Hello:
A few months ago I decided to buy a laptop for one of my children. I wanted to buy a new laptop without an operating system (OS) on it to install an OS to my liking. It became a complicated problem. Most stores selling computers offered me a laptop with an OS installed; it was an OS I don't want to use and I don't want to pay for. Finally, in a town near the city where I live (but not in the 1,6 million people city where I live), I found a shop offering new laptops that could be purchased with or without an OS installed, and, in case of buying the computer with OS, they said what was the price that was being paid for it.
Despite achieving my goal after a long and tedious process, I realized that in Spain, and perhaps in the entire European Union, most computers are sold with a proprietary OS already installed, without offering details of the amount the citizen is paying for that OS, and do not giving the real possibility of rejecting that OS, buy the computer without it and not be charged for it.
1. - I think it should be a right for all and every citizen of the European Union, when buying a computer, to have the details of the amount which corresponds to the computer or hardware and how much is charged for the OS and other software .
2. - I think it should be a right for all and every citizen of the European Union, when buying a computer, to have the real possibility, at the time of purchase, of rejection of the acquisition of the OS and any other software that the manufacturer and / or seller offered with the computer.
I can understand that a manufacturer and / or seller could say that computers they offer have not been tested with an OS other than the one they recommend, but, once the buyer is informed about that, I can't understand why must he buy an OS he may not want and for whose use he must accept a series of contractual terms which are entirely beyond his purpose of buying a computer.
I think the freedom and rights of all and every citizen of the European Union must be strictly observed in any transaction, and that freedom and those rights should be the priority over the profit of companies and corporations who may have intended to impose their interests.
We can fully exercise our freedom only if we have freedom of choice.
I am aware that if a measure such as I propose is adopted for the sale / buying computers process, there would be no reason to not adopt it also in relation to mobile phones, game consoles and other devices. This is not the main objective of my proposal, but, considering these possible implications, I still think it could be a good measure.
I also believe that the adoption of a measure such as I propose, in addition to directly defend the rights of citizens and consumers in the European Union, would be an incentive for competition and the free market within the European Union, would promote greater transparency in the relationship between computer manufacturers and developers of operating systems and applications and help avoid the possibility of de facto monopolies, something that could happen if one or more companies take advantage of its dominant position.
For all that I have said, I think it could be a good measure that would increase the use of free software.
But I do not know how we can get running something like this. I consulted some pages of the European Union website [1] [2] [3], but I lack the knowledge to assess what is the best way to try to carry out the proposal.
I'm sure there are people in this forum better informed and with better capabilities than me to take the proposal forward.
What can we do?
Regards
Vicen
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/index_es.htm [2] http://ec.europa.eu/spain/participa/danos-tu-opinion/index_es.htm [3] http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome?lg=es
P.S.: I apologize for my bad English and the mistakes.
[note for long-time followers of this list, if you find the topic old stuff, please jump to "BUT" near the end of this message]
Hello Vicen.
[...] I realized that in Spain, and perhaps in the entire European Union, most computers are sold with a proprietary OS already installed, without offering details of the amount the citizen is paying for that OS, and do not giving the real possibility of rejecting that OS, buy the computer without it and not be charged for it.
Yes. It has been like this since the beginning of times.
You are right in everything you say, and I thank you for restating the question so clearly, even if it is a known issue to most followers of this mailing list. (btw: why only the EU?)
But please let me show why it is very unlikely to achieve what you wish.
- [...]
to have the details of the amount which corresponds to the computer or hardware and how much is charged for the OS and other software .
Likewise, it is a right for me to know how the price of a car derives from the various parts: engine, wheels, air conditioner and so on (btw, I don't want an air conditioner).
- [...] have the real possibility, at
the time of purchase, of rejection of the acquisition of the OS and any other software
Likewise, while I understand not everyone can replace the engine, I'd love to buy a car without wheels and without a battery, so I can install the ones that best match my needs and use pattern.
Back to the software/hardware split, I would love to buy a cell phone without software and put the one of my choice, and the same applies to the music player, the TV set, the dishwasher, the microwave oven and the espresso machine.
I think the freedom and rights of all and every citizen of the European Union must be strictly observed in any transaction, and that freedom and those rights should be the priority over the profit of companies and corporations who may have intended to impose their interests.
While I sympathise, reality is exactly the other way round. The profit, the companies and the holy "marketplace" are the most important things out there.
I am aware that if a measure such as I propose is adopted for the sale / buying computers process, there would be no reason to not adopt it also in relation to mobile phones, game consoles and other devices.
Yes. And the wristwatch, the bike odometer, and maybe even the flashing lights we use to ride in the night. All of them are a combination of hardware and software, with a microcontroller and an operating system, and we technicians know it very well.
would be an incentive for competition and the free market [...] help avoid the possibility of de facto monopolies
Unfortunately, I don't think these aims are considered important nowadays by the general public or the decision makers. While I can't make specific examples, when I listen to the news I always have the feeling things are going the other way and everyone is happy about that.
I'm sure there are people in this forum better informed and with better capabilities than me to take the proposal forward.
Yes, I am one in the "more informed" set. Let me argue against your proposal.
