View Full Version : Do Microsoft rip off their customers?
Dead_One
22-01-2003, 10:54
And if you think they do, why?
Remember ms is a business, not a charity.
If they can sell their products for the price they do, then surley they are being an efficient business?
What do you all think?
The Pimp
22-01-2003, 10:59
Without Microsoft a lot of us wouldn't be using PC's today. How many people here actually owned PC's prior to 1995? Without MS, customers wouldn't have bought PC's neither.
Personally, I don't think MS rip people off with their products. People have to be paid within a business. No doubt we are going to hear the standard *nix spiel that you hear each & every time MS is mentioned.
I have a strong feeling that you both are against *nix in any form.
Microsoft products can easily be classed as overpriced, but yes they are not a charity but bear in mind that they are the largest company in the world, surely cutting prices would help them in their antitrust cases.
Ive already explained what I prefer, and thats echoing what The Pimp said in another thread
If you want to use *nix, use it, if you want to use MS, use it. Use what YOU are happy with and not what someone says you should use.
So true
The Pimp
22-01-2003, 13:53
I am not against *nix at all Abe. It has it's roles & purposes, but at the present time with a lot of people wanting to play the latest games etc, it won't become a standard like Windows in the home market because of the software houses lack of support. I know companies such as Lindows & other disto's are attempting it and getting better every release, but I feel that without the backing of the major software houses, they are limiting themselves to the users who actually don't want to play the latest games, etc.
I have no problems gaming on Linux boxes.
Drivers are easy to get from Nvidia etc
I can easily get the following games to work (they're the ones currently on my linux desktop)
- Quake III Arena
- Unreal Tournament
- Counter-Strike
- Day of Defeat
- Medal of Honour
Any other games such as UT2k3 and BF1942 run on this box (win2k) simply because its a far more powerful box. Im sure within a few months i'll be able to use them on Linux too.
ling_thing
22-01-2003, 14:02
Originally posted by The Pimp
Without Microsoft a lot of us wouldn't be using PC's today. How many people here actually owned PC's prior to 1995? Without MS, customers wouldn't have bought PC's neither.
lets see
prior to that time, i had/used an apple mac
[Without Apple, a lot of us might not have been using PCs today i nthe way that we do <-- my believable opinion :)]
didnt own a PC till 2000 cause i hated using windows
anyway i'm off to sit an exam now
cause i'm one of those student types that dead_one hates
:p
PJ Matthews
22-01-2003, 15:24
[Without Apple, a lot of us might not have been using PCs today i nthe way that we do <-- my believable opinion ]
Mostly rubbish, almost all of their ideas were stolen by Jobs from Xerox including the GUI and the mouse.
But it was apple that brought it into the larger area of the public domain.
i started using pc's through windows 3.1 (i think) a while ago :rolleyes:
on the subject of pricing, they're prices are very dear, but its not so bad?
ling_thing
22-01-2003, 18:10
Originally posted by PJ Matthews
Mostly rubbish, almost all of their ideas were stolen by Jobs from Xerox including the GUI and the mouse.
yeah i know that abotu the mouse and gui
but if he hadn't seen the potential of the mouse idea - and shrink it down in size
just imagine it without a mouse - DOS 2000, DOS XP
hehe
as for pricing
a year ago i would have said i'm not going to buy a MS OS until i find one that doesn't crash every few hours and i can run for longer than a month witout a format
95,98 and ME were bad for that when i used them
2k wasnt to bad but still needed reinstalled too often for my liking
earlier versions of XP didnt seem to great either
but now i am contempt with windows XP and seeing as MS felt the need to let me have it for free then i'm not complaining (well not much)
THe software is very expensive but thats always been the way with o/s.
The amiga was really powerful at the time and who knows if commodore us hadnt gone t!ts up and then escom doing the same the amiga might have still been around today instead of as vapourware.
I use both linux and windows at home on my pooter mostly I use windows for games and the likes and linux for messing with cgi and uni stuff :D
Microsoft's business model guarantees that it MUST get more and more money all the time. i.e. stock options for the important employees. As I understand it, MS programmers don't get huge salaries but instead they get generous stock options. To keep them happy, MS has to make more and more profit every year - it's a viscious circle.
