Microsoft has apparently given details of a new deal to PC makers that allows them to get discounted Windows XP licenses for use on UMPCs, according to Computer World UK. This already appeared to be the case due to pricing on the Eee PC, however it had not been confirmed. There seem to be two parts to this story. First, Microsoft is selling Windows for less on UMPCS. Second, some people suspect that the deal is supposed to prevent UMPCs from competing with normal PCs.
The first part is relatively simple. Microsoft is giving essentially the same product away at difference prices, depending what type of device it will go on. Although I am not in any way a lawyer, I suspect that this is legal, since Microsoft can just change one little feature and then it is a different product. Just because it is probably legal, does not, however, mean I think it is a fair practice. Another way of stating the second sentence of this paragraph is: Microsoft is making Windows less expensive in the markets where Linux is gaining market share. Because of this, I think this practice should be illegal and is certainly unfair.
The second part of the story is slightly more complicated, though not by much. The Computer World article brings up the point that Microsoft may be trying to limit UMPCs from invading the regular PC market by defining them with these specifications:
Although it is true that these specifications would limit a UMPC from competing with a regular PC, three things should be kept in mind.
For these three reasons, I don’t see anything wrong with the specifications Microsoft has set. I do, however, think that the whole idea of selling the same product at differenet prices is unfair. If you disagree, however, I am open to hearing your arguement. Go ahead and post it in the comments.
Related posts:
Steve Paine – Yes and no. While I recognize there is a difference, I feel that the specifications Microsoft set are really more the specifications for a UMPC than a ULPC.
Russell – Your overall view is reasonable, however I disagree with this:
“Microsoft could turn your argument around and complain that it is unfair for Linux distributions to be free.”
The difference is that Linux is always free, not sometimes free and sometimes not free (assuming you are talking about one distribution.)
I think MS should be allowed to charge whatever they want for their products, to better compete with Linux/Apple etc. I don’t see this as unfairl. What I fear is MS is using their dominant market position to force PC mfg’s to follow their rules. If a mfg does not comply, MS may penalize them with higher Windows prices across the board. This has happened in the past, Toshiba and BeOS comes to mind. That is unfair, unethical and downright sleazy!
I think you are confusing UMPCs (Ultra moble PCs) with ULCPCs (Ultra Low Cost PCs)
Steve
Thank you for going behind the obvious
The missing touchscreen was one of Eee’s shortcommings mentioned the most (at least on the blogs I read
.
So that limitation would certainly also harm improvements in that area.
That’s okay. I have been discounting Windows for years.
I agree that most versions of Linux are superior to Windows. However, as the owner of a product, Microsoft has the moral right to sell Windows it at whatever price they wish. The also have the right to give it away free if they wish. Microsoft could turn your argument around and complain that it is unfair for Linux distributions to be free. The bottom line is that fairness has nothing to do with it. Apparently you don’t understand the concept of property rights.