While we know that recent cameras, stereo sets and usb storage devices are computers just like the laptop and you may replace the software, people less in the field know that the laptop doesn't work without software, like all the other devices I listed, and installing software in bare hardware takes enormous efforts, in the laptop just as much as in the washing machine.
And there's another point, besides the actual increase in time spent if you force the user to install software or the increase in cost if you want to ship both swful and swless devices. OS vendors talk with hw manufactures and propose a deal: "if you preinstall my stuff on all computers I offer a discount". This is not against the laws, I think, because offering quantity discounts is a fair deal. And manufacturers accept this: the can charge 10EUR less to all customers rather than charging 10EUR more to almost all of them, and 200 less to a tiny minority.
BUT the PC market is different, in a way, from other devices. In there, the hardware vendor and the main software vendor involved have usually strong brands, which are always advertised separately. And the software one is always crying misery because of piracy, and the various no-profit "alliances" of vendors remind us that we don't own the software which is their own jewelry and we can only use it according to their rules.
So, the right path to attack the problem you describe is requesting a split of the contract. Since we users (and even the decision makers) know very well that we *own* the laptop but only have limited rights on the software we get, we can request to sign two different contracts. One item is *sold* and the other is *licensed*. We need to remind that to customers (to prevent "piracy" and "raising awareness" about the issue, yo know), so software companies may have a harder time fighting this than other, stronger, proposals.
While I have no direct experience, I think the "preferred" OS is even installed or unlocked or whatever the first time you turn on the computer (maybe software vendors want to remind users that that's own copy that cannot be lent to others, or something similar).
Thus, if we use the proprietary vendor's efforts in promoting wider knowledge of their "intellectual property", and we help them in reminding their users to not "pirate" that crap to friends, then we may have some (little) chance of suceeding. We can request rules to split out the *sell* from the *license* in monetary exchanges for computing devices, in order to raise awareness about what is allowed and what is not, to help software vendors defending their own rights and better protect "intellectual property" overall.
As a side effect, we'll automatically achieve more awareness about how licensing *that* crap is not really mandatory, and there are cheaper and sweeter pieces of crap out there, that run on the same hardware.
Acknowledgements: this is not my own idea, but one by Renzo Davoli, current president of "associazione software libero". As expected, despite the efforts spent and the user base involved, nothing happened in my country. Maybe it's high time to restart action in the field, on a wider scale?
Unfortunately, and I'll conclude, this technological market is disappearing, and we are late as usual. The desktop pc is marginal already (but there you can buy os-less parts) and the laptop it going to be marginal pretty soon. Most modern computing devices are already one-vendor-only things like microwave ovens, and their are sold as appliances rather then general-purpose computers (again, not me: this time is Cory Doctorow). So maybe Renzo's idea is sound and worth following, but maybe it would be wasted time because by the time we achieve the result that market place would be inexistent already.
/alessandro
If someone has hard data on how many computers sold in the EU are bundled with MS Windows, lobbying the DG for Competition http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/index_en.htm might be the way to go. I am afraid there's virtually nil chance to get a general ban on bundling software with hardware, but there is a possibility that Microsoft may be forbidden to bundle their OS with hardware due to their de facto monopoly.
Cheers,
Hi Heiki,
I think you are right. I'll send a message to Mr. Joaquín Almunia, Vice-President Commissioner for Competition, asking what could we do.
Thanks
Vicen
El dom, 03-03-2013 a las 12:41 +0000, Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild escribió:
If someone has hard data on how many computers sold in the EU are bundled with MS Windows, lobbying the DG for Competition http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/index_en.htm might be the way to go. I am afraid there's virtually nil chance to get a general ban on bundling software with hardware, but there is a possibility that Microsoft may be forbidden to bundle their OS with hardware due to their de facto monopoly.
Cheers,
* Vicen Rodriguez Vicen_Rodriguez@fsfe.org [2013-03-03 22:14:21 +0100]:
I think you are right. I'll send a message to Mr. Joaquín Almunia, Vice-President Commissioner for Competition, asking what could we do.
Please keep us updated. Matthias
Hi Matthias,
Yesterday (25/03/2013), I received a message from Mr. Nicholas Banasevic (Head of Unit, European Comission, GD Competition) as answer to the message I sent to Mr. Joaquín Almunia in March 7th. The message from Mr. Nicholas Banasevic is in Spanish, as the one I sent to Mr. Joaquín Almunia.
Here is a translation of the message (the translation is made by me and maybe is not a good translation):
----------
I appreciate your message of March 7, 2013 in which you reported that Microsoft would be preventing the installation of other operating systems in computers having Windows or the selling of computers without an operating system.
The Commission is aware of this and is following how this issue is being developed.
I assure you that we are willing to enforce the competition rules of the EU in a way that ensures that EU competition is not distorted and that markets operate as efficiently as possible for the benefit of all European consumers in terms of a wider range of products and services, lower prices and greater innovation.
Consumer perceptions like yours are a valuable contribution to our daily work. If you had knowledge of any other potential infringement of the competition rules of the EU, please do not hesitate to inform us.
----------
Vicen
El jue, 07-03-2013 a las 11:43 +0100, Matthias Kirschner escribió:
- Vicen Rodriguez Vicen_Rodriguez@fsfe.org [2013-03-03 22:14:21 +0100]:
I think you are right. I'll send a message to Mr. Joaquín Almunia, Vice-President Commissioner for Competition, asking what could we do.
Please keep us updated. Matthias
Dear Vicen,
thank you for your effort in this!
Could you please provide the original answer? I would not say your translation were false or bad, but I am interested in the original text. Please include the date the message was sent, and, if possible your inquiry.
Thanks in advance,
Rob
Am 26.03.2013 09:02, schrieb Vicen Rodriguez:
Hi Matthias,
Yesterday (25/03/2013), I received a message from Mr. Nicholas Banasevic (Head of Unit, European Comission, GD Competition) as answer to the message I sent to Mr. Joaquín Almunia in March 7th. The message from Mr. Nicholas Banasevic is in Spanish, as the one I sent to Mr. Joaquín Almunia.
Here is a translation of the message (the translation is made by me and maybe is not a good translation):
---------- /I appreciate your message of March 7, 2013 in which you reported that Microsoft would be preventing the installation of other operating systems in computers having Windows or the selling of computers without an operating system./ /The Commission is aware of this and is following how this issue is being developed./ /I assure you that we are willing to enforce the competition rules of the EU in a way that ensures that EU competition is not distorted and that markets operate as efficiently as possible for the benefit of all European consumers in terms of a wider range of products and services, lower prices and greater innovation./ /Consumer perceptions like yours are a valuable contribution to our daily work. If you had knowledge of any other potential infringement of the competition rules of the EU, please do not hesitate to inform us./ ----------Vicen
El jue, 07-03-2013 a las 11:43 +0100, Matthias Kirschner escribió:
- Vicen Rodriguez<Vicen_Rodriguez@fsfe.org mailto:Vicen_Rodriguez@fsfe.org> [2013-03-03 22:14:21 +0100]:
I think you are right. I'll send a message to Mr. Joaquín Almunia, Vice-President Commissioner for Competition, asking what could we do.
Please keep us updated. Matthias
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Dear Rob,
Here is the original message sent by me on 07/03/2013 through the form you can find in http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/almunia/contact/commissioner/index_...
----------
Muy apreciado señor Joaquín Almunia:
En primer lugar, quiero agradecerle todo el trabajo que usted y su equipo están haciendo desde la comisión en beneficio de todos los ciudadanos de la Unión Europea. En segundo lugar, le pido disculpas si no es a usted a quien debo dirigir este mensaje.
Hace unos meses, en Navidad, decidí comprar un ordenador portátil para uno de mis hijos. Quería comprar un ordenador portátil nuevo y sin sistema operativo para poder instalar en él un sistema operativo de mi agrado. En todos los establecimientos de venta de ordenadores que visité me ofrecieron únicamente ordenadores portátiles con un sistema operativo ya instalado que yo no quería, y por el que yo no quería pagar. Vivo en Barcelona, una ciudad que creo que tiene cerca de dos millones de habitantes y en la que no fui capaz de encontrar una tienda en la que me vendiesen un ordenador portátil nuevo sin un sistema operativo ya instalado.
He hablado del asunto con otras personas y he llegado a la conclusión de que, en España y en toda la Unión Europea, la mayoría de los ordenadores se venden con un sistema operativo ya instalado, casi siempre del mismo fabricante (aunque parece ser que hay dos fabricantes que se reparten el mercado de manera desigual), sin que se ofrezca información detallada del importe que el ciudadano está pagando por ese sistema operativo y sin darse una posibilidad real de rechazarlo y de adquirir el ordenador sin el sistema operativo y sin que se le cobre por él.
1.- Creo que debe ser un derecho de todo ciudadano de la Unión Europea que, cuando adquiera un ordenador, en los presupuestos y en las facturas que se le extiendan aparezca desglosado qué parte del importe corresponde al ordenador y qué parte corresponde al sistema operativo y a otro soporte lógico.
2.- Creo que debe ser un derecho de todo ciudadano de la Unión Europea que, cuando adquiera un ordenador, tenga la posibilidad real de rechazar en el momento de la compra la adquisición del sistema operativo y de cualquier otro soporte lógico que el fabricante y/o el vendedor ofrezcan con el ordenador.
Puedo entender que un fabricante y/o un vendedor digan que los ordenadores que ofrecen no han estado probados por ellos con un sistema operativo distinto a aquel que ellos recomiendan, pero no puedo entender que, una vez que el comprador esté informado, se le obligue a adquirir, junto con el ordenador, un sistema operativo que él quizá no desea y para cuya utilización, además, deberá aceptar una serie de condiciones contractuales que son del todo ajenas a su propósito de adquirir un ordenador.
Me dirijo a usted porque creo que la situación con la que me he encontrado se corresponde a un monopolio de facto o, en el mejor de los casos, a un duopolio.
Creo que deben respetarse escrupulosamente la libertad y los derechos de los ciudadanos de la Unión Europea en cualquier transacción comercial y que debe hacerse priorizando esa libertad y esos derechos por encima del ánimo de lucro de empresas y corporaciones que puedan tener la intención de imponer sus intereses.