Most businesses increase profit by delivering new products that people actually want or becoming more efficient. Because MS have a practical monopoly, they are getting profits by changing the way their business model works which has the result of making big clients pay out more and also restrict customer choice in WHEN they pay out.
The one thing they don't have to be is efficient. There is no suggestion or proof that their profits are increasing because they are efficient.
If they still had serious competition in their prime market areas, their behaviour would be significantly different.
danielctull
22-01-2003, 19:34
I think that for what you get, it is worth it. Although I feel that a reduction in price would benifit them no end. I don't know if i'd be here without Microsoft, first computer in our house that i used regularly was Windows 95. Then a couple years back ME, which is so unstable...
This year I will be putting XP in my first PC, mainly because I have tried Macs and Linux run PC's and just didn't like them. Plus I have a lot of Windows games...
Graeme*Kustom*
22-01-2003, 21:00
I think the pricing on OEM software is not too bad - but the prices for the retail boxed models are very high. I think Microsoft would probably win a few more friends, by scrapping OEM products and reducing the cost of the retail models to the OEM level, meaning that you don't have to buy a barebones PC just to get access to a windows license...
Just my 2p :)
I think most people's grudge is against the price of windoze, a feeling I also share seeing as it is practically a monopoly. True, we don't have to buy it, but how many people can install, OS and software on *nix? The other side of the coin is that although people would like to see the price of windoze reduced, why would MS want to do that? What would they gain? I doubt that sales would increase significantly.
One last thought, if you were Mr. Gates and the money was rolling into your bank account, would you feel the need to reduce the price? Didn't thnk so:cool:
Fireblade
22-01-2003, 21:35
Originally posted by kopite
The amiga was really powerful at the time and who knows if commodore us hadnt gone t!ts up and then escom doing the same the amiga might have still been around today instead of as vapourware
I don't use one now, but I woz a big Amiga fan until a few years back - e.g. when Escom et al c0cked it up :rolleyes:
But I wouldn't go as far as t' say it's "vapourware" now. It might not have the same following as it did, but there are still a great many 'Amigans' around... and some stonking Amiga hardware fer them t' play around wi' too (albeit that most of the hardware is based on PC components :p) ;)
Originally posted by Graeme*Kustom*
I think the pricing on OEM software is not too bad - but the prices for the retail boxed models are very high. I think Microsoft would probably win a few more friends, by scrapping OEM products and reducing the cost of the retail models to the OEM level, meaning that you don't have to buy a barebones PC just to get access to a windows license...
Just my 2p :)
Make that 4p worth :D
AlastairM
24-01-2003, 14:30
I think Microsoft would probably win a few more friends, by scrapping OEM products and reducing the cost of the retail models to the OEM level, meaning that you don't have to buy a barebones PC just to get access to a windows license
Do you think they'd be allowed to lower the cost of licenses or would that be seen as strengthening their "monoploy" over alternatives?
what if MS gave XP away for 'free'
rock :confused: hard place
cheers
alastair
Graeme*Kustom*
24-01-2003, 19:39
MS giving away XP is not really a crazy thought...
It would surely take away a chunk of the Linux fan base which would please Bill no end, and perhaps then Microsoft could introduce some form of charging for content and put banner ads on your screen to make money :) Perhaps merge with aol?
Some scary thoughts !
Da_Rebel
28-01-2003, 13:32
if they put the prices down a bit (or even a lot) it might even reduce piracy. I mean, Office XP is about £90 for a student version, which youre not even meant to use after u stop being a student. Then Windows is about £100 a go for the latest version. I think I'll stick with Win 98 but I have no choice about Office, I need it. However, the vast amount of pirate copies of MS progs and OSes going about is unbelievable cuz ppl dont wanna pay £100 to type a letter.
PS - If they put the price down i might even consider buying Windows XP.
Da_Rebel
28-01-2003, 15:15
Do Microsoft rip off their customers?
In a word - yes.
does a bear defecate in the woods?(not my first choice of words;) )
eXistenZ
08-09-2003, 17:44
I think MSOffice is far too high.
It's pretty much the standard for typing out documents, but the average home user can't afford £100+ for a full app suite, when all they want to do is type the odd letter to a relative.
