5 ms·

If the retail is $200, then manufacturers will pay $50. If the retail is $50, no manufacturer will pay even $25. Same applies to volume discounts though Open an

by chime 14y ago

If the retail is $200, then manufacturers will pay $50. If the retail is $50, no manufacturer will pay even $25. Same applies to volume discounts though Open and VLSC. The retail price is the anchor.

rbanffy 14y ago
You talk like OEMs could buy their Windows licenses in a competitive market. They'll pay whatever price Microsoft demands. Its not like they have much choice. And, in terms of ARM-based machines, not even end users will have that choice.
- bad_user 14y ago
  On the other hand OEMs have an incentive to not sell machines without an OS installed. Some OEMs, like Asus, are selling such PCs, preloaded with FreeDOS, or some Linux distro. Selling PCs with Windows bundled for a price that's lower than a retail license, well, that's a good deal for customers. Take that advantage away and you'll see many more PCs sold without a bundled Windows. And I think that would be bad for Microsoft, because it would put the choice in front of their customers, and that would be unfortunate as most customers aren't even aware of what Windows is or about the existence of other choices.
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    I'm not sure what are the terms that dictate the OEM price companies like HP, ASUS, , Dell, Lenovo and Toshiba pay, but I wouldn't be surprised its tiered according to some criteria. It's reasonable to assume OEM's pay more or less according to their compliance to the Windows brand guidelines and so on. Until recently, I could observe that many PC manufacturers had a "X recommends Windows Y for your PCs". Digging a little has shown they paid less for each license if they put that notice on every page of their website. I would not be surprised if selling too many computers without Windows would make the OEM license price prohibitively high to compete in the mainstream PC segment (the ones that consider Windows a feature, rather than something you have to remove before you install the right OS)
- cooldeal 14y ago
  >And, in terms of ARM-based machines, not even end users will have that choice. Why? OEMs can choose to ship Android on their ARM devices and are already doing it. How can Microsoft ban that? Also, end users can buy iPads which are ARM-based too. Perhaps you mean Windows RT tablets? Those are not exactly the same as "ARM-based machines".
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    If you buy an x86 Windows tablet, the manufacturer may leave the option of unlocking the UEFI boot so that you may be able to boot other OS. This option is forbidden by Microsoft on ARM-based tablets that come preinstalled with Windows 8. So far, Windows machines have been generic x86 machines with Window preinstalled. From now on, there will be special-purpose Windows machines that cannot be changed by their owners. edit: there is no such thing as a Windows RT x86 device.
    - cooldeal 14y ago
      I am sorry, but there is no such thing as a 'x86 Windows RT tablet'. Windows RT, by definition, is an ARM OS.
      - rbanffy 14y ago
        That's not exactly correct. Windows RT is a subset of the Windows 8 application environment. If you develop for Windows RT you'll be able to deploy to both x86 and ARM devices. But the argument stands if you call them 'Windows tablets' just the same. UEFI tablets that come with Windows may or may not have another OS installed. ARM-based ones cannot.
        cooldeal 14y ago
        Maybe you're thinking about the WinRT API, which is different from the Windows RT OS and devices. There is a clear difference between WinRT and Windows RT. The original point about the difference in UEFI secure boot between both is correct though.

by chime 14y ago

If the retail is $200, then manufacturers will pay $50. If the retail is $50, no manufacturer will pay even $25. Same applies to volume discounts though Open and VLSC. The retail price is the anchor.

rbanffy 14y ago

You talk like OEMs could buy their Windows licenses in a competitive market. They'll pay whatever price Microsoft demands. Its not like they have much choice. And, in terms of ARM-based machines, not even end users will have that choice.

bad_user 14y ago
On the other hand OEMs have an incentive to not sell machines without an OS installed. Some OEMs, like Asus, are selling such PCs, preloaded with FreeDOS, or some Linux distro. Selling PCs with Windows bundled for a price that's lower than a retail license, well, that's a good deal for customers. Take that advantage away and you'll see many more PCs sold without a bundled Windows. And I think that would be bad for Microsoft, because it would put the choice in front of their customers, and that would be unfortunate as most customers aren't even aware of what Windows is or about the existence of other choices.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  I'm not sure what are the terms that dictate the OEM price companies like HP, ASUS, , Dell, Lenovo and Toshiba pay, but I wouldn't be surprised its tiered according to some criteria. It's reasonable to assume OEM's pay more or less according to their compliance to the Windows brand guidelines and so on. Until recently, I could observe that many PC manufacturers had a "X recommends Windows Y for your PCs". Digging a little has shown they paid less for each license if they put that notice on every page of their website. I would not be surprised if selling too many computers without Windows would make the OEM license price prohibitively high to compete in the mainstream PC segment (the ones that consider Windows a feature, rather than something you have to remove before you install the right OS)
cooldeal 14y ago
>And, in terms of ARM-based machines, not even end users will have that choice. Why? OEMs can choose to ship Android on their ARM devices and are already doing it. How can Microsoft ban that? Also, end users can buy iPads which are ARM-based too. Perhaps you mean Windows RT tablets? Those are not exactly the same as "ARM-based machines".
- rbanffy 14y ago
  If you buy an x86 Windows tablet, the manufacturer may leave the option of unlocking the UEFI boot so that you may be able to boot other OS. This option is forbidden by Microsoft on ARM-based tablets that come preinstalled with Windows 8. So far, Windows machines have been generic x86 machines with Window preinstalled. From now on, there will be special-purpose Windows machines that cannot be changed by their owners. edit: there is no such thing as a Windows RT x86 device.
  - cooldeal 14y ago
    I am sorry, but there is no such thing as a 'x86 Windows RT tablet'. Windows RT, by definition, is an ARM OS.
    - rbanffy 14y ago
      That's not exactly correct. Windows RT is a subset of the Windows 8 application environment. If you develop for Windows RT you'll be able to deploy to both x86 and ARM devices. But the argument stands if you call them 'Windows tablets' just the same. UEFI tablets that come with Windows may or may not have another OS installed. ARM-based ones cannot.
      - cooldeal 14y ago
        Maybe you're thinking about the WinRT API, which is different from the Windows RT OS and devices. There is a clear difference between WinRT and Windows RT. The original point about the difference in UEFI secure boot between both is correct though.