3 ms·

> Consumers should have the right to decline pre-installed software As a consumer I should also have the right to free ice cream and a pony ride. Many of us h

> Consumers should have the right to decline pre-installed software As a consumer I should also have the right to free ice cream and a pony ride. Many of us have tried to start or run businesses small or large. Does it make any sense for a government to start telling us what software the business should use or not use? Consumers already have the right to decline pre-installed software: don't buy the laptop. There, you've declined it.

wolfy1993 29d ago
I see your point, but this doesn't seem to be in good faith. There's a distinct difference between ice cream and pony rides (which would be, awesome, with a new laptop) - and a business practice which maintains a monopoly on consumer hardware. I think it's reasonable for manufactures putting their own software on (I.e., Mac or Microsoft devices running what they want), but all other hardware manufactures only offering Windows just benefits Microsoft, and is clearly part of the MS strategy
- jonathanberger 28d ago
  > There's a distinct difference What's the importance difference? I make the analogy to highlight that just because something is desirable to a consumer doesn't mean we should have laws to enforce it. The theory and law around monopolies is something I know at only a surface level. Up until I read Thiel's Zero to One I would have told you monopolies are bad but his chapter comparing airlines to Google made me question this.
whalesalad 29d ago
This is such a boomer coded 'deal with it' take. The manufacturer is going to charge you a premium for the software license. If you never intend to use that license, it's completely reasonable to think that we could live in a world where you could uncheck a box and avoid that altogether.
- JoshTriplett 29d ago
  Unfortunately, in practice most PC vendors get paid to bundle a giant pile of bloatware/malware/adware on the system, and they eagerly accept those payments because PCs are a low-margin business. So if your refund actually represented the amount the vendor spent, you'd end up paying them more to have a system without Windows.
  - whalesalad 29d ago
    You are forgetting that we are free to change and invent new rules whenever we want. PC manufacturers can change this. Some already have, like Lenovo (sorta) and Framework. It does not need to be the way that it has been.
- jonathanberger 28d ago
  I agree that's reasonable. But does the world you're thinking of have a law that forces that to be the case?
axus 29d ago
If you don't like Cyclospora , don't buy lettuce infected with it. Similar regulatory problems, at least with the lettuce the diarrhea is temporary.
- kenjackson 29d ago
  If Cyclospora is listed on the label then sure. I don't use the builtin speaker on my laptop -- can I get refund on that too?
  - wolfy1993 29d ago
    You can't seriously think that's comparable to the OS.
- cortesoft 29d ago
  Are you suggesting that you never know if the computer you are buying has windows on it or not? This is not the same thing at all. These computers all advertise that they come with Windows. It isn't like when you buy it, you have a 5% chance of it being infected with Windows. If the Cyclospora lettuce was labeled as containing Cyclospora, and you could choose to buy that lettuce or some other lettuce, then yes, it wouldn't be a problem.
- jonathanberger 28d ago
  I wouldn't argue for no regulation. I don't see the regulatory problems though as similar. Isn't one health and the other... monopoly? Expensive laptops?
milon 29d ago
It sounds reasonable to have the opportunity to buy hardware without software you do not intend to use. Though, I do assume that from the POV of the company selling the software, it would be ideal for the customer to not have a choice. I guess companies also want free ice creams and pony rides.
- jonathanberger 28d ago
  > ideal for the customer to not have a choice Let's say you and I bump into each other in the town square and we each have some things we might be willing to give the other if we get the right thing in return. In that situation I'd think both sides have the right to offer what they like and both sides can choose freely whether to accept what is offered. What is different about this town square and your relationship to say Dell?
  - milon 27d ago
    That's easy: The town square bump situation involves having the right to offer what you like and choosing freely, and my relationship to, say, Dell, or Lenovo, or Framework, or Apple, is that I can have money, they can build hardware, I can spend money on their hardware, and I might even be able to buy hardware+software that I like with the money I have. What I don't have is a factory/expertise/resources to build the hardware myself if Dell, Lenovo, or Apple decide to start offering things that you or I do not want. I was very careful to say as such: If you're selling the software, the ideal situation for you would be that the buyers have no other choice other than you. That's the "free pony ride" you think customers are wanting, but these companies are actually getting. The world doesn't run on analogies and situations don't become equal because they look similar. Evidently you could argue about incentives to build software going away, or anything else, but I would like to reiterate that the ideal situation for me, as a customer, would be for me to have a _choice_ in whether I buy the software or not. Not having the choice, i.e., by being told to "just not buy hardware" is not the ideal situation for me as a customer. And just as you are arguing for the ideal situation for the companies, I'm arguing for the ideal situation for the customer.
IshKebab 29d ago
This is so incredibly naive. You're basically saying no consumer laws should exist at all. Any commercial activity is fine no matter how underhanded.
- jonathanberger 28d ago
  Let's have consumer laws but have the right ones. A company shouldn't have the right to hurt me, for example.
  - IshKebab 28d ago
    If you don't want to get electrocuted by unsafe products just don't buy them. /s

