Tackling OEM lawlessness

Greetings habrovchane! I offer you a post that helped me get an invite.
_________

What's happening

Historically, Microsoft in the field of operating systems for workstations (for the x86 platform, where no less horrendous oligopoly from Intel and AMD also exists) occupies a leading monopoly position throughout the world, and since there are OS requirements for this The moment is indisputable, the profits in this industry are simply colossal (according to Gartner Research analysts, now it is about 1 billion computers on earth, and by 2014 this number will double ).

Who is guilty

Microsoft maintains its monopoly position by various means, which are far from always legal and certainly not fair and fair to potential competitors. One of such means is the imposition of its OS with all imaginable and unimaginable ways even before selling the computer to the consumer, which is the OEM version of Windows and a complex series of contracts that link everyone involved in the PC production scheme, from hardware manufacturers and assemblers of end systems to distribution networks. Often, such agreements are concluded with the clause on non-disclosure, but sometimes information skips on the Internet.

For example, on the forums ( LOR-e , OZPP ) there were reports that major suppliers of computers like Asustek, Acer, Dell, ... offered to deliver this operating system on very favorable terms ( tenfold discounts), but with restrictions or a complete ban on use competitors' products (for example, price, processor power, screen size and internal memory) and minimum sales requirements (millions of units). Other monopolists use similar principles - the same Intel restricts the use of processors of a certain lineup for netbooks (unfortunately I didn’t find any links, but there is a discussion on ixbt , by the way, restrictions on using windows xp on netbooks are also mentioned). Also, for example, since the version of Vista, a ban has been imposed on the installation of unsigned drivers, which gives Microsoft the means to influence the manufacturers of components, drivers, and possibly software. Maybe this was the fact that many modern devices have drivers only for Vista, but not for Windows XP / 2k and even more so, God forbid, for Linux / FreeBSD / ...
')
In addition, the OEM version of Windows allows you to bind a specific installation to the hardware, forcing you to purchase the same OS again when purchasing / upgrading new hardware. Those who live safely on the previous boxed versions of the OS (Windows XP / 2k) can be forced to make a second purchase, stop supporting them and release drivers (pressure on component manufacturers). And in the future, it may be practiced to rent computers and software for rent in parts , probably to finally prevent the possibility of only one-time purchase of software (now MSDN AA subscriptions of various kinds are practiced, starting with MSDN AA durilov, which by the way can only be trained, but not built infrastructure for this training, for example, teachers cannot create manuals on such software).

And of course, all of the above is true for many other Microsoft products.

What to do

I hope no one needs to explain what disadvantages for society and the future as a whole, this planetary monopoly carries. Especially if the activity of the monopolist is practically not seriously limited (there is no need to talk about antitrust laws, huge EU fines, etc., all the same, Microsoft has more opportunities to influence than they successfully use), and the goals, like any other company, far from universal happiness.

An interesting situation emerged from the moment the struggle against piracy began in Russia. The well-known indicative trial of the Ponosov case seems to be about to be Microsoft for a long time, since Alexander Mikhailovich seriously engaged in FOS propaganda and created, together with Viktor Alksnis, the public organization “ Center for Free Technologies ”, one of the most interesting projects of which to combat the imposition of pre-installed OEM programs . ”

The first step in the offensive was an indication of systematic and gross violations of the laws of the Russian Federation by manufacturers and sellers of virtually all laptops and less often finished computers (for example, the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", which prohibit the inclusion of consumer, as well as to condition the purchase of certain goods mandatory purchase of other goods). Information on the links above is more than enough, in short, I can say that the action is organized very well. Statements from citizens were collected, issued, with the collective support of the community, relevant statements to the FAS (which by the way coincided with his own investigation) and OZPP. Active PR is conducted on Internet forums, which is actively promoted by Leonid Krivoshein , an expert from CEST, which is registered on the forums under the nickname klark973 and whose activity on various forums is simply amazing. Press conferences , hearings on the case ( initiated by the FAS with the support of CEST) are held, a " claim in defense of an indefinite circle of people has been filed in court, against manufacturers of laptops and personal computers."

At the moment, the fight against OEM lawlessness has just begun, but there are already some results. FAS will put Microsoft on the list of monopolists. The leading laptop makers began to move, they began to make loud and not always reasonable statements, and even at the hearing on the FAS case, they even said stupid things, it was a pity there were few details and they were smeared on the blog klark973, the hearing was closed. For example, according to the head of the Russian representative office of Acer Gleb Mishin, Acer threatens to raise prices , comments from klark973 . Or another example, on the instructions of the President of RoverComputers Sergey Shunyaev, the technical support service suddenly, after more than five months, changed her mind and decided to reimburse the user for the cost of unnecessary OEM Windows Vista, the answer was previously negative. Only this incident did not give a reason not to record RoverComputers in the list of companies appearing in the refund case for the pre-installed software. And a few more comments on the Returned Windows article.

Why and who needs it

In general terms, the purpose of the work can be described as follows: when buying a computer and a laptop, you must be given the opportunity to choose an operating system, or you can give the opportunity to refuse to purchase OS in this store, i.e. Buy a computer without a pre-installed OS, for example, in the manner legally proposed in the OEM Windows license itself - a refund for an unnecessary software product.

