Free ride? I'll say

Started May 4, 2002 | Discussions thread
Silicon Junkie© Regular Member • Posts: 349
Re: Yearly Renewal vs. Software Maintenance

JoePhoto wrote:

YES ... and NO-NO ... first of all with regard to Netscape
specifically. Yes I agree that "I" (and YOU), could have done
that... SNIP

True, and this is not the fault of Microsoft that the consumer is not educated enough to select a competing product. That is the consumer's problem.

Now it can argued, (and will by MS), that this is GOOD for
consumers since they have just been able to "easily" and "quickly"
connect to the internet. SNIP ... a computer illerate will NOT,
(and DID NOT), take the extra time and RISK to dowload Netscape.

True, and it is for this shrewd business practice of licensing their product that Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive behavior. I think we agree here. OEMs should have been given the opportunity to bundle competing products with Windows. Actually, however, I think some did anyway, but not the big guns like Dell, IBM, Gateway, and the like.

Now notice ... we are no longer talking "possibilities" here ... that
argument was valid back when IE was "first" bundled/integrated by MS.
At that time Netscape had over 90% of the market. Computer literate
idiots, (like you), SNIP

I don't think personal attacks or insults are warranted in this discussion. Computer literate, yes - idiot, no. Again, it is no fault of Microsoft's that consumers did not take the initiative to investigate alternative software packages that would run on their computers, and install or use the same. In fact, nothing kept anyone from ordering a computer with Netscape preinstalled. Serveral vendors DID offer that choice.

But you are also wrong from a couple of additional reasons; even if
you installed Netscape ... there were several operations that would
kick you OUT of Netscape and BACK INTO IE anyway.

This sounds like a software bug. I have never experienced any problem as you describe above. What you describe could very well be due to file type associations in the registry, which would be a failure on Netscape's part to overwrite certain registry values. Or perhaps it is due to Netscape's inferiority to IE, and that it was unable to handle opening a particular file type.

You are also WRONG from another standpoint ... with reference to
the REAL PLAYER ... with WinME and MS inclusion of their own MEDIA
PLAYER --- MS rigged WinME to NOT LOAD Real Player. It was ONLY
because of the currently ongoing Netscape lawsuit that they were
able to present their case as a side-issue and MS aggred to allow
Real Player to load.

I cannot speak of WinME, as I've never operated that OS, nor do I wish to, given the myriad problems I've read about all over the Internet. I do not wish to take such a risk. The fact that RealPlayer would not work with WinME is more likely because WinME was such poorly written software, and full of bugs - not because MS designed it to crash RealPlayer.

This was almost identical to what MS did to DR-DOS back when MS
deliberately rigged Win3.1 to NOT LOAD on top of DR-DOS. DR-DOS
claims their sales were 28 MILLION copies the year before Win3.1
introduction ... and then sales DROPPED to 1.5 Million the next

Following that...

Except that it still kicked you BACK into IE in several situations.

Please see my previous comment on this issue.

BUT ... also interesting is that MS "promised" to NEVER CHARGE FOR
IE. I submit that if there is no essential difference between
Win95 and Win98 except the added integration of IE ... THEN WE GOT

OK, fine. The forum posts don't allow enough room for me to get into the differences in Win95 vs. Win98. Suffice to say, go pick up the Windows 95 Resource Kit, and the Windows 98 Resource Kit, and then you can educate yourself on this point.


I am AMAZED that you do not even seem to be aware that a YEARLY
RENEWAL FEE is EXACTELY where MS is very quickly headed...


I read what you wrote, Joe. Well, excuse me, but I have a hard enough time keeping track of what is going on in the industry here in the states, much less in foreign countries. I do not doubt what you say. However, you must remember that Microsoft is a business, and people are in business to make money, not lose it. Microsoft has an obligation to its shareholders (of which I am not, unfortunately) to continue generating profits and assure a continued revenue stream. I guarantee you that OEMs are NOT paying $300 a copy for Windows XP Professional, although that is the RETAIL BOX price. I can actually go to my wholesaler today and pick up an OEM copy of XP Pro (full version, not upgrade) for $157. I would surmise that higher volume OEMs pay even less than that.

You mentioned that yearly fees "should" be lower ... and of course
I agree that should and probably will be the case ... BUT; lower is
"relative" ... and the question is HOW MUCH LOWER ??? I submit
that even if the yearly renewal is "half" ... they will made 50%
more money in three years than they would have at their original
double price. (And a 50% increase in a $300 program would mean the
equivalent to a $150 price increase ... while MS has been content
with only $100 increases/upgrade.)

I would be content paying $50/year to keep my Windows the most current version, and maybe $75 for Office. Anything more than that, and M$ can take a long walk off a short pier.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow