Microsoft to charge customers $99 to remove OEM 'crapware'
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
The DOJ's 1994 consent decree with Microsoft [1] said "Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon ... the OEM not licensing, purchasing, using or distributing any non-Microsoft product." It reinforced that Microsoft could sell Windows to OEMs but not dictate what else went into the box.
And thus began the crapware nightmare. It was all well intentioned, but it prevented Microsoft from taking an Apple-like role of "benevolent dictator" to keep the OS coherent. So instead, Microsoft is relegated to the role of curmudgeonly custodian, only able to arrive and do something after the mess is made. A Groundskeeper Willie if you will.
MS is not charging to remove 'crapware' is some conspiracy with the OEMs.
MS is charging for a in-store service and product where they'll sit down and install a new OS and get someone to optimize everything for you while trying to keep all your data and whichever apps.
If you can't see the ridiculousness of the scenario, then I'm not sure what to tell you. OEMs install all this crap to the detriment of their customers, who then have to go back to the company who originally sold the OEM the operating system, just to get a decent experience. If that's not ridiculous, then I don't know what is.
Instead, Microsoft has invested in creating a variety of useful, free services via Live as an alternative - particularly Microsoft Security Essentials as consumer anti-malware packages have become primarily a means for tracking consumer behavior. Skydrive also comes to mind.
Blaming Microsoft for crapware is nonsense. Anti-trust regulators across the globe would be foaming at the mouth were Microsoft's licensing agreements with hardware manufacturer's to preclude the installation of third party software in lieu of their own offerings - they've been there and got the tee shirt.
Is $99 too much? Well, it's the same price as Apple's "One to One" and serves much of the same purpose - preserving your data during an OS install (though Microsoft offers the service any time and doesn't bundle it with a hardware purchase).
Do you think it has anything to do with Microsoft coercing them into not giving customers a real OS choice, or is it because manufacturers don't want to be bothered to do the least amount of effort to support Linux (even though most drivers should work by default)?
People buy computers to run software. Until recently, that meant Windows for most people. For laptops and desktops, that will probably never mean linux.
As to tablets, it's android or ios.
It's not a conspiracy. Linux is going to require more manufacturer resources to support consumers while producing less revenue - i.e. most people aren't going to choose Linux unless it is cheaper than Windows.
On the other hand, FreeDos is so simple and limited that hardware vendors don't need significant resources to support it, so it is more profitable than Linux.
You're not the only person to get this from the article, but I didn't read it that way at all. Maybe that's a sign that the article wasn't clear about the author's feelings, maybe it's a sign of defensiveness from MS fans, but I read it more as a critique on the absurdity of the situation.
Is the service "beneficial" to consumers? Sure. After the $99 service, they have a better OS install.
Is it Microsoft's "fault"? Of course not. They're not the ones installing the crapware, and they're powerless to do anything about it (thanks DOJ!).
The absurdity comes in the simple fact that MS finds themselves in a position where their best choice is to offer a service to de-crapify operating systems that are made crappy by their own customers (OEMs). It's not Microsoft's fault. They're not doing anything malicious here, but it doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
"It could only be worse if the OEMs wanted payment to remove crapware."
Might at best, be considered damning Microsoft with faint praise. But it's clear that this article is intended as an indictment of Microsoft's practice:
"This isn’t an example of Microsoft benefiting at the expense of the hardware makers, it’s Microsoft benefiting at the expense of consumers"
It is actually possible to estimate the degree to which this is asinine:
16 stores * 40 customers * 365 days * $99 = $23,000,000/year.
When one considers setting up Live services as part of what Microsoft is offering, it's not a bad deal. Hell, 99 bucks would be a better use of my time walking her through the process.
But I think I'll just run Linux
Or just go to the Apple Store
"With great power comes great responsibility" and it's a pity MS doesn't OWN the user experience. Lock up the ability of OEM to preinstall stuff (like, only drivers and specific software)
(yes, several parts of Windows have worsened over time, like the Control Panel. Still, MS products UX is usually better than most UX out there)
Doing so would probably be illegal in the US, Europe and several other markets.
Ah, sounds familiar.
Sounds familiar.
In fact, they do: http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/cat/categoryID.4...
OEMs, not the user
Simple, I want to know what's been installed. With Linux or "Windows from MS" I know. With "Windows from OEM" I don't know.
Also, what's the legal status of using a clean install disk with my crapified computer's registration key? If I want to reinstall Windows, am I obliged to reinstall the crapware too?
If I could reinstall a clean OS for free, $99 is a racket. Someone with a Windows disk could make a pretty penny undercutting MS here. Of course, one of the reasons I use Linux is because dealing with Windows like this is a legal minefield.
It does, however, posit that the offset value of the difference in frustration between the experience of buying a new PC is sufficient to drive consumers to Apple though.
If you ask me, the fact that Microsoft offers this service is a risky move on their part because it risks upsetting the OEMs. Charging $99 for the cost of labor is pretty reasonable since you get phone support with it - I can easily imagine troublesome customers racking up hours of support costs in those 90 days after paying for this service.
This is plain wrong. Microsoft dictates licensing with its customers and it certainly has the right to license on different terms to different customers.
And in fact they do exactly this with OEM's already.
MSFT is certainly within its rights and capabilities to include in their licensing dealings with OEM partners terms that prohibit pre-installing what they deem "crapware". And asking them to enforce this restriction (whether a good idea or not) is nonetheless reasonable.
Clickwrap is a blurry legal line, but you more or less are "signing" a license agreement by installing Windows.
And nonetheless the "OEM edition" that you get is potentially very different (license-wise) from the custom-negotiated contract that Dell is bound to when they order two hundred thousand licenses from Microsoft.
What do we expect Microsoft to do about it? Nothing, really. It'd be nice if OEMs took the high road, but they're not going to do that either. Does that mean we should all just shut up about it? Heh, that ain't happening' either.
Yes, you can buy a brand new Windows license for installing on your PC. But that'll cost you more than $99 this service costs.
Case 1: Let's say you take the ENTIRE day. You have not only fixed your problem but you have learned a lot of things which will help you with a similar problem the next time. You save costs for your entire life on the expense of that one day.
Case 2: You get it done in an hour or so which isn't a big financial hit.
format c:
:)