Clear winner?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| swbrown Feb 27, 2007 5:31 PM EDT |
"but for now the computer maker plans to remain on the sidelines and wait until there's a clear winner among the various distributions of the open source operating system." In other words: they're planning to wait forever. |
| tuxchick Feb 27, 2007 5:39 PM EDT |
More forked-tonguespeak. Such weenies. There will never be a 'clear winner.' And they know it. Now they can say 'see, we told you it was impossible.' |
| jsusanka Feb 27, 2007 5:44 PM EDT |
they are just looking for an out. they don't want to piss off the good old boy bill g. there are plenty of companies that will sell a computer with Linux and they will get my money whenever I buy a computer. the dell's and gateway's are just another division of microsoft. |
| dinotrac Feb 27, 2007 5:50 PM EDT |
>Dell has not offered a mainstream computer with Linux since 2001. Glad to see people leaving their thinking caps in the closet when they hop onto this thread. Dell may be right or wrong about the profitability of offering pre-installed Linux, but Bill-fear ain't likely a problem. You might have noticed that they survived offering Linux years ago. They would survive offering it again. It all comes down to making money. |
| jsusanka Feb 27, 2007 6:19 PM EDT |
"It all comes down to making money." and they are doing this because . . . |
| dinotrac Feb 27, 2007 6:24 PM EDT |
>and they are doing this because . . . because they want to make money. They may be right or they may be wrong, but their motivation is pretty easy to figure out. |
| swbrown Feb 27, 2007 6:36 PM EDT |
> Dell may be right or wrong about the profitability of offering pre-installed Linux, but Bill-fear ain't likely a problem. If they don't have Bill-fear, why then don't they offer OpenOffice.org when choosing an office suite? It's certainly massively better than the "No productivity suite" Microsoft Works option, yet is conspicuously absent, and their 'idea storm' reply carefully dodged answering why, despite the obvious customer demand. I wonder why that might be.. |
| dinotrac Feb 27, 2007 7:12 PM EDT |
>If they don't have Bill-fear, why then don't they offer OpenOffice.org when choosing an office suite? Beats me. I think OpenOffice would be a much better choice, although Works these days comes with Word , which people recognize. |
| Aladdin_Sane Feb 27, 2007 7:18 PM EDT |
dinotrac-
>Glad to see people leaving their thinking caps in the closet when they hop onto this thread. A story and an opinion if I may. About 1998-1999 Dell announced that it would sell Linux (RH 6 or so) across all LOBs (Lines of Business). This meant basically Portables, Desktops, Servers and Workstations. This was the start. There was great fanfare. Mr. Dell's "All-Hands" meeting spent the Linux portion attacking Sun/Solaris, and maybe a bit of SCO (can't find the video clip online any more). Having been an Austin resident since 1989, up to that point I'd rather have starved than set foot on Dell property. In about Dec 1999, I started to realize that the Linux commitment, exceedingly lame though it was, was reason to compromise, because the principle of MS-only had been done away with. There is no moral principle to act on anymore, merely an attitudinal barrier to overcome. Also, MS had been slammed hard by the DOJ and Judge Jackson. They were going down. I thought I'd see what I could do to help speed that up. I had Linux stuff with me when they gave me a cube. I started my job at Dell almost to the day the NASDAQ bubble burst in Mar 2000. I started as a tech in an awful dungeon known as Relationship Portables. A/C, yes, padded chairs, nice cubes, 17" monitors. Cushy dungeon. Making around 2x to 3x what I had made at my last job. They paid me to sit around and babble about computers all day. I thought it must be a new type of charity/government handout, where, instead of standing in the SSI line all day, you get to sit and get yelled at all day and every 2 weeks they give you free money. By 2002 I was promoted to Workstation, and 2003 to the super-elite top secret Linux Server tech support group. I resigned in May of 2005, suffering from crabby-customer-burnout. What's the point? The point is, that from about 1998-1999 to about 2001-2002 Dell had this commitment to sell Linux on Portables and Desktops. From 2000-2002, I took roughly 16,640 tech support calls on Dell Portables. I can still remember *ALL* the Linux calls I took in that period: 2. One was a pre-sales technical call, one was a video driver call. I did pretty bad on both calls. When in 2001-2002 or so Dell quietly dropped the all-LOB Linux commitment it did not surprise me at all. Anyone here would have made the same business decision based on sales results: I personally saw the OS sold on the order on every Portable call I took. No Linux. Not one copy. Don't need to be a PHB to run those numbers. Bill-fear, as you call it, is still there. It was in the beginning, and it's there now. The rationalizations I heard still blow my mind: "You owe a lot of your paycheck to MS" "Without MS Dell would be nothing" etc. When I run the numbers: Dell's profit margin versus MS's, it is clear who is propping who up. Dell takes all the hits and MS takes all the money. If you buy a Dell, and *know* you have an MS sw problem, if you call MS about the MS problem when you tell them you have a Dell, they smile so you