grandma and grandkids want, et al.
THere's much more refining which could go into this idea, though. In the end, I see a reality of this. I'm not personally experienced with WebTV, but it seems like a similar approach.
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What's MS going to Do? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're probably right that a 1GB of storage won't be enough for everything though... but then storage will be much cheaper by then anyway.
Geez Louise (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition, many people seem to be particularly upset that they're forced to pay Microsoft enormous sums again, and again, even if they don't want to. In other words, people feel like they've already payed Microsoft their dues, so why should they pay it all over again? This has the effect of delaying upgrades until new computers are purchased, with businesses being the primary exception.
Because of Microsoft's stranglehold on the market, they are able to rope companies into upgrade contracts that extort payment for new versions. Under these contracts, failure to upgrade results in higher costs for later upgrades. So much higher that it makes more sense to upgrade now rather than later. Could any other company pull these sorts of strong-arm tactics? Of course not! In any other business, you'd find a competitor and switch to them (or at least use it as a negotiation tactic).
Let's hope that the rise of Mac OS X, Linux, Novell, and Sun as desktop competitors will finally provide a viable choice for both home and business.
Re:Geez Louise (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Geez Louise (Score:4, Insightful)
programmers out on the street with signs that say "Will program for food!".
I wouldn't buy this. Results of their programming doesn't justify even food.
Re:Geez Louise (Score:3, Insightful)
Correction: *Fulltime* Microsoft programmers are paid handsomely. The rest of the programmers are getting screwed. Go read No Logo [nologo.org] if you don't believe me. So the "Starving Programmers" commercials will be real. Real, as in their actually starving, but not because you won't more for software...
Re:Geez Louise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Geez Louise (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. By this reasoning, gasoline if cars cost less. Although the products are used together, their prices and markets are almost completely unrelated.
In addition, many people seem to be particularly upset that they're forced to pay Microsoft enormous sums again, and again, even if they don't want to.
Correct. That is, of course, Microsoft's core business: virtually all of their strategy involves cementing the position of Windows on the desktop, so that they can charge people again for the same product every time they buy the machine. An even better example is Microsoft Office, which hasn't noticeably improved since before 2000, yet still costs $250 or so.
Let's hope that the rise of Mac OS X, Linux, Novell, and Sun as desktop competitors will finally provide a viable choice for both home and business.
Sadly, that really won't happen until there is one compatible, OS-neutral software platform. Most new commercial software is written for Windows - that's simply a fact - and it's because of (a) the network effect of such a large market, and (b) the success Microsoft has had with making Windows software development incredibly easy. Compare a nicely-fleshed-out Windows application, with automatic visual styles and Direct3D and OpenFileDialog boxes, with wonky Java applets that might run in a browser, and might just break.
So the way to break the Windows monopoly is to create one finely-honed programming platform. When the latest 3D games and business apps run just as well (or better!) on Linux as on Windows, the migration barrier will be much reduced, and people will switch in greater numbers.
- David Stein
Re:Geez Louise (Score:5, Informative)
Compare a nicely-fleshed-out Windows application, with automatic visual styles and Direct3D and OpenFileDialog boxes, with wonky Java applets that might run in a browser, and might just break.
NOBODY and I do mean NOBODY writes Java Applets any more. Java Applications are what have been working to displace Windows dominance. A few examples:
Azureus Bit Torrent Client [sf.net]
Thinkfree Office Suite [thinkfree.com]
DataDino Database Explorer [datadino.com]
Disk Analyzer [jgoodies.com]
Games too:
Wurm Online [wurmonline.com]
My 4K games [dnsalias.com]
Big game list [grexengine.com]
So PLEASE don't mention Java Applets. You're likely to get stoned for it.
Re:Geez Louise (Score:5, Insightful)
Java is a nearly total failure at desktop applications, and will remain so, because Sun doesn't give a damn about enabling native Java apps to deliver user experiences comparable to those offered by native apps.
