Replacing A Cheaper Price With More Resources For Linux
The netbook craze has created a lot of netbooks that have Windows and Linux versions. This, naturally, creates something or a pricing issue, since Linux is free and Windows is not. The most obvious option is to make the Linux one cheaper, but that is not what Asus, and possibly others, have decided to do. Both Asus’s Eee Box and Eee PCs instead have additional resources in the Linux version.
I can understand the logic: don’t confuse the customers with different prices, while recognizing that Linux is less expensive. In fact, the way Asus did it in the Eee PC, where the Linux version has additional storage, makes a lot of sense. Perhaps not quite as much as just making it cheaper, but that is their decision.
What I don’t understand is the plan for their Eee Box. With the Eee Box, the Linux version comes with 2GB of RAM instead of one. The thing is that 1GB is plenty for Linux. Vista might need it, but most Linux users do not. Putting in a faster processor or a larger hard drive would make more sense.
I don’t mean to attack the Eee Box in any way. I simply want to point out the lack of logic in putting more resources in the one that needs less.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:38 am
The added features are Wintel’s way of hiding the price of M$’s OS, an anti-competitive act for a monopoly. It is universal. I have not seen any seller sell both operating systems on a single hardware configuration. Some even charge a higher price for GNU/Linux. The battle is still uphill on a slipper slope. Filing complaints with competition bureaus might help. If that does not work, talk to your legislator to tighten up the laws. This is the same old stuff. When M$ is caught in one anti-competitive act it innovates another to maintain monopoly illegally. Banning them is about the only tactic that will work.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:23 am
I’m no fan of Microsoft, and I’d rather see the GNU/Linux machines cheaper (or the same price with better features), but making the lower-spec Windows machines cheaper is not anti-competitive or illegal. “Hiding” the price of the operating system is also not illegal as the computer is being sold as a package with the operating system. It’s like complaining that your notebook vendor “hid” the price of the power adapter that comes with it.
Microsoft is not a monopoly either, bucko.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
A monopoly is defined as a vendor having more than 50% market share. M$ is a monopoly.
As a monopoly they have to compete on price. They do not do that with bundling.
e.g. Canadian Competition Act section 77(2)
—–
(2) Where, on application by the Commissioner or a person granted leave under section 103.1, the Tribunal finds that exclusive dealing or tied selling, because it is engaged in by a major supplier of a product in a market or because it is widespread in a market, is likely to
(a) impede entry into or expansion of a firm in a market,
(b) impede introduction of a product into or expansion of sales of a product in a market, or
(c) have any other exclusionary effect in a market,
with the result that competition is or is likely to be lessened substantially, the Tribunal may make an order directed to all or any of the suppliers against whom an order is sought prohibiting them from continuing to engage in that exclusive dealing or tied selling and containing any other requirement that, in its opinion, is necessary to overcome the effects thereof in the market or to restore or stimulate competition in the market.
—–
Retailers certainly tie the selling of particular hardware configurations with that other OS and that makes it impossible for a purchaser to buy the particular hardware configuration by itself or with GNU/Linux.