Microsoft XP ULPC vs. Linux.

There is something fishy going on.

According to http://www.computerworlduk.com/technology/hardware/laptops/news/index.cfm?newsid=9006, the cost of the special XP license for netbooks is $32 in "developed markets". So, since Linux is free, at netbook with XP should cost at least $32 more than the Linux version.

To get this amazingly low price on XP, a manufacturer has to conform to some requirements, rather vague, but essentially hardware handicaps: single core CPU, no more than 1GB installed, no more than 10.2" screen, not more than 80GB HDD (later changed to 120GB) etc.

Here's the fishy part: I think there are some other clauses in there that aim to deliberately sweeten the deal on the XP version so as to shut out Linux from the netbook market. The first one is generally understood, and relatively benign: you can't sell XP and Linux on identical hardware configurations, you have to have different models to disguise the real cost of the operating system. The second one is more nefarious, I suspect it goes something like this: "We'll give you XP for $32 if you count it as $12 in the BOM..." ie. the manufacturer is forced to put up $20 of the cost of the license themselves. Either that or MS are providing XP for far less than is generally known.

As you all know, the XP and Linux versions of the A1 differ by only $20 US.

Compared to the A110, the A150 is up 512MB RAM, 120GB HDD, and XP, and down the Intel P230 8GB SSD.

The SSD costs $45 (http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-5406-view-Intel-Z--P230-SSD.html) in volume, a 120GB HDD about the same. 512MB DDR2 is perhaps $8. So $8 +45 +XP -$45, i.e. for Acer to make the same amount of profit from both machines, the cost of the XP license has to be $12. If the license is more, Acer is subsidizing Microsoft by lowering its profit margin on the XP machine.

That's great for the consumer right? You get a copy of XP for $12 bucks!

Yeah, but... don't you think its a little unfair? I cant comment on the legality, but it doesn't seem fair to me.

For one, since when is it ok to have a sliding price scale on software depending on the computer you install it on? Does Vista cost more if you run it on a quad core machine than a dual core? No. For another, since when is artificially creating a class distinction and dumping a product in that select market for 80% less with the express purpose of shutting out a competitor considered acceptible? Finally, if you really do sell it for $32 and force the vendor to cut their margin by $20 to subsidise it, since when is that not an abuse of a monopoly position?

 

Interesting, very interesting. And it doesn't surprise me one bit that MS is doing anything it can to cut out the competition, after all, a leopard can't change its spots.

Fortunately there are more factors involved than just price. I know that a lot of people are intrigued by this whole Linux idea, have heard it talked about and read about it on the web. And maybe even installed it for testing on one or two machines, but here's a chance to actually try it out preinstalled on a new piece of hardware. A chance to actually use Linux in the 'real world'.

That's the primary reason I really wanted to get a Linux version, and I know I'm not the only one. After getting past the Linpus default desktop and getting to a regular Linux one it has really opened up for me. Now I'm in search of the software I need, after all a computer is only as good as the software it runs.

 

I wonder if the EU is aware of this? They have slapped some fairly hefty fines on Microsoft of late for their business (mal)practices.

This also seems to be a clear case of them acting illegally.

 

Interesting. Makes me reconsider buying the XP version on sale at the moment. If only I was more proficent with Linux! I saw in a different thread that you could "refuse" the XP license and get money back; but I'm not so sure about setting up my own Linux box yet. Too bad the Linux version wasn't dropping in price in a likewise fasion.