Every day I use one of the most successful Java desktop applications (jEdit [jedit.org]), and like it very much. So it should tell us something when the author of that application, Slava Pestov, advises [javalobby.org] programmers to "just give up" on Java for the desktop:
It is clear that Java was never practical for developing real applications, and never will be. Instead of asking how you can revive something that's obviously dead and gotten much more hype than it deserves, you should be asking if there's better technology out there.
Re:Geez Louise (Score:3, Informative)
Hm. I see python used in CGI scripts, but never java. So instead of guessing, why don't we try go gather data, shall we?
So there we have it -
Re:Geez Louise (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm with you about the Java Applets. F-U-G-L-Y. However, I'm going to use your post to illustrate my point earlier in this thread about Java. However, I've used Azureus quite regularly on multiple platforms. It's an excellent application. I've also used BitComet [bitcomet.com], a Windows-only C++ native BitTorrent client. Although the latter is only available for Windows, the performance differences between Azureus and BitComet are astonishing. BitComet's memory and CPU utilization are significantly lower, and from an antecdotal "application snappiness" level, BitComet just crushes Azureus.
This it not to sling mud at all of the Java-lovers out there. Its a fine development package, and definitely has its purposes. The point is that under most circumstances, a lower level language, while generally more expensive to develop, can yield greater performance. To me, this is critical.
This single example clearly doesn't drive the point home, and I've seen studies that tend to show otherwise, but this just provides a single real world example of where a lower-level language-based application can outperform its counterpart. Finally, I don't have a problem admitting (disclaiming) that I'm slightly biased against Java after working on a few Java development projects in the early days and been infuriated by its performance.
Re:Geez Louise (Score:3, Funny)
Hell yeah. I could sure use some Java Applets. Lots and lots of Java Applets.
We're on the way there... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Geez Louise (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a simple example. I'm working on developing a game. Say I want to sell that game on as many hardware platforms as I can tolerate. Let's say I happen to write that game using OpenGL, GLUT, and one of the standard C variants (ISO, ANSI, whatever). If I do that, I only have to make one version of the source code, compile for a bunch of targets, and I'm done. Sure, the performance might not be the best across all platforms since any interface I make for OpenGL is going to be a "second" window system on top of the host OS. But that's not the point - the point is that if you use some standard API (standard console i/o, OpenGL, etc) and don't go munging in "tricks of the host OS", the technology for OS-neutral applications has existed for years.
I only say this because I have written simple and fairly complex (generally console based, mind you) applications using standard language features that first-time compile and run on Windows, Mac OS (X), HP-UX, and Solaris. I've even done the aforementioned OpenGL work that is consistent across Mac and Windows (I don't have access any more to the HP-UX or Solaris machines).
What people sacrifice to follow this route is a "host OS look and feel" by using the host OS API calls. I'd rather, as an application programmer, have the ability to call simple graphics APIs and define my own behavior - closer to what things like OpenGL, GLUT, X-windows, and even DirectX provide rather than even things like Swing or all the widget toolkits for X-windows. Yes, it's nice when a host OS provides "standard controls" but then I have to port and "support multiple platforms". If I hire some guy to write my own standard GUI library and use something like OpenGL that's fairly ubiquitous as my "OS abstraction layer" then my application looks and behaves the same on all systems. This, to me, is more valuable than having all the applications on a system look the same.
Okay, I realize that was a lot of text to try and illustrate my point. My gut feeling on what you propose, though, is that it's more politics than technical difficulties. After all, what is an operating system really but an abstraction layer to the hardware; all the rest of the crap that is part of a modern "OS" is really applications. I think when the paradigm shifts back to "the OS just provides access to the hardware functionality" then software writers will be better able to write applications that work on any hardware - so long as the hardware API is consistent!