can hear it and tell you to call Dell. That's what the support agreement between the 2 companies says: MS gets all the money, Dell gets all the pain no matter how bad the MS OS is that was sold with the hw. Yes, it is Bill-fear. It is irrational and completely psychotic. What I think you've detected dinotrac is that that fear is abating. The same thing should be happening at HP/GW/IBM/etc. right now. >It all comes down to making money. Yes. Dell has never made any bones about that. jsusanka- >the dell's and gateway's are just another division of microsoft. To make that sentiment more exact: Companies like Dell (and especially Dell) are actually joint ventures of Microsoft and Intel. Don't forget that it was recently revealed that Intel was paying Dell about $1 billion a year to freeze AMD out. Some investors aren't real happy they weren't told. tuxchick- >Such weenies. I prefer Harlan Ellison's term, "Balless Wonders." Much more visually colorful. To borrow an expression from the military, "Maybe Michael Dell is growing himself a pair." |
| jdixon Feb 27, 2007 7:18 PM EDT |
> I wonder why that might be.. Because they get a kick back from Microsoft for including the Microsoft products. Isn't that obvious? |
| tuxchick Feb 27, 2007 7:37 PM EDT |
All that's obvious is Dell is lying their heads off for no good reason. Do they think they will win Linux customers by pretending to support Linux? Is there some sort of magic mojo just from saying "Linux"? Linux Linux Linux OO yeah, I don't need ViAggRa anymore! It is magic! |
| herzeleid Feb 27, 2007 8:20 PM EDT |
Quoting: Dell may be right or wrong about the profitability of offering pre-installed Linux, but Bill-fear ain't likely a problem. You might have noticed that they survived offering Linux years ago. They would survive offering it again.Correct me if I'm wrong, but ISTR that Dell's timid, half-hearted linux offerings were extremely difficult to find, and they charged more for linux equipped systems than for identical hardware with the microsoft pee cee OS installed. In attempting to track down Dell's supposed Linux offering, I was surprised at the difficulty I had in finding any sign that Dell sold linux systems. Page after page bombarded me with "Dell recommends microsoft windoze", and I kept coming up empty in my searches. It's no wonder that their supposed Linux offerings never took off - how could anyone possibly discover that Dell sold anything other than ms windoze? |
| bigg Feb 27, 2007 8:28 PM EDT |
> If they don't have Bill-fear, why then don't they offer OpenOffice.org when choosing an office suite? That's one that makes sense. MS Office is an add-on that they can get a cut. OOo, I doubt it. We also don't know how much they make off the crapware that is preinstalled. Maybe more than they pay for windows. |
| Aladdin_Sane Feb 27, 2007 10:19 PM EDT |
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but ISTR that Dell's timid, half-hearted linux offerings were extremely difficult to find, and they charged more for linux equipped systems than for identical hardware with the microsoft pee cee OS installed. Well, you know I would, but you are not. :-) Not only were both huge and obvious problems during the all-LOB support days, this is going on today at dell.com, the sales site. First, from an expert, a hint: Always shop at Dell's Small Business segment: The prices are same or cheaper than other segments, and SB is the only segment that has to carry the full product line. In addition to your 2 well-thought-out criticisms, I'm starting to see a third (I credit bigg for bringing this up): There is a huge disconnect between "n-series" (no OS) and "Linux Certified" portables and desktops. I can't say, "Bigg, get this is or that n-series portable because it is Linux certified. Even though they are, that is not what the sales web site says. The web site implies it without ever saying it. What it says basically is that these are "Open Source" systems, where OS means nothing at all, except that there is a copy of FreeDOS dropped in the box. There is no link to the cert matrix, that I've ever noticed, from the n-series portables or desktops pages. In sum, we have: 1) To this day, what few systems Dell sells with Linux pre-installed are well hidden on the Sales web site. 2) The n-series are usually about $50 more expensive than the same non-n-series with the MS OS pre-installed. 3) The n-series, while certified for some flavor of Linux (assume RHEL 4 WS for now unless otherwise stated), the sales web site makes no attempt to assure the customer that all the hardware Dell is selling with the system will actually work with Linux. In addition to the above, there is still the bait-and-switch going on. If you want a Dell desktop with Linux, go to SB sales site, get an n-series Precision Workstation. The low end PWS (currently PWS 390n) is typically also sold as a Dimension and as an Optiplex, with a different face plate. Dell's current monster desktop, the PWS 690, the most expensive desktop you can get from Dell (for business/professional/serious use) starts at $1589 at http://www.dell.com/content/products/results.aspx/precn?c=us... as of today (Dell changes prices daily). There's a link to Linux, Open Source, or n-series systems on the right, or on the left depending on the page your at, day, and phase of the moon. So you see the PWS 690n at http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/precn_n?c... for, $1589. (The "starting" price difference diminishes as you get in to the more expensive systems.) But wait, here's the switch: At the first link hit Customize, still $1589. Hit Customize with Win XP, still $1589. From here you can buy the $1589 PWS 690. At the second link, hit Customize, and here it is: the actual lowest price PWS 690n is now $2,059. The web site (currently) will not let you buy the exact same system but no Windows, at the price that they offered it for just 2 pages back. Not sure, but I think this is called bait-and-switch. Not real sure, but I think Dell was sued for this practice. (See http://www.lerachlaw.com/lcsr-cgi-bin/mil?templ=featured/del... for the complaint.) caveat emptor, YMMV, IANAL, etc., etc. Dell's Linux Engineering site: http://linux.dell.com/ Dell's Linux Marketing site: http://www.dell.com/linux |
| dinotrac Feb 28, 2007 2:41 AM EDT |
>Isn't that obvious? No. Considering that Windows itself is only about $50 or so a copy to OEMs, paying a kickback would make no business sense for Microsoft, especially since they would have to pay it across the board to large vendors. Besides...if they're as powerful as everybody here thinks, they don't have to pay any kickbacks to anybody. |
| Aladdin_Sane Feb 28, 2007 2:50 AM EDT |
>paying a kickback would make no business sense If anyone has the time, could you make a distinction between the legal term "kickback" and the plain English term? It seems to me that in plain English "any discount"=kickback but in law this seems to be somehow illegal? --Confused |
| salparadise Feb 28, 2007 3:13 AM EDT |
Do you think maybe Dell got caught by surprise by the response they got? Perhaps they were expecting "vista vista vista and a little bit cheaper" and got "linux linux linux" instead. With a bit of luck, some other hardware manufacturer has heard the cry and is preparing a response other than "oh, that's not the answer we wanted". It also goes to show that the desire for Linux is far greater than various media channels and computer companies would have us believe. |
| dinotrac Feb 28, 2007 4:08 AM EDT |
alladin_sane - Kickback is not a legal term. In plain english, it means the return of money for services. The most common examples are corrupt employees. For example, a purchasing agent who continually buys from the same supplier because the supplier pays him under the table. A discount is not a kickback. By the way, in the United States, it would not be legal for Microsoft to give Dell a discount it didn't make available to similar OEMs like HP. |
| swbrown Feb 28, 2007 4:47 AM EDT |
If Dell is selling the same system /without/ Windows for $50 more, then all that's left is to argue about what term to use - kickback, 'strategic marketing agreement', etc.. The result's the same - Dell puts artificial barriers on non-Microsoft software for 'some reason' *cough*. Maybe for reasons like this.. [url=http://news.com.com/Did Microsoft want to whack Dell over its Linux dealings/2100-1014_3-6153904.html]http://news.com.com/Did Microsoft want to whack Dell over it...[/url] |
| dinotrac Feb 28, 2007 4:54 AM EDT |
>If Dell is selling the same system /without/ Windows for $50 more, then all that's left is to argue about what term to use No. Windows Home OEM is about $50 a copy. To make a Windowless system be $50 more strictly on the basis of Microsoft payments, MS would have to comp the price of Windows and then throw $50 on top of that. Stupid way to do business because most people want to buy Windows. Better to make money than to lose it and the folks at Microsoft figured that out long ago. If Dell is selling the same system without Windows for $50 more (are they? Or are they throwing something else in?), there are other explanations. For example, I understand Dells to come with a hefty supply of "demo" ware items. As those things run on Windows, they can't very easily be included on a Windowsless machine, hence Dell can't collect revenue from them. |
| Aladdin_Sane Feb 28, 2007 7:04 AM EDT |
>(are they? Or are they throwing something else in?) Yes, they are. It's the other way around: Some who've noticed the details of the systems sales pages on dell.com (recently, commenters on Slashdot) point out that the Windows systems ($50 less is typical, and just used for example) actually have "free" hardware upgrades like a DVD instead of a CD (again, just for example) and the "same" windowless system does not. I have not checked that, because I have no reason to doubt it, it does not surprise me even a tiny bit. This is typical of the n-series portables and desktops: They are well hidden on the sales site, and if you find them, you will be forced to pay the same or more as systems with windows. In the example I showed above, the game works differently: The $1589 system has a 750w PS and 1 GB of mem. You can buy this hw with Windows. When you go to buy it without, all of a sudden you're forced to buy the 1000w PS and 2GB of mem. (There are other obnoxious things if you check my example: Besides the already mentioned "Dell recommends Windows" at the top of the 690n configuration page (a system, which, by definition, may have any range of software *except* Windows), the OS section of the configurator is symbolized by a Windows icon.) No-one can argue that Linux somehow "requires" the extra hardware, if anything, it requires less. This is what swbrown calls an "artificial barrier" without a doubt. (Good link, by the way.) Another problem with the marketing speak: The "n-series" can mean "no OS" or "pre-installed Linux" depending on which line you mean: workstation, desktop, or portable. This makes it especially hard to talk about these options meaningfully. |
