Analyzing The Eee PC Windows Linux Price Issue
Note: Everyone that pointed out that it is really only a difference of $50 if right, however the basic point still stands, since $50 max difference is assuming Windows is free.
Interestingly, though, Orlando’s post suggests the the difference might actually be $150. I don’t know.
Also, every that pointed out the USB flash drives are quite different from SSDs is, of course, correct. I am, and was, aware of the difference, however I choose to use flash drives due to their availability.
Today the headlines have been about the Eee PC 900 with Windows being cheaper (at least in Australia) than the Linux version ($650 to $500). Additionally, the Linux version will not be sold in retail stores. The story gets even worse when you read some of what Asus has said. APC is reporting that ASUS said “Microsoft has been a longstanding supporter of Asus.” I suppose this could just be innocent press talk, but it sure sounds to be like there is something suspicious going on.
One element of the story, however, has not been reported as much. The Linux version comes with 20GB of flash memory, while the Windows version only comes with 12GB. At first glance, 8GBs of storage should not cost $150, but flash is expensive. Could 8GB more flash memory create a significant price difference?
The answer, in a word, is no. The evidence I can find all points to, not surprisingly, 8 additional GB costing far less than $150. Let me explain my reasoning.
First, there are two issues complicating what would otherwise be a very simple problem. First, there are not many consumer solid state drives. Instead I had to use USB flash drive prices. Second, 12GB and 20GB are both very unusual capacities. Here I had to use 8-16GB and 16-32GB.
I used three lines of USB flash drives. The Corsair Voyager (8GB, 16GB, 32GB), the Corsair Survivor (8GB, 16GB, 32GB), and the A-Data My Flash (8GB, 16GB, 32GB). I will not get into the math here (it is nothing more than subtraction, but it would take up a lot of space and be very boring), but the numbers come out to this. The average price difference between the 8GB and 16GB (an 8GB difference) model was around $38. The average price difference between the 16GB and 32GB (16GB difference) was about $86 (the largest difference was about $100). In other words, the price difference between the models should really only be about $50 at most, even if Windows was free.
In summary, although it is imposssible to have perfectly accurate results, it is quite clear that the Windows version is, in fact, significantly less expensive than the Linux version for what you get. This is unacceptable.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
microsoft is paying to make the linux version more expensive than windows to keep the regular win using joe from converting to linux, thats what is happening here.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:04 am
The original article is not up on the site anymore (perhaps an error or perhaps by intention), but in the article the prices were $649 and $599 (as I recall), a difference of $50, not $150.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Please see this australian site:
http://www.asusnotebook.com.au/eee-pc.php
* ASUS eee PC 900 Black Notebook Intel CeleronM 900MHz with Win XP Home: $799.00 inc GST
* ASUS eee PC 900 Black Notebook Intel CeleronM 900MHz with Linux: $649.00 inc GST
With idem configurations the Linux eee PC is ~U$S150 cheaper
Is this possible?
May 9th, 2008 at 10:34 am
This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Microsoft will do whatever’s necessary to be the public’s first choice. Consider the deal MS is working with NBC to sell video content on the Zune…according to this blog post (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/microsoft-may-build-a-copyright-cop-into-every-zune/?ref=technology), “Microsoft has chosen to absorb the differences and sell all shows for about $1.99.”
No doubt, that a similar deal has been penned in this case.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Actually you can get a bit more accurate results.
Take a look at newegg
Pricing difference between 8 and 16GB is close to $40 - $100 USD. The price between 16GB and 32GB is $80 - $200 USD (Depending on whether or not you look at the same manuf, or the two cheapest)
So it seems that the while the $150 market isn’t unreasonable. But at the same time it kind of is b/c you have to include the license for XP. At which time one could argue, that Asus is charging a license for the linux distro. So that is a mute point.
What people need to be complaining about is why can’t we purchase a 12GB version with linux on it at the same price as $500 …
Paying a mark up for a larger hard drive is fine, but if you want to compare the distro’s at that point you can’t. What fustrates me, is they will look back in 6 months and so look, Asus Eee PC’s sell better with XP. Which isn’t true, they sell better at the $500 price point , not the $650.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Also note http://www.itwire.com/content/view/18146/1023/ is reporting only a $50 difference in AUD (649 vs 599)
May 9th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
you’re usb comparison for flash ram is flawed. SSD prices are significantly higher than usb flash or standard ram. One reason is the higher read write count between failure. Do a comparison with SSD drives instead of usb and it will be much different.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Your use of USB flash drives flaws the comparison. USB Flash and standard RAM are very different in features and price than the SSD that is used int he ASUS. For one, the SSD is meant as a hard drive replacement, which (theoretically) has many more reads and writes between failure. If you look at the cost of an 8GB SSD on newegg.com, it is $209.00 (US), which brings the comparison more in to reality.
I do disagree with the marketing of Linux at a higher price than Windows though. I think an exact model should be marketed with Linux and Windows, and the price of the Linux model should be cheaper. The way this is marketed, it definitely shows Microsoft’s influence and ability to play games with companies like ASUS.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
“The Linux version would retail for AUD$649, while the Windows version would sell for AUD$599.”
Where do you see aud$150?
May 9th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
This is a very weird situation. Given that the Eee in the same configuration all over the world is selling for the same price (Win12 gig/Lin20gig) Around £329 in the UK for either machine. It can’t be the price difference in storage that is causing it. The storage is a red herring. But what is different in the Australian market?
I can even vaguely remember someone from Asus saying at a press release that they paid for the extra storage with the saving on the Windows license.
The idea of making such a PR goof in a small market seems very strange to me.
The first thing that most of us are going to think is that Microsoft is involved. But Asus are not going to be selling that many Eees in Oz, so it isn’t really worth the expense and possible PR fallout for such a small market. It would be if the difference was in all markets, but not just one.
The second option is that Asus is stabbing Linux in the back. But business doesn’t work like that. As far as Asus is concerned, you can put CPM on the thing if you want, so long as they get your money. And a cheaper computer sells better than an expensive one. Asus care about you buying their products, not about what you do with them afterwards. And as Dell, Asus, HP, Lenovo and others have shown, Microsoft isn’t stopping companies putting Linux on their products and selling well. They might have done so at one time, but not any more.
The third player as I see it is the distributer. The most likely culprit to my way of thinking.
If Asus go through a third party who buys Asus stock, and sells it on to the wholesale customers in that region, then they could be the ones gaining from this. It’s the only option that makes any sense to me. They get the extra $50 or whatever portion of that is the wholesale price, they may get to set a base level wholesale price with the option to sell for more if they choose, so they would be the only ones I could see gaining from this situation.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Everyone that pointed out that it is really only a difference of $50 if right, however the basic point still stands, since $50 max difference is assuming Windows is free.
Interestingly, though, Orlando’s post suggests the the difference might actually be $150. I don’t know.
Also, every that pointed out the USB flash drives are quite different from SSDs is, of course, correct. I am, and was, aware of the difference, however I choose to use flash drives due to their availability.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:16 am
This is MS forcing ASUS’s hand. Asus sold a bunch of the 700’s. They would surely sell a bunch of 900’s with the same OS. MS must be offering ‘incentives’ , in the line of ‘do this Mr. Asus and we won’t raise all of our Windows prices to you.’ A memo was leaked where MS is ‘asking’ that all PC mfg’s keep the specs low on the ultra-mobile pc’s. We all know that there is a threat in there. ‘do this Mr. PC mfg and we won’t raise all of our Windows prices to you, thus allowing you to compete with everyone else who is doing what we say’
Monopolies do no good.