Incidentally, the cost of software would indeed come down if there were fewer platforms to support as complexity will be reduced. The more combinations of any product there are, cost goes up drastically. But, again, the "common OS" or whatever doesn't really even begin to address the issue of cost of hardware having anything to do with software piracy. Piracy is simply a market reaction to the cost of purchase vs the cost of getting copying, distributing, posessing, and using unpurchased software. (Since the cost to do this is zero, and the cost of risk getting caught is below the purchase price of most software, people will continue to pirate software).
Re:Geez Louise (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what I was thinking. When I lived in Thailand, the government promoted a low-cost computer with Linux pre-installed. They offered easy financing with 0% interest through the governments ?credit union?, I think.
This did not in any way affect the piracy problem. In fact, it created such downward pressure on MS's prices that the first crack appeared in the "one price around the world" policy. The piracy rate didn't change (it couldn't really go up...), and in the end, nothing changed.
Low hardware prices will not solve MS's problems.
Re:Geez Louise (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy doesn't know geeks! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This guy doesn't know geeks! (Score:5, Insightful)
who in their sane minds would pay MORE for the os than the computer?
is he just thinking that "hmm. yeah.. so they can buy this computer at 500$.. hmm.. if the computer part just cost 100$ then they would be able to afford to pay us 400$. CALL THE PRESS! *mokeyjump* *monkeyjump* "
Re:This guy doesn't know geeks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Software, on the other hand is information, which desperately wants to be free. And, contrary to the predictions of Schatz and Ballmer, software already is free.
Until they make hardware freely duplicatable, it will cost money. It's more expensive to make 100 sticks of RAM than one. But it's no more expensive to make 100 million copies of Firefox than it is to make one. In fact, it's no more expensive to make 100 million copies of Windows -- legal or not -- than to make one. That's Netcraft confirms that Microsoft is dying: with information gaining increasing freedom, a company that sells information will be hard pressed to survive. A company like IBM, on the other hand, which sells silicon but gives away information, can expect a long and prosperous future.
Re:This guy doesn't know geeks! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think you know the full quote, of which you've only given half. The complete version, most often attributed to Stewart Brand reads thus:
On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.
Which changes your argument significantly, I think.
Re:This guy doesn't know geeks! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a clever guy, I will find something else interesting to do to put bread on the table.
I can see, however, how this might be a scary prospect for the leeches out there
Re:This guy doesn't know geeks! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that calling that out was inappropriate.
It's perfectly fair to disagree with the implied sentiment, but calling the statement wishful thinking was like saying "water wants to flow downhill" is wishful thinking when what you really mean is that dams are a good thing (or at least inevitable).
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's absolutely amazing that the head of one the biggest corporations can publcily say something so totally and utterly stupid.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
Still, he can't change what he is . . . . . .
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
When you take into account how natural it is to place more value on a physical object vs. an intangible (e.g. a service rendered such as plumbing), is it any wonder why consumers are ignoring Microsoft's mind-bender campaign?
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why the best approach from a business perspective seems to be bundling or packaging fancy software with hardware, services or both. The software may be the hook to get people in, and you might even give it away (and while you're at it, make it Open Source, it makes your customers happy). But tie it to your expensive hardware. Or just convince companies that it works best with your expensive hardware. Or that your expensive services personnel are best equipped to customize or build value-added functions on top of it.
This is the whole reason that quite a few tech businesses have embraced Open Source. It's not a function of their love of the community.
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
CEOs (and many other smart public figures) don't speak to individuals. They speak to targetted masses. They manipulate masses not individuals.
When public figures (which CEOs are) get away or even rewarded for saying stupid things it doesn't prove or show that they are stupid, it is the public who are stupid. And so far many of such public figures are being rewarded for doing such th
Software Piracy Due to Expensive Hardware (Score:5, Funny)
In other news: (Score:3, Funny)
-Security breaches in Microsoft's products due to plugins.
-Worst hurricane season in Florida in recorded history due to a cyclic weather phenomenon.
-Global warming due to increased levels of CO2.
Okay, maybe Microsoft didn't cause those last couple, but I say we blame them anyway. They've been transferring it just a little too often, and I think it's about time they take on their share.