| bigg Feb 28, 2007 7:21 AM EDT |
> As those things run on Windows, they can't very easily be included on a Windowsless machine, hence Dell can't collect revenue from them. That's my opinion on the matter. A typical buyer "needs" antivirus and MS Office. Dell's share on those items alone might well be more than the cost of Windows. Add in the fact that 512 MB of RAM is not enough for even Vista Home Basic, whereas a Linux distro will fly with 512 MB, and I can see why Michael Dell is fighting his customers on this. |
| dinotrac Feb 28, 2007 7:25 AM EDT |
>This is what swbrown calls an "artificial barrier" without a doubt. (Good link, by the way.) That's fine, but it's not illegal. Think of it this way: In most employment contexts, racial discrimination is illegal in the United States. However, it is absolutely OK to insist that a movie/play/ad, etc portraying Muhammed Ali use a black man. A monopolist using monopoly power to freeze out competition -- that's what artificial barriers refer to -- is illegal. In the absence of monopoly power, a company putting up an artifical barrier to people wishing to choose between its own products is fine. Nothing stops Gateway or HP or bazillions of small makers from satisfying the niche. A business has every right to decide which customers it will pursue for what, the right to be as smart or as stupid as it wishes. |
| jdixon Feb 28, 2007 7:40 AM EDT |
> If Dell is selling the same system without Windows for $50 more (are they? Or are they throwing something else in? The last time I checked, the same system with and without Windows cost exactly the same amount, but the Windows system also included recycling your old machine (which I believe is a charge of $25 normally). I believe this was an E521 system with Windows XP. The Windows system was priced from their Home and Home Office page and the non-Windows system was priced from their Small Business page (since you can't get to the non-OS machines from their Home and Home Office page), but the systems and hardware were identical. I don't have time to repeat the test right now, but I doubt it's changed much if any. |
| jdixon Feb 28, 2007 7:57 AM EDT |
Dino, I agree with swbrown that " all that's left is to argue about what term to use." Whatever the cause may be, Dell is charging the same or more for an equivalent system without Windows. I suspect that it's because they are paid by the various software folks to include the demo's on the Windows systems, but the reasons aren't really important to me as a consumer. What's important to me as a consumer is that I won't pay the same price for a system without Windows as I do for one which includes it. Since I expect most people to feel the same way, I doubt Dell's going to sell many non-Windows systems, and I expect that's deliberate on their part. |
| dinotrac Feb 28, 2007 8:08 AM EDT |
>I doubt Dell's going to sell many non-Windows systems, and I expect that's deliberate on their part. "Deliberate" is a funny word in this context. I'm pretty sure they want to make a certain margin on each machine and that demo-ware helps to guarantee that. If equalizing return reduces sales but maximizes profit, then they are doing the right thing. Note the "if". I have no idea where the numbers fall. |
| swbrown Feb 28, 2007 6:21 PM EDT |
> No. Windows Home OEM is about $50 a copy. To make a Windowless system be $50 more strictly on the basis of Microsoft payments, MS would have to comp the price of Windows and then throw $50 on top of that. Stupid way to do business because most people want to buy Windows By your logic, Microsoft wouldn't sell the XBox 360 for less than the cost to produce it because it'd be a stupid way to do business as most people wanted to buy the XBox 360. Except, Microsoft was. For Dell's case, we first have to ask, 1) is it actually costing Microsoft any money, or is Dell just artificially inflating the price of non-Microsoft PCs to keep from getting "whacked" by Microsoft in some way? 2) How much additional money does Microsoft expect to make in related sales off of each copy of Windows? E.g., Microsoft Office, MSDN subscriptions for those targeting it, etc.. Is this more than the pricetag they set for Windows itself? 3) How much is it worth to Microsoft to reduce the influence of competitors? |
| dinotrac Feb 28, 2007 6:46 PM EDT |
>For Dell's case, we first have to ask, Why do we have to ask anything? If you don't believe that the vast majority of Dell's customers want Windows on their computers so that they may run Windows applications, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you might like to buy. Why on earth would Microsoft spend a bunch of money it doesn't need to? And ... let's not forget, that Dell isn't the only player here. Microsoft would pretty much have to spread the largesse around to all of the major players because, even if fair competition laws didn't require it, it's stupid business to favor one customer over other major players. I can't think of anything that would give desktop Linux a bigger and faster boost than for Microsoft to offer Dell goodies that HP couldn't get. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!