06.30.09
Computer Shops Participate in Vista 7 “Scam”
Summary: Microsoft claims a “discount” which is not
Stefano Forenza shows that Microsoft's disabled-by-design O/S is, as usual, made a lot more expensive in Europe than it is in the Unites States. Inquiries a few years ago (regarding Vista) revealed that Microsoft exploits its monopoly (illegally-obtained stranglehold on OEMs) to charge what people can bear — not what they are willing — to pay. Microsoft staff was unable to defend its overcharging practices in the UK. According to Forenza’s assessment:
In Europe Windows 7 will cost 41% to 100% more than in the US.
More interesting, however, is the story we have just heard from a computer shop. It suggests that Vista 7 marketing is scam that many shops may participate it. “The whole Windows 7 discount upgrade from Vista is pure BS,” the informant claims. “There is NO DISCOUNT.”
“It suggests that Vista 7 marketing is scam that many shops participate it.”To put it in finer details, “What they are doing is charging more for versions of Vista that come with the upgrade discount form and it’s usually in the OEM version, so the price is hidden in the total cost of the PC. [The] cost of Vista Business with Win7 upgrade form is $190. Our cost price INCLUDING tax for Vista Business without the Win7 upgrade form is $150. Anyone buying a PC with Vista believing they are getting a “discount” Windows 7 upgrade are being swindled. Only the most arrogant and self-assured monopoly can get away with this sort of disgusting scheme. Everyone should be told about the prices they are actually charging OEM’s and resellers.
“Many Windows users are actually looking at it thinking they will put up with Vista and then upgrade to Vista7 at a discounted price. But there is no discount, they’re being conned. Doesn’t worry me though. I’ve learned from customers today that other retailers are pushing it. I’m the only one who told them the truth. And they’re angry.
“The “upgrade form” is what they take to the shop when they buy Windows 7 and get their “discount”. At least I think that’s what happens Anyone pushing this offer is participating in a scam.” █
“My initial evaluation of Windows 7 shows that it’s really just Vista with a fresh coat of paint.”
–Randall Kennedy
twitter said,
June 30, 2009 at 9:53 am
The most basic con is to convince people that one version of Windows is any different from another. As you can tell from the versions of Windows targeted by malware, the code does not change. The vulnerable versions of Windows always go back as far as publisher cares to list because the code is identical from one version to another. Windows 7 is Vista with a facelift and few other changes. It took M$ six years to make Vista and most of the effort went towards DRM, digital restrictions that no one asked for or wanted. Vista 7 is more of the same with a clean KDE 4 look to it.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 10:46 am
We don’t need to tarnish KDE4′s name. It has enough perception problems without being associated with a variant of Vista.
Roy Bixler said,
June 30, 2009 at 11:47 am
Are there any European countries that require the price of the OS to be listed as a separate item? France may be one because I remember a case there where a PC purchaser tried to get a refund on the bundled Windows, was refused, took his case to court and won. Part of the court’s ruling was that the OS is indeed a separate component and should have an itemised price.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
France is the only country pushing for unbundling AFAIK.
Roy Bixler Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I found confirmation that the law in France says that the price of the OS must be separately detailed. First, I found the cleverly named “http://www.racketiciel.info/” (“racket” as in “racketeering” and “iciel” as in “logiciel”, the French word for software) site. Here is a link to a recent story (in French) where the law was not followed:
Dell condamnée pour non détail des prix
http://www.aful.org/communiques/dell-condamnee-detail-prix
Here is the first paragraph with a translation below:
Condemned by the Magistrate’s Court of the Family Court of Marseilles to a punitive fine of 50 000 Euros for non-conformant display because, in the prices of the computers for sale, the price of the software was not specified, Dell Corporation persistently refuses any refunds of software to consumers while they do offer that option to corporate customers. How much longer can they continue to ignore the massive demand of future computer buyers to have the choice of the pre-installed operating system?
lalala said,
June 30, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Link to another BN article — Check
Link to another BN shill blog — Check
“anonymous” story that can’t be verified and was probably written by Roy or another BN shill — Check
Same old BS.
Jose_X Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Another confused commenter that comes to attack boycottnovell using well-worn lines — Check
It took me two clicks to get to this http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9134914 :
>> Computerworld – European customers will pay up to twice as much for Windows 7 compared to U.S. users, even though the new operating system will ship without a browser in Europe, according to Microsoft.
I won’t tell you what I clicked on because I doubt you are interested.
And if you wrote as much as Roy does, I think you would want to link back to your past stories. They call this reuse. Each link doesn’t have to be a work of art. It still makes sense to reuse.
Of course, those that come around here strutting that well-worn line about Roy linking back to his own pieces, conveniently ignore that virtually each such past blog piece also has links to third party stories embedded within.
You missed the one I mentioned above, so I seriously doubt you really check before firing the mouth. It’s obvious, to anyone who does check, that third party links are included all the time.
Oh, and yes, computerworld is in boycottnovell’s pocket. Queen Mum, who once fancied Sir William G III, emailed me a copy of the bank deposits as proof.
There are good criticisms and then there is the parent post.