Creo que la adopción de una medida como la que propongo en los puntos que he enumerado como '1' y '2', además de defender directamente los derechos de los ciudadanos y consumidores de la Unión Europea, supondría una defensa de la competencia y del libre mercado dentro de la unión Europea, favorecería una mayor transparencia en la relación entre los fabricantes de ordenadores y los desarrolladores de sistemas operativos y aplicaciones y ayudaría a evitar la posibilidad de que se diesen situaciones de monopolio de facto por el aprovechamiento que algunas empresas puedan hacer de su posición dominante.
Me parece una buena medida y me gustaría que se pusiese en marcha, pero no sé qué si mi punto de vista es el correcto, por lo que me gustaría conocer su opinión y, en caso de que de que usted considere que mi punto de vista es razonable, o puede serlo con algunos matices, me gustaría saber también cómo cree usted que puedo contribuir para facilitar que se adopten las medidas que propongo.
Le ruego que reciba los más afectuosos saludos.
Vicente Rodríguez
----------
Here is the answer from Mr. Nicholas Banasevic:
----------
Fecha: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:45:20 +0000
Estimado Sr. Rodríguez:
Le agradezco su mensaje del 7 de marzo de 2013 en el que nos informa de que Microsoft estaría impidiendo la instalación de otros sistemas operativos en ordenadores que llevan Windows o la venta de ordenadores sin sistema operativo.
La Comisión tiene conocimiento de esta situación y está siguiendo cómo se está desarrollando este asunto.
Le aseguro que estamos dispuestos a hacer cumplir las normas de competencia de la UE de una manera que garantice que la competencia en la UE no se distorsione y que los mercados funcionan tan eficientemente como sea posible para el beneficio de todos los consumidores europeos en términos de una mayor oferta de productos y servicios, precios más bajos y mayor innovación.
Percepciones de consumidores como la suya son un valioso aporte para nuestro trabajo diario. Si tuviera conocimiento de cualquier otra potencial infracción de las normas de competencia de la UE, por favor, no dude en informarnos.
Atentamente,
BANASEVIC Nicholas Jefe de Unidad
COMISIÓN EUROPEA DG Competencia
Mercados y casos II: Información, Comunicación y Medios de comunicación Antimonopolio: Industrias de la información, Internet y electrónica de consumo
----------
Best regards
Vicen
El mié, 27-03-2013 a las 02:22 +0100, Robert Kehl escribió:
Dear Vicen,
thank you for your effort in this!
Could you please provide the original answer? I would not say your translation were false or bad, but I am interested in the original text. Please include the date the message was sent, and, if possible your inquiry.
Thanks in advance,
Rob
Am 26.03.2013 09:02, schrieb Vicen Rodriguez:
Hi Matthias,
Yesterday (25/03/2013), I received a message from Mr. Nicholas Banasevic (Head of Unit, European Comission, GD Competition) as answer to the message I sent to Mr. Joaquín Almunia in March 7th. The message from Mr. Nicholas Banasevic is in Spanish, as the one I sent to Mr. Joaquín Almunia.
Here is a translation of the message (the translation is made by me and maybe is not a good translation):
---------- /I appreciate your message of March 7, 2013 in which you reported
[...]
Hello Vincen,
* Vicen Rodriguez Vicen_Rodriguez@fsfe.org [2013-03-26 09:02:39 +0100]:
Yesterday (25/03/2013), I received a message from Mr. Nicholas Banasevic (Head of Unit, European Comission, GD Competition) as answer to the message I sent to Mr. Joaquín Almunia in March 7th. The message from Mr. Nicholas Banasevic is in Spanish, as the one I sent to Mr. Joaquín Almunia.
Here is a translation of the message (the translation is made by me and maybe is not a good translation):
[...]
Thanks a lot for your work!! Did he reply by e-mail? Could you forward me the e-mail-adress? I would also offer them help, if they have any questions about this topic.
Regards, Matthias
Hello Alessandro,
First of all, thanks a lot for your complete and detailed answer.
btw: why only the EU?
It is a start point. I'm in Europe and this is a FSF Europe list. If it works for EU, maybe it could be adopted in other regions.
Likewise, while I understand not everyone can replace the engine, I'd love to buy a car without wheels and without a battery, so I can install the ones that best match my needs and use pattern.
Back to the software/hardware split, I would love to buy a cell phone without software and put the one of my choice, and the same applies to the music player, the TV set, the dishwasher, the microwave oven and the espresso machine.
Maybe those are similar cases. Despite it, I prefer to start for laptops and OS.
While I sympathise, reality is exactly the other way round. The profit, the companies and the holy "marketplace" are the most important things out there.
Maybe companies and marketplace seem to be considered sometimes most important than citizens' freedom and rights. We should work to fix that, at least regarding software.
So, the right path to attack the problem you describe is requesting a split of the contract.
[...]
Thus, if we use the proprietary vendor's efforts in promoting wider knowledge of their "intellectual property", and we help them in reminding their users to not "pirate" that crap to friends, then we may have some (little) chance of suceeding. We can request rules to split out the *sell* from the *license* in monetary exchanges for computing devices, in order to raise awareness about what is allowed and what is not, to help software vendors defending their own rights and better protect "intellectual property" overall.
As a side effect, we'll automatically achieve more awareness about how licensing *that* crap is not really mandatory, and there are cheaper and sweeter pieces of crap out there, that run on the same hardware.
Maybe I don't understand completely the idea. Please, correct me if I'm wrong: - Buying a computer we buy an object and, then, we own it. - Buying software we buy a license, a right to use the software under certain conditions. - If the software manufacturer and/or vendor wants to correctly protect his product, the license, from a bad use, being able to demonstrate the buyer has really acquired the rights specified on the license and then there is an agreement, the software purchase should be differentiated (split) from the computer purchase (point #1). - If that happens, it could be easier for some buyers, in a next step, to decide not to buy the OS license recommended by the computer seller, but only the computer (point #2).
Is it right? If yes, it seems roughly the same idea I had and the same conclusion from a different perspective, with the emphasis in the protection of the software licenses and not in the rights of the buyers. Perhaps both views could reinforce each other.
Unfortunately, and I'll conclude, this technological market is disappearing, and we are late as usual. [...], but maybe it would be wasted time because by the time we achieve the result that market place would be inexistent already.
If we fight for freedom, we should be prepared for long in coming. If we do not fight for it, it will never arrive.
On 03/05/2013 12:47 AM, Vicen Rodriguez wrote:
While I sympathise, reality is exactly the other way round. The profit, the companies and the holy "marketplace" are the most important things out there.
Maybe companies and marketplace seem to be considered sometimes most important than citizens' freedom and rights. We should work to fix that, at least regarding software.
Hello, It is not about companies and marketplace. It is about consumers who consider options that provide a good balance between quality and price of the products they buy. Freedom to modify the product may be considered by some, but still it is within some balance.
For example would you pay 100.000 euros for a car where you can replace engine, lights, seats, cpu, software etc, or would you buy a 15000 mass produced one? The example is exaggerated, but consider that even smaller price differences, make a lot of impact to certain people.
So in almost every example I can think of, if companies are forced with legislation to break their products in multiple separate parts, prices would go up in the average case, and go down in few (geeky) cases. Do you really believe the average person is prepared to pay more for something that has not any immediate impact visible to him (not everyone is a mechanic or software developer). Most probably he'd just import his product from a country where they don't have those laws.
For these reasons, I find the approach described by Alessandro (which was unknown to me before) quite interesting to pursue.
regards, Nikos
It is not about companies and marketplace. It is about consumers who consider options that provide a good balance between quality and price of the products they buy. Freedom to modify the product may be considered by some, but still it is within some balance.
For example would you pay 100.000 euros for a car where you can replace engine, lights, seats, cpu, software etc, or would you buy a 15000 mass produced one? The example is exaggerated, but consider that even smaller price differences, make a lot of impact to certain people.
So in almost every example I can think of, if companies are forced with legislation to break their products in multiple separate parts, prices would go up in the average case, and go down in few (geeky) cases. Do you really believe the average person is prepared to pay more for something that has not any immediate impact visible to him (not everyone is a mechanic or software developer). Most probably he'd just import his product from a country where they don't have those laws.
Your "analogy" is not analogous to the general purpose computer being bundled with software. In the case of Microsoft's dominant market position, the bundling actually raises prices. Sure, the users get Windows cheaper than they would get it by buying it separately, but by being forced to buy Windows they lose out on the option to buy several cheaper OSes, many GNU/Linux systems at their zero price among them. In case of the car, you are actually free to order the parts and assemble the damn thing yourself.
This has everything to do with the market, which should be free. Antitrust laws were invented for a reason.
"Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild" repentinus@fsfe.org wrote:
So in almost every example I can think of, if companies are forced with legislation to break their products in multiple separate parts, prices would go up in the average case, and go down in few (geeky) cases. Do you really believe the average person is prepared to pay more for something that has not any immediate impact visible to him (not everyone is a mechanic or software developer). Most probably he'd just import his product from a country where they don't have those laws.
Your "analogy" is not analogous to the general purpose computer being bundled with software. In the case of Microsoft's dominant market position, the bundling actually raises prices.
I frequently read that "many vendors" supposedly pays less for the Windows license than they get for installing the additional bloatware on top of it.
In this case not bundling Windows would actually make the whole bundle more expensive (for the system vendor), even if you ignore the customisation costs.
So far I haven't come across a reliable source that confirms this theory, but at least the idea that the bloatware vendors pay the system vendors something to include the bloatware seems reasonable to me. After all the bloatware makes the user experience worse and the system vendor gets the blame.
Sure, the users getWindows cheaper than they would get it by buying it separately, but by being forced to buy Windows they lose out on the option to buy several cheaper OSes, many GNU/Linux systems at their zero price among them.
Note that the bundled Windows versions usually differ from the ones that can be bought separately. The latter are not only more expensive but can also transferred to a different system more easily, (hopefully) haven't been modified by a third-party and are thus potentially worth more to a Windows user.
Fabian
Hi,
For example would you pay 100.000 euros for a car where you can replace engine, lights, seats, cpu, software etc, or would you buy a 15000 mass produced one? The example is exaggerated, but consider that even smaller price differences, make a lot of impact to certain people.
So in almost every example I can think of, if companies are forced with legislation to break their products in multiple separate parts, prices would go up in the average case, and go down in few (geeky) cases. Do you really believe the average person is prepared to pay more for something that has not any immediate impact visible to him (not everyone is a mechanic or software developer). Most probably he'd just import his product from a country where they don't have those laws.
Your "analogy" is not analogous to the general purpose computer being bundled with software. In the case of Microsoft's dominant market position, the bundling actually raises prices. Sure, the users get Windows cheaper than they would get it by buying it separately, but by being forced to buy Windows they lose out on the option to buy several cheaper OSes, many GNU/Linux systems at their zero price among them. In case of the car, you are actually free to order the parts and assemble the damn thing yourself.
This has everything to do with the market, which should be free. Antitrust laws were invented for a reason.
I agree.
Vicen
hello, On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 01:31:49AM +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: ...
It is not about companies and marketplace. It is about consumers who consider options that provide a good balance between quality and price of the products they buy. Freedom to modify the product may be considered by some, but still it is within some balance.
For example would you pay 100.000 euros for a car where you can replace engine, lights, seats, cpu, software etc, or would you buy a 15000 mass produced one? The example is exaggerated, but consider that even smaller price differences, make a lot of impact to certain people.
I think your analogy is not entirely accurate: the situation with cars is actually that they tend to include more and more technology to actually prevent the customer from changing anything...not because it is a technical requirement but to be able to sell more expensive spare parts.
So in almost every example I can think of, if companies are forced with legislation to break their products in multiple separate parts, prices would go up in the average case, and go down in few (geeky) cases. Do you really believe the average person is prepared to pay more for something that has not any immediate impact visible to him (not everyone is a mechanic or software developer). Most probably he'd just import his product from a country where they don't have those laws.
well...how would it be more expensive for them?
we are actually not asking to support linux in particular (in the way that you can call their support hotline and start asking questions on running linux on their hardware), but only to leave out a non essential part (like for example you would want to order your car withouth leather seats because you want to use your custom velvet seat covers and therefore have no use for the more expensive extra option of leather seats).
yours, albert
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 09:40:22AM +0100, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
I think the freedom and rights of all and every citizen of the European Union must be strictly observed in any transaction, and that freedom and those rights should be the priority over the profit of companies and corporations who may have intended to impose their interests.
While I sympathise, reality is exactly the other way round. The profit, the companies and the holy "marketplace" are the most important things out there.
Yes the lesson I learnt the only time I spent significant time trying to prevent a small part of law becoming worse (and seeing our friends succeed for "once", but business continuing "as usual") is that nobody cares about law.
Nowadays they are already building hardware (like in chips) that
1- need propietary software to boot, which even must be signed by certain keys before the boot CPU accepts to start the application CPU.
2- (but SMM is not new) have privileged software running "below" the OS with more access to the system than the OS itself (just as the OS under applications has more control than the applications). It appears that "they" (who?) sense too much force from free software and react by allowing it in a layer as long as there's an underlaying layer out of user control than can control the user controlled layer. In a positive view, this is a recognition of the success of free software, even in the form of an scalation of repression.
3- Even advertise remote management whereby a remote administrator (sufficiently blessed by the controllers of the keys) can inspect, monitor, alter, repair, etc. the computer from internet
4- Establish (even in W3C) "standards" to exclude user controlled software from content/services/connectivity
5- Then there's the continuing trend of featuritis, planned obsolesce and secrecy to enlarge the burden for reverse engineering and to prevent availability of alternative free software for current hardware.
I mean it is becoming incresingly irrelevant that nobody sells hardware without an OS or with free software preinstalled, if they are increasingly building hardware that simply can't run without propietary software or pushing services that will be inaccessible from freedom respecting systems.
I apologise for not having had time to read this thread in all detail, and don't mean to hitchhike it with off-topic, but I believe secure boot and similar is quite related, because once the hardware is incapable of running user selected software, the commercialisation of the hardware with or without the software the user does not want becomes moot. We used to assume one problem was many users didn't know their computer could run something else, due to the overwhelming commercialisation modes, disinformation, FUD, etc. but for new computers they are increasingly building them so that the user misconception becomes fact.
Unfortunately, I don't think these aims are considered important nowadays by the general public or the decision makers. While I can't make specific examples, when I listen to the news I always have the feeling things are going the other way and everyone is happy about that.
ACK, for example: the next batch of GTA04 phone is being cancelled due to lack of preorders (a phone as freedom respecting as possible, albeit with optional propietary wifi, bluetooth, 3D drivers and closed hardware parts including the GSM chip, yet much more open than any other phone I know).
I heard somewhere that one study set up to measure how much contract legalese internet users did not read when using online services, and reached the conclusion that an average internet user should dedicate some 70 days a year in reading the terms of use and similar clauses of all the web services they use. They apparently don't care to read them, even less to negotiate them, or even to reject the services because of their terms. So they may be similarly inclined about software licences. Sorry I don't have the quote handy.
So, even against my own feelings, maybe it is more convenient to point people to the inconveniences they live and relate them to the powers that be and the lack of users power / freedom, that to just enlightem about licence clauses who nobody really believe they're worth anything. Not simple though. And the worst inconveniences are yet to come.