So, Microsoft, what are you going to do to reduce world emissi
Speeding due to long roads (Score:5, Funny)
Ummmm yeah... expensive hardware (Score:2)
how MUCH cheaper? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:how MUCH cheaper? (Score:3, Funny)
price of the PC??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or is this a sinister MS plot to get people hooked on cheap PCs, then use a subscription $9.95 a month model to 'rent' the software?
Software 'rental' (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:price of the PC??? (Score:5, Interesting)
My thoughts exactly, this would create an indefinite cash flow stream, whether the service is used or not. It would force 'Upgrades'. Need to access that spreadsheet, pay up! Need to retrieve that old invoice, pay up! No way in hell would I pay for a subscription service for critical software, unless I at least had the ability to use (at least a certain version) it offline, and forever.
Imagine that you did some work in excel 5 years ago, and really no longer need to use it. Assume this was done under a subscription software/os model. Now, five years later: you have to subscribe just to manipulate that file. let's say you only need to use it for 30 minutes - sorry minimum subscription term is 1 month @ 9.95. Bahh.
Look at Netflix, although there is pending competition from Amazon, as well as Blockbuster and Wal-Mart. Their subscription model was a cash cow (or at least very profitable). If people were paying 40 bucks a month, but did not rrent movies that month - what return do you think that is. With software, it would be more proprietary (i.e. Office Documents), making competition harder.
Ah....No (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the Palm or mobile phones. Cheap cheap cheap. Still there's piracy.... and a lot of those programs only cost $5.
The cost of hardware and software have nothing to do with it. If there's a way to get a "free copy", some people will always go that route.
Re:Ah....No (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not only cheaper, it's also easier to find a serial online than it is to paypal the money and wait for the mail. Not to mention it's likely the only way for kids without Visa or parents who trust online shopping.
Re:Ah....No (Score:3, Interesting)
I blame a society that takes away opportunity to misbehave in safe ways. By trying to lock down people's need to be an ass it comes out in all kinds of unexpected ways; piracy, drunk driving, republicanism, and sometimes even public nosepicking. We really need to encourage some kind of emotional cleansing rite
OK, that explains it... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's because the people in charge live in a different universe!
You have something with almost zero marginal cost, and mark-up measured in thousands of percent, and he thinks the problem is because the *hardware* (which has a large marginal cost, and has mark-up measured in the single-digit percentages) is too expensive?
Sweet Jebus, software is pirated in third world nations because the software is too expensive.
I wonder what color the sky is in his world?
Re:OK, that explains it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is stuck between a rock and a hard place. High prices in the third world inevitably lead to piracy and an added incentive to move to Open Source software. Lowering prices means lower margins and a drastic reduction in market capitalization.
Re:OK, that explains it... (Score:5, Funny)
Blue with white text on it.
Re:OK, that explains it... (Score:3, Informative)
You're thinking of overhead costs.
Re:OK, that explains it... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OK, that explains it... (Score:4, Interesting)
I will rag on you for somehow forgetting that hardware also has a large development cost. You have to pay someone to develop the hardware, and in the case of Intel, AMD, Via, NVidia, ATI, that's a lot of someones over a long period of time. I would imagine it cost Intel billions to develop the current version of the Pentium 4. Intel probably has as many testing engineers on the project as MS has programmers on XP.
And THEN you have to add on the marginal cost. The real, substantial, physical cost of producing each part. And, of course, all the engineers involved in manufacturing and developing the manufacturing processes.
And STILL hardware sells with margins drastically below that of software. Hardware STILL has been going down in price while software has not.
This isn't an attempt to justify software piracy; it's still copyright violation. This is rather simply pointing out the fact that because software is such a high price compared to the hardware despite have basically no marginal cost and not going down in price like basically every other part of the computer, THAT is why people pirate. And THAT is why the parent of your post was marked insightful.