If you could buy each Office app separately, I'd gladly pay upto £30 for Word, but I will never pay for the whole suite as it is far too expensive.
As for OS's I paid £50 for Win2K Pro a couple of months ago, and I am going to be sticking with that until M$ release an OS that isn't all pretty colours and no functionality, which isn't going to be anytime soon as far as I can see :p
shifty.ricky
08-09-2003, 18:04
Does Microsoft charge to much?
Well something is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. And people are still buying it.
Prices may seem high but think about how many hours service windows gives you. £80 for OEM version of 2k. People are spending 5 times as much on just a graphics card. That may last only about a year where as windows could last maybe 3 - 4years before an upgrade is needed.
danielctull
08-09-2003, 18:11
Originally posted by eXistenZ
If you could buy each Office app separately, I'd gladly pay upto £30 for Word, but I will never pay for the whole suite as it is far too expensive.
I'm pretty sure you can buy each app seperately.
Graeme*Kustom*
08-09-2003, 19:26
You can , but they're quite expensive - eg 80 quid for an OEM version of Word 2002...
PimpSauce
08-09-2003, 20:06
Originally posted by froggg
does a bear defecate in the woods?(not my first choice of words;) )
not if its a polar bear, but microsoft rip u off no matter what kind of bear u r. lol
guybirch
08-09-2003, 20:58
u say office is a rip off....ever see the price for adobe photoshop:D
with all the development microsoft put into Windows surely the software needs to be highly priced..whether 140 punds is too high is upto personal opinion. People dont hesitate to spend 300 punds on a GFX card but when it comes to buying an OS it requires contemplating....Microsoft can price their products as high as they want..and the real truth is that we will probably keep buying them because of their dominant share of the market
[i]
with all the development microsoft put into Windows surely the software needs to be highly priced. [/B]
JUST A MINUTE-the first copy of an o/s may cost millions,but the second and consequent copies cost pence-if it wasnt a (near)monopoly,it would have to reduce prices to compete.
shifty.ricky
08-09-2003, 21:50
Originally posted by froggg
JUST A MINUTE-the first copy of an o/s may cost millions,but the second and consequent copies cost pence-if it wasnt a (near)monopoly,it would have to reduce prices to compete.
What the and feck!
The first copy (i assume you mean development) does cost alot. Are you suggesting that they charge the first person to buy the OS $300 million and the rest of us $0.50!
Think about how much work goes into an os. There would be literally millions of man hours and software designers that do windows dont come cheap.
And remember after the OS is released how many people work on supporting the OS. Releasing the updates and security fixes.
MIcrosoft has no where near a monopoly. A monopoly is a single supplier. There is more than one supplier of operating systems. If it was a monopoly then you would not have a choice. People say that they dont have a choice, but you do. You just choose to run windows becuase it is the os most commonly developed for.
danielctull
08-09-2003, 22:01
Originally posted by shifty.ricky
The first copy (i assume you mean development) does cost alot. Are you suggesting that they charge the first person to buy the OS $300 million and the rest of us $0.50!
I was gunna say the same :)
Oh and choices... You have already made the choice, now you must understand it :D
Originally posted by shifty.ricky
What the and feck!
And remember after the OS is released how many people work on supporting the OS. Releasing the updates and security fixes.
MIcrosoft has no where near a monopoly. A monopoly is a single supplier. There is more than one supplier of operating systems. If it was a monopoly then you would not have a choice. People say that they dont have a choice, but you do. You just choose to run windows becuase it is the os most commonly developed for.
updates and security fixes?what, you want me to pay for putting right what they ****ed up in the first place!!
could you please list all modern available operating systems that are usable by the average man(or woman)to utilise their computer,not produced by microshaft.(just the first 5 would do)
danielctull
08-09-2003, 22:43
The internet, nah people in general, move so fast now. Virus' hide around each corner. So to include security measures against the unknown is nigh on impossible. You never know which bank will be robbed, so can't have the police on standby for example.
As for general updates, well people have new ideas all the time - it's how we've evolved and as such products are always evolving. You be ****ed off to find you needed to pay £30 say each month for a new product. Updates are easier and cheaper...
