5 ms·
I don't think that's the case. The argument, as I see it is: In order to buy a product from company X, which I like and want to use, I'm also required to give
by Zak 14y ago
I don't think that's the case. The argument, as I see it is:
In order to buy a product from company X, which I like and want to use, I'm also required to give money to company Y for a product I do not like and am not going to use. I don't want to reward company Y for making a product I do not like, and I am angry company X has made a business/marketing deal that means I can't get its product without rewarding company Y.
As others have pointed out already, PC makers get most of their profits at the low-end from bundling. I'd rather pay the same price with no bundled crapware and no bundled OS because dislike crapware and I dislike Microsoft's current operating systems and I do not want the companies that made them to get my money.
- scholia 14y agoIt's more complicated than that. See my earlier answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5659110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5659110 In any case, you're not buying two separate products, you are buying one, integrated product. The thing you think you want does not exist. No OEM says "Hey, I'll make a laptop and then decide which OS to load." Their business is making Windows laptops. If they were designing, qualifying and building Linux laptops, they'd have to charge you a lot more, and you wouldn't pay it. That's why no one does it.