I beg your pardon? (Score:5, Interesting)
Please. Cheaper hardware is going to exacerbate the situation by providing even more poor people with the desire for new software that the can't affoard. The only solution is to take computers from poor people. I'm joking, but I hope you can see my point...
Re:I beg your pardon? (Score:3, Insightful)
No way I would change my Debians just to pay loads of cash to Ballmer&co.
Re:I beg your pardon? (Score:3, Interesting)
He's crazy like a fox. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He's crazy like a fox. (Score:5, Insightful)
How will this work? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a sport for the crackers, often easier than buying for the consumers and always cheaper. So how is paying for software to compete with getting it for free and without leaving the house?
Re:How will this work? (Score:3, Interesting)
In other news, RIAA says manufacturing costs... (Score:3, Funny)
Let's see, the cost and performance of PC hardware is constantly dropping, and how's the price of software been doing?
You know, if they'd just sell hummers for $100, people wouldn't steal gas anymore.
Re:In other news, RIAA says manufacturing costs... (Score:3, Funny)
Are people stealing gas to fuel their hummers?
Steve, it's your fault ppl need faster hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: pretty much all of the computing industry, including open source software, are constantly requiring more and more powerful CPUs.
The reason they are saying that now... (Score:5, Interesting)
And the reason for this, after all, is to open up the low-end market so that Microsoft can tap that revenue source. After all, if they offer something for $200 normally, and offer a strip down version for $50 such that people can afford it, it's still better than getting $0 because people can't afford to pay for it and end up pirating it.
The funny thing is, from a certain standpoint, Microsoft is actually NOT trying to stop piracy (the official line is always to be anti-piracy, of course), but Microsoft probably realized that their software will be pirated, and in some ways, this loss leader in the emerging markets should strategically be allowed. Because then, Microsoft will dominate even more, especially where Linux is popular. On the other hand, Microsoft can't grow that market if the people cannot afford to pay for the hardware. Keep in mind that Windows is as dominant as it is today partly because it was easy to copy Windows. They could have put really difficult schemes to prevent piracy, but they didn't, because ultimately, that's not how they make their money anyway. They make their money by having dominance and then sell software based on it (Office, for instance).
And in the future, Microsoft want DRM and they want to do transactions. They want more people on the internet using windows, and the way they can get that is to have as many people as possible with little cheap boxes that run some form of Windows that can at the very least access the internet so they can spend money through Microsoft channels.
They're looking at the problem the wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)
This, of course, is nonsense.
They are asking "How can we stop piracy?" when what they NEED to be asking is "How can we increase sales?" These aren't equivilent questions in the least, but they seem to believe they are. We all read that story about piracy in Russia. If a single $15 CD costs approximately 1/4 of an average citizen's weekly pay there, there is simply no way in hell they're going to be paying $200 for MS Office. EVER. Doesn't matter how frigging cheap you make the computers, even if you give them away in very large cereal boxes, the people are NOT going to spend half their month's paycheck on a piece of software.
This will not hold true in ANY scenario. Ballmer & Friends appear to believe that if they eliminate piracy, copies of Office will fly off the shelves. Even if they did manage to make a copy of Office which was 100% unpiratable (for the sake of argument), that wouldn't spur sales any. The people would just start pirating some other piece of software, or use OOo.
The *only* rational solution to the problem is to drop software prices. The ONLY one. No other solution has the potential to actually increase software sales. (which certainly should be their goal, unless they've given up on actual profit in their eternal search for scapegoats) Yet that's the one measure Ballmer says they will NOT implement.
Interesting, huh?
My theory, incidentally, is that Microsoft is terrified of these hypothetical localized copies of their software leaking into the mainstream and selling at a discount. That's why their cheap XP-lite is so crippled. It doesn't HAVE to be, but they're so protective of their market share that they're unwilling to risk it in any way, even at the potential benefit of even more markets.
Either that or, as I said, they've become so focused on pirates that they've forgotten to actually do business in the meantime.
Perfectly reasonable from MS point of view (Score:5, Funny)
IT budgets are finite .
IT budgets typically cover hardware, software, and (sometimes) services.
Services are not much of an issue since that typically comes from staffing. It's a lot easier to shift capital money from HW to SW purchases than to shift expensed money from staffing to purchases.
MS doesn't sell hardware. Well, they brand keyboards, mice and xboxes. But that ain't where they make their nut.
Therefore, it is desirable that the entire IT budget be allocated to software. Hardware has to go.
Hardware has to go. QED.
Ideally, MS would prefer that IT budgets are spent entirely on software licenses, and no hardware at all. Without actually installing the software or even opening the boxes, there would no concerns about tech support, liability, or piracy for that matter.
An idiot... (Score:5, Insightful)
These ridiculous software prices, the constant need to upgrade and relicense and pay the same prices over and over and over -- that's what drives people to pirate software. Or turn to open source software solutions. Microsoft's trash got tossed out of my house on its ear 5 years ago. Nuttin' but Linux and there are scant few things I can do without their virus propagation system.
Cheaper PCs says Balmer (Score:5, Interesting)
> countries. We have to engineer (PCs) to be lighter
> and cheaper,
How much cheaper can Microsoft expect hardware to get? It's almost costless as it is now.
The Microsoft OS is the real cost barrier. The cheaper hardware gets; the more folks will want an OS just as cheap. Microsoft will have to lower their prices.
When Microsoft lowers their prices then they will have to partition their market into full/higher cost solutions and chopped/lower cost solutions; this will give Linux a clear advantage because Linux can offer a fully appointed OS with no cost differential.
I expect Microsoft's momentum to carry it a few more years yet... but after that the energy will have bled off and people will begin to see the benefits of Linux more clearly.
Just a guess (Score:4, Insightful)
So, first I start off with the $300 OS.
Then, take a look at the other day-to-day software a typical user will (probably) need / want:
-Anti-Virus......$50 / year
-Compression.....$25
-Anti-Spyware....$25
-Image Editing...$200+
-Decent IMing....$20
-Office..........$150+
-Popup Blocker...$25
Cheaper hardware is the reason for pirating.... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) I have a work PC, a home PC, a laptop, and a work PC at another site that I spend half my time at. Why does that mean I have to fork out for 4 X copies of Windows XP to keep the corporate standard so that I can connect into the network?
2) People see the OS as an enabler for the hardware, nothing more. People talk about Windows, it's the standard, they don't like the idea of paying for it, as if it's built into the cost of a PC as far as many consumers are concerned. A lot of people don't realise that they are paying for it when they purchase a new PC.
3) People don't mind paying a percentage of the cost of a PC for windows e.g. 10%. Now, the cost of an OEM license of Windows is about 1/5 or more the price of their PC. They aren't willing to wear it.
4) People have forked out for Windows again and again and again. They really want something new that will really impress them. (As a community, we really need this ourselves on linux to boot MS out of the market but nevertheless) They aren't recieving that at the moment because of the whole thing about it being the standard...
Either way, they are seriously lost here.
IBM bought Unix and made AIX as an enabler for the hardware they were selling, the market hasn't changed. Microsoft had better realise this fact and fast.
Commoditization of Software not Hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows and particularly Office cost way too much. One would never think that in this age of 3d-games and super computers in the home and screensavers that cure cancer that an unimpressive package that does word processing, spreadsheets, boring presentations, and a seldom used database would be sold for $400. They simply fought all their compeitors to death or scared them enough to stay out of that market.
Software is what is going to get cheaper. FOSS software makes it possible to get the most use out of each line of code by allowing it to be used over and over by different users who have different needs.
The ever shrinking cost of a low-end PC have already commoditized hardware to about as low as it can reasonably go given that hardware manufacturers are not going to waste their time building old parts to sell for pennies when they can build new technologies to sell at a higher price. Then mass market them at the midlevel and then drop down the price to move out the remaining inventory when they announce something new at the high end.
