cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
So why do business with such a store? Take your money to a reputable
vendor, instead.
It's not usually a "store" that Ideal with under such circumstances.
It's invariably laptops, for reasons I mentioned, and the client
approaches me for advice on what laptop to buy. They ask the
questions I suggest, and get weasel answers. Usually what follows is
a three-way email thing between client, sales droid and myself. I
don't physically take a morning off working prime time to accompany
the client to some retail palace where I can pull open product boxes.
That's true. And laptops are the only sort of computer with which I
buy OEM software. But I still won't buy one that doesn't have a full
installation CD.
I try to avoid that too, but eventually fatigue sets in after
back-and-forth weaseling - it's clear the sales tactic is to stall
until the buyer eventually caves in. Getting an assurance pinned down
in writing, or via email, is very difficult indeed - and often the
client has to buy a second license for the same PC. That's happened
twice with Toshiba laptops, for example, and there's no way to get
credited for the bundled license you don't want.
This trickery gets MS two license sales for the same box, and is
outright bad-faith exploitation IMO.
And who would set these "standards?"
MS already does, by setting the precident of threatening OEMs with
exclusion from supply unless they desisted from installing Netscape
instead of IE, or from removing IE's in-your-face UI presence. Thier
agreements with OEMs reserve this right for themselves, and they have
excersized that right in the past.
So all that remains to be monitored, is what MS chooses to enforce as
acceptable minimum standards. It seems that undermining MS's desktop
UI monopoly is Bad, but screwing the user's ability to control how the
PC is set up is Just Fine, and if arbitrary pretexts can be exploited
to foist a second license sale for the same PC, that's even better.
For example, a PC may come with XP Home when the user requires XP Pro,
or may come with an XP Pro recovery disk when what the user requires
is a fully-controllable XP Home disk. It's pure bloody-mindedness
that forces such users to buy two licenses and never be able to use
one of them (e.g. on another PC).
Are you advocating more government interference and/or hand-holding?
There's a role for regulatory imposition of fair practice, though
usually this can be done through standard legislation that addresses
such issues. In fact, a judiciary would be negligent if it did not
intervene when fair practice was being transgressed, and yes, I'd
expect such legislation to override rights self-granted by EUL"A".
And just where is one prohibited from including Netscape on an OEM
installation? One of the biggest chores of setting up a new computer
(with an OEM software bundle) is removing the extraneous trash, that the
manufacturer was paid to include. This often means cleaning out AOL
products (which includes Netscape).
The relationship between MS and OEMs has been highlighted in legal
terms on a couple of ocasions, and one went about exactly this - in
fact, it may have been the start of the DoJ (Jackson) case.
Another case is where the practice of assumed license sales was
prohibited. Prior to this, it was assumed that every CPU sold by
large vendors would have been accompanied by an OS license, which
precluded a refund wherever the buyer chose some other OS.
I would rather MS cleaned up its act, if only to maintain in-house
uniformity that meets its claimed objectives and standards. However
if MS persists in pushing this envelope, then intervention is due.
Are these bizarre rules the result of local (i.e., South African) laws,
Chris? I've never encountered anything like this in the U.S.
Check out the terms of NDAs and EULAs that apply to Intel and MS
reseller programs, as a start. Much of this stuff obliges one to work
against the interests of the user, directly in opposition to one's
expected role as a vendor-independent advisor on value.
Terms may well vary according to geography, either due to local
conditions (such as rampant piracy in some markets, that saw "lite"
product valiants and/or easliest adoption of Product Activation) or
due to local opportunities (e.g. weak legislation allowing off-radar
persistance of tactics no longer tolerated in the US).
I've prolly been more specific than I intended; this is as far as I'm
comfy when caught between the need to back up my assertions while
respecting NDAs etc. I doubt if I've mentioned anything that is not
already Google-able, and I've been as "general" as possible.
Where has this happened? Granted IE can't be removed, but I know of
nothing to stop the OEM from loading Netscape along with the other AOL,
McAfee, Norton, and/or Intuit trash they bundle with computers.
That followed legal challenge that arose in exactly these
circumstances. The will is clearly there, and as one particular
pressure point is armoured by legal precident, others will get pressed
upon instead. My point is that MS has the self-granted rights to
enforce minimum standards, and simply chooses not to do so.
What really needs to happen, is for the user's end of the EUL"A" to be
robustly represented and negotiated.
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