So, the right path to attack the problem you describe is requesting a split of the contract. Since we users (and even the decision makers) know very well that we *own* the laptop but only have limited rights on the software we get, we can request to sign two different contracts. One item is *sold* and the other is *licensed*. We need to remind that to customers (to prevent "piracy" and "raising awareness" about the issue, yo know), so software companies may have a harder time fighting this than other, stronger, proposals.
Undocumented hardware and hardware that enforces signatures on boot software isn't exactly hardware users "own". And hardware users can own is arguably extinct or almost so.
While I have no direct experience, I think the "preferred" OS is even installed or unlocked or whatever the first time you turn on the computer (maybe software vendors want to remind users that that's own copy that cannot be lent to others, or something similar).
I thought so too, I don't have the experience either, but was told by some people from that French NGO against racketiciels that this is not so in practice, they said in France shops often install software and accept licenses in behalf of the users before selling PCs, arguably because consumers find that too confusing (maybe confusing to understand the terms, and outraging to know them), or because it is necessary or convenient to install further software the shop wants installed.
My impression was that the practice of selling most of the PCs (at least for consumers) was already illegal with the status quo, but nobody was acting against this particular violation. I'm not sure it is really illegal because I believe you can sell second hand software in the EU, so maybe the licensor is the shop and then sells the licenses second hand somehow, which I'm not sure is OK with the terms of the license, but may might be ok with the enforceable terms of the license, but might be lacking sufficent proof of acceptance by the end user of the transferred license... Too complex for me.
Unfortunately, and I'll conclude, this technological market is disappearing, and we are late as usual. The desktop pc is marginal already (but there you can buy os-less parts) and the laptop it going to be marginal pretty soon. Most modern computing devices are already one-vendor-only things like microwave ovens, and their are sold as appliances rather then general-purpose computers (again, not me: this time is Cory Doctorow). So maybe Renzo's idea is sound and worth following, but maybe it would be wasted time because by the time we achieve the result that market place would be inexistent already.
ACK, but note that the os-less parts com with propietary firmware which has control over the whole system, and which can't be replaced either for lack of alternatives or for signature checks by those same parts.
So let me add some links to almost recent news on signed boot and PCs:
Hispalinux, an Spanish association is dennouncing secure boot to the UE (also in reuters and slashdot and I guess elsewhere). I'm not sure it will achieve much, but I thank them for trying, I think it's the proper thing to do.
Matthew Garret seems to think it's not very useful and says the EU has already accepted it (I suspect the argument goes that secure boot is optional for x86 and MS does not have a monopoly on ARM, so antitrust law may not apply directly to MS).
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23817.html
It appears that signed boot might be compulsory in the computers the USA administration buys, if this NIST recommendation is binding. I have only browsed it and don't know enough about the USA to judge its weight, it appears to not require exactly UEFI secure boot, but some general signed boot mechanism.
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-147/NIST-SP800-147-April2011....
The W3C seems to accept DRM schemes in web standards, though some draft EME specification for browser plugins used to decrypt content (which would not standarize the software itself, because DRM can't be truly interoperable and is incompatible with effective software freedom, but would give standard buzzwords to new DRM stacks, which could use remote attestation to force signed binaries for popular services and advance social acceptance)
You can sign here against this
Le lun. 01/04/13, 16:30, xdrudis xdrudis@tinet.cat:
I heard somewhere that one study set up to measure how much contract legalese internet users did not read when using online services, and reached the conclusion that an average internet user should dedicate some 70 days a year in reading the terms of use and similar clauses of all the web services they use. They apparently don't care to read them, even less to negotiate them, or even to reject the services because of their terms. So they may be similarly inclined about software licences. Sorry I don't have the quote handy.
The average found by the study was 76 days. But what you can conclude from this is that it is completely impractical to read (not even understand) the terms of service you subscribe to online. To make the conclusion that people don't care about what's in them is completely out of proportion. We have no research that I'm aware of that can measure how much people care about their rights online. But the fact that FSFE, EFF or projects like tosdr.org get funded by individuals and sustain is one sign that actually enough people *do* care.
Much like with software freedom. Do most people care about it? Until they are aware of the concept and of the dangers of non-free software, it is indeed very unlikely. But people can become aware of it quite easily.
In the end, I think it is useless to ascertain whether people care or not about the law. This is too broad and difficult to measure for us anyway.
What we do konw is that *we* care about our rights and freedoms and there's definitely enough legal ground to make a meaningful proposal that people should have the right to be in control of hardware they buy. So let's focus on that.
There have been some proposals here, and I'd like to see more ideas coming :-)
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 04:02:06PM +0200, Hugo Roy wrote:
Le lun. 01/04/13, 16:30, xdrudis xdrudis@tinet.cat:
The average found by the study was 76 days. But what you can conclude from this is that it is completely impractical to read (not even understand) the terms of service you subscribe to online. To make the conclusion that people don't care about what's in them is completely out of proportion. We have no research that I'm aware of that can measure how much people care about their rights online. But the fact that FSFE, EFF or projects like tosdr.org get funded by individuals and sustain is one sign that actually enough people *do* care.
Thanks, I didn't know tosdr.org. Looks useful.
I still think the normal thing to do when you (often) find impractical to read and understand TOS is not to use the service. So the fact that many people use them without reading them for me is some measure that they don't care (I don't believe the option of not using a web service is so onerous, in fact it frees time).