Some components can get cheaper especially when sold at retail chains like CompUSA and BestBuy where a hard drive still costs $80 no matter how small. Its their minimum hard drive price. You will often see a drive going for 80 or 85 and it will be double the size of the one going for 79.99.
I don't know about you... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't pirate the software I use; I believe in paying for software so I have the legal right to use it. I'm currently in the process of moving away from expensive software and to using more open source software.
Apple proves this false (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple proves this false (Score:3, Informative)
In the real world its a different senerio. The two main people that use Macs today in business are still graphics and video editing folks. In those industries, if you are caught using pirated software then you are black
OK I'm going to state the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
However, like traffic tickets and sales tax, MS Windows is a regressive tax; it hurts the poor much more than the rich. The solution is to scale the price of Windows so that it is a fixed percentage (like 10% maybe) of the total PC cost, but with a max cap of say $200. Under this pricing scheme, a $300 PC would cost $330 if you wanted Windows on it. A $10000 PC would cost $200 if you wanted Windows on it. That would make Windows more affordable in developing countries where cheap PCs are in high demand.
As far as the big picture is concerned, what Balmer ought to consider is what _Microsoft_ does that is wrong and evil. Exploiting the poor is evil. A lot of people simply don't realize just how _evil_ exploitation really is because they haven't lived in 3rd world countries. Strongarming businesses is also wrong. Releasing insecure software which forces IT folks to spend countless hours dealing with spyware, viruses, and/or trojans is evil too. No wonder Microsoft has an image problem!
I think the main reason why OEM hardware manufacterers still don't sell PCs with no OS installed is because Windows allows them to test their PC's hardware. This comes in handy when you have to provide support for your product. Instead, what OEMs should do is include test software on a bootable CD that tests all the PC's hardware. What do people think about this?
I think that we're all missing the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not Cheaper hardware.. DRM hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if they have a hand in the 'specs' of these new low cost PCs, you can bet they will be so restricted that using anything that is copied ( or not approved to execute ) wont happen..
its a switch of cause and effect to please the uninformed masses..
Ballmer is obviously on drugs (Score:5, Informative)
Let me set this straight for you, B-man. The reasons for these two phenomenons are VERY similar:
1) People mainly pirate music because almost NO ONE feels that a CD is worth $17. Its price gouging, its unfair, they stifle competion, and the record company fatcats are getting disgustingly wealthy by ripping off artists and the public while pushing a mediocre product.
2) People priate MS software because almost NO ONE feels that their OS is worth $300, and almost NO ONE feels that their Office package is worth $400. Its price gouging, its unfair, they stifle competion, and the coporate heads are getting disgustingly wealthy by ripping off coders and the public while pushing a mediocre product.
Clear? Good.
Funny. I thought cheap hardware was the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
You can get a descent PC for $899 including an lcd monitor.
Add $300 for Windows and $499 for office and half the price of the pc is for Microsoft sofware!
Balmer is soooo full of shit and he is trying to make a lie become a truth.
If I can not afford more than $900 for a new pc do you think I am going to pay these outrageous fee's for software? I am just going to install BSD or if I need Windows, pirate it. Plain and simple.
In 1995 MS office cost $175 while the average cost of a pc was around $1800. Do the math with costs?
Now the percentage is approaching 50%!
Hardware vs. Software costs (Score:5, Informative)
Hardware:
5MHz CPU
512KB RAM
20MB HDD
14" monochrome CRT
Total price: $3000
Software:
MS-DOS: $60
Operating system = 2% of total cost
Today:
Hardware:
2.4GHz Celeron
256MB RAM
40GB HDD
15" SVGA LCD monitor
Total cost: $500
Software:
Windows XP Home OEM: $100
Operating system = 20% of system cost
The price of the OS has increased by an order of magnitude relative to hardware costs... and the cause of piracy is expensive hardware? Pull your head out, Ballmer.
Hmmmm ... what about Apple ... (Score:3, Insightful)
And since Apple hardware is more expensive (at least initial purchase) then this hardly holds any water.