I hope that makes sense :D
actually,as far as security goes-to extend your analogy-I do have a policeman on every corner-constable antivirus and inspector firewall-to protect me from microshafts security (I believe this is exactly the right word)FLAWS
would you buy a new car-AT THE FULL PRICE-covered in dents,smoking like a train,and rattling like a bag of nails?
As for general updates,afaik,SP1 is the only 'true' update for xp in 2years-and that caused more problems than it solved!;)
eXistenZ
09-09-2003, 11:42
Originally posted by shifty.ricky
What the and feck!
The first copy (i assume you mean development) does cost alot. Are you suggesting that they charge the first person to buy the OS $300 million and the rest of us $0.50!
Think about how much work goes into an os. There would be literally millions of man hours and software designers that do windows dont come cheap.
And remember after the OS is released how many people work on supporting the OS. Releasing the updates and security fixes.
MIcrosoft has no where near a monopoly. A monopoly is a single supplier. There is more than one supplier of operating systems. If it was a monopoly then you would not have a choice. People say that they dont have a choice, but you do. You just choose to run windows becuase it is the os most commonly developed for.
I think he meant that the first version of the OS costs a lot in development to make, then every variation after is just improving what is already there - not that it costs alot to publish the first CD and all the ones after that are cheap ;)
We all use Microsoft products. Yes they do make mistakes but come on. Its not like anyone can make a OS like winxp and continually update/patch it. I think paying £140.00 for winxp home is very good. Considering you will always have it. I mean how much do you spend on a CPU or a stick of ram? They only last a year or two before their outdated.
Originally posted by [M]uuhh
I mean how much do you spend on a CPU or a stick of ram? They only last a year or two before their outdated.
If I updated and patched a stick or ram like microshaft do to their o/s I wouldnt be able to get it in the case:D
BTW-£140??
Sinizterguy
10-09-2003, 00:39
As a business I think Microsoft are doing very well.
They have almost total control of the market.
If I was running a business, I would definitely like to have it like that.
Having said that, they could be a little more userfriendly with their prices and updates and stuff, especially considering that they have such a huge user base.
But at the end of the day, they wont be losing many consumers even with bad customer service and high prices. And implementing patches and stuff still costs them. So why, as a business, would they want to reduce the price of the software ?
Originally posted by froggg
If I updated and patched a stick or ram like microshaft do to their o/s I wouldnt be able to get it in the case:D
BTW-£140??
http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=26186
Just a minute-you're right about the cost at e-b*yer-but now
im more concerned because a year ago I bought xp home(at PC w*rld!) for £70-and it wasnt oem or upgrade-so how come the massive increase-surely not a monopoly ripping off their customers?
to Sinizterguy :
' But at the end of the day, they wont be losing many consumers even with bad customer service and high prices. And implementing patches and stuff still costs them. So why, as a business, would they want to reduce the price of the software ?'
because THAT'S a monopoly-and when the next windows o/s costs £500 with £10 per patch -and it still has flaws-you're going to have to pay it:mad:
lol.
Open Office > MS Office IMO and it's free.
Originally posted by froggg
Just a minute-you're right about the cost at e-b*yer-but now
im more concerned because a year ago I bought xp home(at PC w*rld!) for £70-and it wasnt oem or upgrade-so how come the massive increase-surely not a monopoly ripping off their customers?
Probably because of all the people using pirated versions. meaning Microsoft have to put the prices up to keep the os alive.
Sinizterguy
11-09-2003, 18:37
Originally posted by [M]uuhh
Probably because of all the people using pirated versions. meaning Microsoft have to put the prices up to keep the os alive.
Maybe if they had reasonable prices people wouldnt do that.
IMO inXP was sold for half the price, 4 times more people would buy it.
[GPO]Solitaire
18-09-2003, 19:57
there is alway's the "Fair use" clause!!
you can take any resonable steps (in my opinion) to install and use the software you have leagaly bought and can show proof of ownership to.
what can they do to stop you? can they get people like FACT agenst you? NO! you can prove you have a valid license!
you might have rights to take them to the small claims court to be reimbursed but it would cost more then the OS is worth!!
NOTE the above is my own personal opinion and does not represent in any way shape or form the beliefs of the owners and readers of this forum ;) just like the beliefs and opinions of the Micro$oft staff bear no resembalence to reality :) he! he!
****This thread has been cleaned up****
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.