But I agree I'm disgressing and we should not care too much what other people care about. We should care for what we care about. So sorry if I was sounding discouraging.
In the end, I think it is useless to ascertain whether people care or not about the law. This is too broad and difficult to measure for us anyway.
Yes, and too meaningless. Even if we could measure it we would still not change our mind only because others think different. It takes arguments to change one's mind.
What we do konw is that *we* care about our rights and freedoms and there's definitely enough legal ground to make a meaningful proposal that people should have the right to be in control of hardware they buy. So let's focus on that.
There have been some proposals here, and I'd like to see more ideas coming :-)
Of course, I didn't mean to get in the way, sorry.
My intention was only to link the topic with the fact that closed hardware is being more closely tied with closed software and closed services for content that it used to be. And I think that changes the issues at stake from what they used to be, because hardware economics is different to software economics (and I guess content/services network effects are a little different to software too, but maybe not so much). So thinking in including open hardware, open cloud (if I understood it) open culture and open knowledge in software freedom quests is increasingly appropiate. Which doesn't mean that people focusing in one of those aspects is any less helping the whole lot, of course.
I understood Alessandro's point of proliferation of appliances in detriment of general purpose computers as being very relevant to commercialisation of computers, that's all.
Hello Vicen and others,
Sorry for not having an answer to your actual question, but I wanted to mention two related things.
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 12:25:44AM +0100, Vicen Rodriguez wrote:
A few months ago I decided to buy a laptop for one of my children. I wanted to buy a new laptop without an operating system (OS) on it to install an OS to my liking. It became a complicated problem. Most stores selling computers offered me a laptop with an OS installed; it was an OS
Like many of us, I went through the same nightmare and started a collection of hardware vendors who sell either without any software or even with Free Software preinstalled:
https://www.wiki.fsfe.org/Hardware%20Vendors
I think we should support these companies by buying from them.
I don't want to use and I don't want to pay for. Finally, in a town near
Some people were already to claim their "windows tax" back:
https://www.wiki.fsfe.org/WindowsTaxRefund and in your case especially: https://www.wiki.fsfe.org/WindowsTaxRefund/Spain
Greetings,
Guido
Guido Arnold guido@fsfe.org
Like many of us, I went through the same nightmare and started a collection of hardware vendors who sell either without any software or even with Free Software preinstalled:
Ebuyer.com offer Zoostorm (a rebadged Clevo), often without any software preinstalled. http://www.ebuyer.com/search?mfr=1181
Feel free to add it if you like. wiki.fsfe doesn't allow free edits, OpenID or anything similarly useful, I have lost my wiki details again and guests aren't allowed to reset their own passwords. How much info is lost to fsfe that way, I wonder...
Hope that informs,
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 11:03:40AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Guido Arnold guido@fsfe.org
Ebuyer.com offer Zoostorm (a rebadged Clevo), often without any software preinstalled. http://www.ebuyer.com/search?mfr=1181
Feel free to add it if you like. wiki.fsfe doesn't allow free edits,
Thanks for the hint. Added to the wiki.
OpenID or anything similarly useful, I have lost my wiki details again and guests aren't allowed to reset their own passwords. How much info is lost to fsfe that way, I wonder...
Yes, that's unfortunate. I guess that's related to counter spam with the limited manpower of admins, but I am unsure about it.
Hope that informs,
It does. Thanks again!
Guido
Hello Guido:
I think it is preferable to open a new discussion for this subject.
El dom, 03-03-2013 a las 15:51 +0100, Guido Arnold escribió:
Like many of us, I went through the same nightmare and started a collection of hardware vendors who sell either without any software or even with Free Software preinstalled:
Great and useful list, but I think it will be much better if we help to update it. Regarding the two vendors in your list having Spain (ES) as country:
- Gnuinos (http://www.gnuinos.com/): At this moment, at least in the website, they are offering only two (2) computers models (desktop/tower) without OS. No netbooks, no laptops, no barebones. But two is more than nothing. - Tuxbrain (https://www.tuxbrain.net/): In 07/05/2012 they decided to stop selling, as they say in their blog: http://www.tuxbrain.com/content/estamos-de-liquidaci%C3% B3n-total-barato-barato-aka-tuxbrains-reborn
I've found also a link that does not work for me:
- Ahtec (http://www.ahtec.nl/): Does not work from my computer.
In the other hand, you can add some more Spanish vendors:
- Ahtec (http://www.ahteconline.com/): Sells laptops and desktops that can be bought without OS. - Azken Muga (http://www.azkenmuga.es/): Workstations and mobile workstations with Linux. - Imavisions (http://www.imavisions.com/; http://portatilesconlinux.com/): Sells laptops with Linux (but it seems the site is not updated since September 2012). - Linux Ocasion (http://www.linuxocasion.net/): Servers and some workstations (mainly second hand) with Linux. - Linux Store (http://www.linuxstore.es/): Desktops (and one laptop) without OS or with Linux. - Mountain (http://www.mountain.es/): Desktops, workstations, servers and laptops without OS or with Linux.
I think we should support these companies by buying from them.
I agree,... but I'd like to be able to buy a laptop without OS in any computers shop.
Greetings,
Guido
Best regards
Vicen