Ballmer's WRONG, hardware is cheap. Numbers here: (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, let's see: I want to get MY work done.
My clients are in video, audio, web, and print. I need:
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe InDesign
Adobe Illustrator
Macromedia FreeHand (because I like to work in it better than Illustrator)
Macromedia Dreamweaver
Quark Xpress (for cranky or fussy printers who are still runnning Quark 4 on OS9 or 2000)
Macromedia Fireworks
Macromedia Flash
Ableton Live (for music development)
Adobe Audition (for Windows based destructive editing)
Propellorheads Reason (for composition)
AVID DV Express, Pro edition (for video)
Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere (because it comes with the Video Bundle)
And, of course, MS Office
TOTAL COST OF SOFTWARE?
Assuming I buy most of it in Bundles (Adobe Creative Suite, MM MX suite, etc.) I come out to a rough number of:
$7700
At that point, a $1000 computer is one of THE LEAST of my expenses. When you bring in a DV camera, a decent audio ADC, Firewire RAIDs, scanners, printers, and similar crucial items, a $1000 computer becomes even less of a cost to the total operation. A $500 computer becomes insignificant - heck - it's almost impossible to find a decent multichannel audio ADC for less than $600.
Ballmer is COMPLETELY wrong, or, more likely: HE'S LYING. SOFTWARE is the expensive item, followed by peripherals. The last item is the computer. The expensive part of the computer is not in its cost, but in configuring it to one's needs, which takes time (which is extremely expensive) software (which isn't cheap) and peripherals (which can be cheap or extremely expensive).
RS
Ballmer cracks me up (Score:3, Insightful)
Ballmer forgets that the reason people have expensive, high-spec machines is because THATS ALL XP WILL RUN ON.
Good lord, Steve, get a clue!
It's a fixed size pie... (Score:3, Insightful)
... and Microsoft wants a bigger piece.
Nah. My theory is that Ballmer sees their problem as people are spending money on hardware that Ballmer thinks they ought to be spending on software. Every dollar that Intel/Dell/HP/etc makes is a dollar that Microsoft didn't make. No one should be expecting Microsoft to be lowering their prices in lockstep with any price reductions that the hardware vendors put into place.
What Microsoft is hoping for is a situation where cheaper computers are in the hands of the masses resulting there will be an even bigger demand for software. What they don't seem to realize is that, for poorer countries, that could easily mean an even bigger demand for counterfeited software. Or the folks in those countries will just load a free OS on those computers. Microsoft would like very much to prevent that from happening. (Good luck with that.) The trouble is that someone from a poor country has a small set of choices. Say they've got $500 to spend. They'd like a computer (perhaps so they can become computer literate and work for one of those outsourcing companies):
Ballmer seems to think that people will choose Option 1. I would contend that Option 1 is the last choice people will make. (Me personally? I'd go with Option 2 since it allows me to support the OSS "industry".)
Some day they'll understand that the world is not always looking for ways to send their hard-earned money to Microsoft.
A $100 PC? (Score:3, Interesting)
These folks pirate Windows because the version they can afford is crap, crap that they were already forced to pay $50 for despite not wanting it.
For those people, who's yearly wages are a fraction of that made by Americans, stealing windows is like stealing a $300/pill prescription drug that costs pennies to make.
I'd honestly like them all to switch to Linux, because piracy should not be condoned, but Microsoft brings it on themselves, and then passes the blame.
What I suspect Microsoft is eventually planning to do is to partially cover the price of hardware, under terms that require manufacturers to only produce drivers for Windows, protected by software patents wherever possible. Complying manufacturers will win in the marketplace, and Microsoft will have strengthened its hold on the market. Windows will further advertise Microsoft products and services, and undermine free alternatives for security reasons. MSN Explorer will be the default browser. Users will be able to order or rent and install software much more easily than if they walked to a store, but the software will either come from Microsoft or there will be a Microsoft tax (listing and certification fees) included. blah blah blah.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)