4 ms·

Because the margins are just not there.

by digi_owl 10y ago

marcosdumay 10y ago
Why a Linux computer should have any less margin than a Windows one?
- wmf 10y ago
  Because crapware doesn't exist for Linux.
  - eth0up 10y ago
    It's pleasantly scarce, but does come along occasionally: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.en.html
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    Does the crapware really pay more than the cost of a Windows EOM license? How does that work economically? Because not everybody buys the crapware license later (and they normally cost less than Windows), and mass stealing of data is not very lucrative.
    - Alupis 10y ago
      Typically OEM's are paid per install of crapware (regardless if the user ends up paying for the subscriptions). It's just a form of marketing for these companies - ie. a certain percentage of potential users will convert into paying users. The reason Windows laptops have been cheaper or the same price as the linux counterpart is usually due to the combination of subsidized licensing from Microsoft, crapware installation kickbacks, and lower cost of support infrastructure (the OEM already has a huge Windows support staff and infrastructure, creating a new one for Linux - or more correctly, a specific distro of linux - costs more). If the linux laptops sell more and more, eventually the support costs will come down to on-par (or lower perhaps... who knows). It's a chicken-and-egg problem, and one that OEM's are not willing to foot the bill up front for. We have to vote with our wallets and take that short-term hit in order to push the ecosystem in that direction.
      - marcosdumay 10y ago
        Support might be a reasonable reason, yes. But crapware can not pay that much. The crapware creators themselves get less revenue than licensing costs, and they can kick back just a fraction of that revenue. (That is, unless they have another business model that isn't selling licenses or spying on users.)
        Alupis 10y ago
        Margins on computers are notoriously thin. Even say, $1.00 per system sold with crapware pre-installed can make a difference in the profitability of a product line at scale. Then there's the kickbacks for when a customer does pay for a subscription.
        marcosdumay 10y ago
        The crapware can not pay more than the Windows cost, simply because it does not have enough revenue. Unless, of course MS is paying the OEM to install Windows, or billing for Linux computers. Or crapware has some business model that I'm not aware of.
    - mikekchar 10y ago
      When I worked at Corel (many, many years ago), I was stunned by how much we paid to put Word Perfect on OEM computers. It certainly wasn't worth it from the perspective of a single sale. I think we easily spent more than we recouped from sales. The thinking was that the person who bought would also upgrade, though, and I think that was sound reasoning. Vendor lock-in is a powerful force. Personally, I thought it was a waste, though. Cost of sales was a large multiple of development cost... :-P
- antoinealb 10y ago
  The correct comparison would be "Linux + Windows" one will have less margin than "Windows only" one, only because of cost of testing / opportunities of bundling software with it.

Because the margins are just not there.

marcosdumay 10y ago

Why a Linux computer should have any less margin than a Windows one?

wmf 10y ago
Because crapware doesn't exist for Linux.
- eth0up 10y ago
  It's pleasantly scarce, but does come along occasionally: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.en.html
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  Does the crapware really pay more than the cost of a Windows EOM license? How does that work economically? Because not everybody buys the crapware license later (and they normally cost less than Windows), and mass stealing of data is not very lucrative.
  - Alupis 10y ago
    Typically OEM's are paid per install of crapware (regardless if the user ends up paying for the subscriptions). It's just a form of marketing for these companies - ie. a certain percentage of potential users will convert into paying users. The reason Windows laptops have been cheaper or the same price as the linux counterpart is usually due to the combination of subsidized licensing from Microsoft, crapware installation kickbacks, and lower cost of support infrastructure (the OEM already has a huge Windows support staff and infrastructure, creating a new one for Linux - or more correctly, a specific distro of linux - costs more). If the linux laptops sell more and more, eventually the support costs will come down to on-par (or lower perhaps... who knows). It's a chicken-and-egg problem, and one that OEM's are not willing to foot the bill up front for. We have to vote with our wallets and take that short-term hit in order to push the ecosystem in that direction.
    - marcosdumay 10y ago
      Support might be a reasonable reason, yes. But crapware can not pay that much. The crapware creators themselves get less revenue than licensing costs, and they can kick back just a fraction of that revenue. (That is, unless they have another business model that isn't selling licenses or spying on users.)
      - Alupis 10y ago
        Margins on computers are notoriously thin. Even say, $1.00 per system sold with crapware pre-installed can make a difference in the profitability of a product line at scale. Then there's the kickbacks for when a customer does pay for a subscription.
        marcosdumay 10y ago
        The crapware can not pay more than the Windows cost, simply because it does not have enough revenue. Unless, of course MS is paying the OEM to install Windows, or billing for Linux computers. Or crapware has some business model that I'm not aware of.
  - mikekchar 10y ago
    When I worked at Corel (many, many years ago), I was stunned by how much we paid to put Word Perfect on OEM computers. It certainly wasn't worth it from the perspective of a single sale. I think we easily spent more than we recouped from sales. The thinking was that the person who bought would also upgrade, though, and I think that was sound reasoning. Vendor lock-in is a powerful force. Personally, I thought it was a waste, though. Cost of sales was a large multiple of development cost... :-P
antoinealb 10y ago
The correct comparison would be "Linux + Windows" one will have less margin than "Windows only" one, only because of cost of testing / opportunities of bundling software with it.