The attitude of Russian citizens to this action is ambiguous. Here is a list of the main arguments for and against, which can be found among a huge number of discussions in various forums (and a little from myself).

FOR: It is very beneficial not to pay for an unnecessary operating system, or even return money for previously purchased laptops. In addition, the customer may already have an operating system (for example, a previously purchased boxed version, or an MSDN or Linux / FreeBSD subscription), or this version / build is simply not satisfied.

The amounts appear in the discussions are different, and are a separate reason for serious discussions, from $ 20 for the cheapest version of Vista to $ 70 for the Ultimate, this is at least. But, since the same OEM versions are now on the shelves and at much higher prices - $ 200 for the Ultimate, this may be another opportunity for attacks from the tax inspectorate.

AGAINST: Laptop and operating system provide inseparable hardware and software.

Adherents of such arguments cite as an example Apple with its computers and operating system. Also in analogies, degenerate examples are given - computer BIOS, mobile phones and smartphones.

FOR: If the computer and the operating system are one system, then the guarantee also applies to this complex, i.e. fix the OS killed by viruses, as well as holes and software bugs.

By the way, this argument can be cited as a counterargument about the Apple operating system, there support is provided to the entire complex as a whole. Unfortunately, the only currently practiced method (free of charge, under warranty) of fixing problems with windows (as well as software on cell phones and smartphones) is the complete removal of user data with recovery from the original image. If you think that this is an acceptable level of support, then I feel sorry for you, personally I think that this is unacceptable.

CONS: A lot of problems for the seller creates each return, even if it is a small amount.

To begin with, even if Microsoft organizes a ready-made and convenient money-back scheme for its suppliers, there are a huge amount of products in warehouses and counters that are subject to previous agreements that may not imply such procedures, which means paying off losses, at least First, it will be at the expense of the store increase the price of laptops, which means at the expense of the buyer. I think that if the scheme is successful at the beginning, it will remain so. Secondly, these are problems with taxes that have already been paid for the received OS. The right way out, in my opinion, will be the complete separation of software from equipment even at the assembly stage, and licensing and out-of-box problems are solved by a trial 30-day period that takes into account only the days the computer is running.

FOR: The market is very flexible, serious changes will not lead to long and significant distortions and the emergence of margins 'from the air'.

Most likely, Microsoft will change the contractual relationship with manufacturers, taking into account the current situation, all the same, OEM delivery is far from the only and not so effective mechanism for imposing windows to cling to it. In the ideal case, the price of the OEM version will drop to a known minimum. And for sellers in the field (especially for small specialized stores, they are more flexible and faster, and easier to respond to such changes in the market), this situation is very beneficial because the separation of operating systems from equipment will more strongly push the development of the market for computer tuning services.

AGAINST: The buyer needs a working system out of the box, he does not want to install and configure the OS after the purchase.

This is especially unpleasant when the teapot will have to pay extra for it (and really have to) or look for friends.

FOR: A computer is a complex and universal device, the main purpose of which is the solution of various tasks. It needs to be configured all the same, and the OS installation is now one of the simplest processes, the rest is much more complicated.

The capabilities of the windows operating system in the base (even in the maximum) configuration are so small that the setting after buying the equipment has to be done in almost all cases. The consequences of the introduction of Microsoft's Vista operating system are such that most users somehow tweak or reinstall the imposed OS in most cases (my experience in solving problems with friends, as well as, for example, statistics of dissatisfied Vista in 90% according to CEST) .

AGAINST: It will spur the development of piracy, will buy a laptop, return money for the OS and put on pirates.

FOR: Piracy and the imposition of the OS is practically unrelated. If a person wants and has the opportunity to break the law, then he will do so, it is too expensive to be a legal user now, for the majority it is a weighty argument.

The arguments about piracy look hypocritical. For Microsoft, the presence of piracy is incredibly beneficial, it binds users who do not want to change anything to their products, it also increases the number of real users, software developers under windows for these users, and this in turn again increases the affection of users to this platform. No wonder that Steve Ballmer was jumping on the stage, shouting out to Developers Developers , and so it is clear that the developers determine the popularity of the platform. In addition, if Microsoft wanted to deal with pirates, it would have happened a long time ago, there are enough patches in windows (there was a scandal when on all computers with Windows XP in the world at the same time, even with the auto-update service disabled, several files were updated, unfortunately I did not find any links).

FOR: In addition, pre-installed versions of the OS are often not supplied the most full-featured.

When in some version of Vista, tracert and pathping were not found, I personally was somewhat surprised by this. And that set of antivirus and other software that manufacturers usually add to the appendage, and even more so creates a lot of problems, especially with their replacement and removal, not to mention the fact that this is a clear violation of antitrust laws. And in the future, Microsoft will come up with some obstacles, a sight for sore eyes - Microsoft removes the limit on the number of simultaneously running applications in Windows 7 Starter Edition .

FOR: Having a little choice, but will untie the hands of the few competitors of Microsoft Windows.

It would not blame Linux, but OpenSource is often a good alternative, and sometimes even the best.

Additional links

* Articles in www.netadvocate.org - Detailed sequence of actions for those who already want to return money for unnecessary OEM windows.