wolfy1993 29d ago

I see your point, but this doesn't seem to be in good faith. There's a distinct difference between ice cream and pony rides (which would be, awesome, with a new laptop) - and a business practice which maintains a monopoly on consumer hardware. I think it's reasonable for manufactures putting their own software on (I.e., Mac or Microsoft devices running what they want), but all other hardware manufactures only offering Windows just benefits Microsoft, and is clearly part of the MS strategy

jonathanberger 28d ago
> There's a distinct difference What's the importance difference? I make the analogy to highlight that just because something is desirable to a consumer doesn't mean we should have laws to enforce it. The theory and law around monopolies is something I know at only a surface level. Up until I read Thiel's Zero to One I would have told you monopolies are bad but his chapter comparing airlines to Google made me question this.

whalesalad 29d ago

This is such a boomer coded 'deal with it' take. The manufacturer is going to charge you a premium for the software license. If you never intend to use that license, it's completely reasonable to think that we could live in a world where you could uncheck a box and avoid that altogether.

JoshTriplett 29d ago
Unfortunately, in practice most PC vendors get paid to bundle a giant pile of bloatware/malware/adware on the system, and they eagerly accept those payments because PCs are a low-margin business. So if your refund actually represented the amount the vendor spent, you'd end up paying them more to have a system without Windows.
- whalesalad 29d ago
  You are forgetting that we are free to change and invent new rules whenever we want. PC manufacturers can change this. Some already have, like Lenovo (sorta) and Framework. It does not need to be the way that it has been.
jonathanberger 28d ago
I agree that's reasonable. But does the world you're thinking of have a law that forces that to be the case?

axus 29d ago

If you don't like Cyclospora , don't buy lettuce infected with it. Similar regulatory problems, at least with the lettuce the diarrhea is temporary.

kenjackson 29d ago
If Cyclospora is listed on the label then sure. I don't use the builtin speaker on my laptop -- can I get refund on that too?
- wolfy1993 29d ago
  You can't seriously think that's comparable to the OS.
cortesoft 29d ago
Are you suggesting that you never know if the computer you are buying has windows on it or not? This is not the same thing at all. These computers all advertise that they come with Windows. It isn't like when you buy it, you have a 5% chance of it being infected with Windows. If the Cyclospora lettuce was labeled as containing Cyclospora, and you could choose to buy that lettuce or some other lettuce, then yes, it wouldn't be a problem.
jonathanberger 28d ago
I wouldn't argue for no regulation. I don't see the regulatory problems though as similar. Isn't one health and the other... monopoly? Expensive laptops?

milon 29d ago

It sounds reasonable to have the opportunity to buy hardware without software you do not intend to use. Though, I do assume that from the POV of the company selling the software, it would be ideal for the customer to not have a choice. I guess companies also want free ice creams and pony rides.

jonathanberger 28d ago
> ideal for the customer to not have a choice Let's say you and I bump into each other in the town square and we each have some things we might be willing to give the other if we get the right thing in return. In that situation I'd think both sides have the right to offer what they like and both sides can choose freely whether to accept what is offered. What is different about this town square and your relationship to say Dell?
- milon 27d ago
  That's easy: The town square bump situation involves having the right to offer what you like and choosing freely, and my relationship to, say, Dell, or Lenovo, or Framework, or Apple, is that I can have money, they can build hardware, I can spend money on their hardware, and I might even be able to buy hardware+software that I like with the money I have. What I don't have is a factory/expertise/resources to build the hardware myself if Dell, Lenovo, or Apple decide to start offering things that you or I do not want. I was very careful to say as such: If you're selling the software, the ideal situation for you would be that the buyers have no other choice other than you. That's the "free pony ride" you think customers are wanting, but these companies are actually getting. The world doesn't run on analogies and situations don't become equal because they look similar. Evidently you could argue about incentives to build software going away, or anything else, but I would like to reiterate that the ideal situation for me, as a customer, would be for me to have a _choice_ in whether I buy the software or not. Not having the choice, i.e., by being told to "just not buy hardware" is not the ideal situation for me as a customer. And just as you are arguing for the ideal situation for the companies, I'm arguing for the ideal situation for the customer.

IshKebab 29d ago

This is so incredibly naive. You're basically saying no consumer laws should exist at all. Any commercial activity is fine no matter how underhanded.

jonathanberger 28d ago
Let's have consumer laws but have the right ones. A company shouldn't have the right to hurt me, for example.
- IshKebab 28d ago
  If you don't want to get electrocuted by unsafe products just don't buy them. /s