News - Microsoft’s Ballmer goes toe-to-toe with Chinese President over piracy

[HEXUS]

CEO tells Hu that 90 per cent piracy rate is unacceptable.

Read more.

[Tattysnuc]

If they priced their product more reasonably and there were more benefits for buying it, then I'd imaging more people would buy it. In a global market, the price has got to be set somewhere, and I'm afraid that although it's a great bit of software, £80 per basic home copy, and £100+ for a business copy (for W7 Pro) is too much IMHO.

Lets face it, who actually gets £200 worth of use out of a version of Windows and Office. I've bought them several times over, and the fact that when a new version comes out you get a misery upgrade discount really IRKS me. Sooner pay for an annual subscription or a household license.

[MSIC]

Although i'm as quick to grumble as you are about pricing, when i stop to think about my actual use of Microsoft I.P., in terms of cost verses time used, I reckon that it's one of the best value things i've bought.
Certainly more so than something like my TV, or my car.
(I recognise the flaw in my argument is that I need also to have hardware to use the software, however i'm looking from the point of view that i had WinXP and Ubuntu - and therefore the hardware - anyway, and buying Win 7 was my choice).
Probably only my iPhone runs it close from a cost vs time used perspective.

[aidanjt]

I can see Hu yawning from here.

[MonkeyL]

Although i'm as quick to grumble as you are about pricing, when i stop to think about my actual use of Microsoft I.P., in terms of cost verses time used, I reckon that it's one of the best value things i've bought.

Same here, I don't see how anyone could say it's overpriced considering what it does and how often you use it.

[aidanjt]

Same here, I don't see how anyone could say it's overpriced considering what it does and how often you use it.

I constantly use my keyboard, it didn't cost me £120 to acquire it.

[jackvdbuk]

I constantly use my keyboard, it didn't cost me £120 to acquire it.

i lol'd but its hardly a fair comparison is it

[aidanjt]

i lol'd but its hardly a fair comparison is it

I used the example to point out how flawed the notion that frequency of use determines price. Microsoft charges the amount they think they can get away with. That's why they tier pricing according to who's buying.

[miniyazz]

Yes Windows costs lots - but that doesn't stop it being good value. It's not even like there aren't free alternatives out there, it's not like people have to use it to use their computer meaning they're 'forced' to pirate it if they can't afford it. As MSIC said, for the time you spend on it, it really isn't bad value. My computer's on pretty much 24/7, which means my copy of Windows has thus far cost me something in the region of 7.5p per day (granted, it would be nearer 20p/day if I hadn't got a student discount), both of which really are more than reasonable prices IMO once you factor in all the other costs of a typical day. That money has to go towards keeping that product up-to-date for its useful lifespan, which could easily be ten years - and that isn't cheap, especially when everyone's already bought a copy and there's not much upfront money coming in to support that.

[bennyjh]

90? :|

[Splash]

I constantly use my keyboard, it didn't cost me £120 to acquire it.

My laptop runs Ubuntu - does that mean that the hardware shouldn't cost me anything? Just suggesting the flipside to your coin. Also bear in mind that it's eminently possible to spend £120 on a keyboard.

[aidanjt]

My laptop runs Ubuntu - does that mean that the hardware shouldn't cost me anything? Just suggesting the flipside to your coin.

I used the example to point out how flawed the notion that frequency of use determines price.

Did you miss that?

Also bear in mind that it's eminently possible to spend £120 on a keyboard.

Sure, only just for people who buy into the 'gaming foobar' marketing crap. Which is precisely my point, companies price according to what they think they can get, not how often the item is used.

[Tattysnuc]

Yes Windows costs lots - but that doesn't stop it being good value. It's not even like there aren't free alternatives out there, it's not like people have to use it to use their computer meaning they're 'forced' to pirate it if they can't afford it. As MSIC said, for the time you spend on it, it really isn't bad value. My computer's on pretty much 24/7, which means my copy of Windows has thus far cost me something in the region of 7.5p per day (granted, it would be nearer 20p/day if I hadn't got a student discount), both of which really are more than reasonable prices IMO once you factor in all the other costs of a typical day. That money has to go towards keeping that product up-to-date for its useful lifespan, which could easily be ten years - and that isn't cheap, especially when everyone's already bought a copy and there's not much upfront money coming in to support that.

You've completely missed my point. MS are charging a price that's within a range globally. That price and the benefit that it is giving to the Chinese is clearly out of kilter with their pricing and expectations.

How much do MS spend on advertising their products in China? How much are they spending on meeting the Chinese needs? If they made it worth them buying it rather than using illegal copies, then they'd have a higher market share of legal copies. They increased the value for me by including MSE, firewall software, including the media streaming. I'm happy I bought it. £100 of my salary is not the same as £100 of a Chinese persons average salary, and the costs need to be brought in line with that. Simply shouting at them aint gonna change that!

Why do you think Apple is not a major player in China. It's an added value product at the top of the range. Beyond the means of the "average" joe.

MS want China to start paying for their product because the alternative is to lower their price and that hurts their margin in the Western World. Supply and Demand.......

[JGJones]

They can always just switch to a home-grown Linux version instead. Red Flag Linux is one example.

This isn't to be a "Windows vs Linux" debate. Both are different OS, both are just tools to perform a job/task. That's all. Both does some things well and some things badly.

Both are easy to use? - This depends. Windows - you do need to learn how the OS work, but outside of China, the sheer desktop market share mean that the majority already know how to use it.

Linux - I have no idea about Red Flag Linux - it use KDE etc. But if I was to use Ubuntu as one example - it's actually quite easy to use and tried to strictly follow their own HIG (Human Interface Guideline) so that things work as expected etc. (Microsoft doesn't exactly follow HIG, for example MS Office's Ribbon interface is completely different from the usual Windows application layout etc) But as I've said...I'm talking about Red Flag Linux and I have no idea if that is easy to use like Ubuntu.

However I believe that Red Hat Linux is made to look like Windows so that it's familiar from the start - you can see a screenshot here - wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Red_Flag_Linux

Actually it look just like Windows(!) So it take advantage of people's Windows skill. However it might be a mistake in making it look too similar to Windows - issues, bugs etc won't happen the same way and solutions to fix aren't the same etc.

Cost? Free and it's home grown which is probably better for them as it help them to develop their own home population's skills.

[spoon_]

I'd never pay for Windows, money wasted - I'm having it for free instead

Also supporting this "Junkdows" at work makes me sick of it big time.

I'm wondering how much better typical desktop OS would be if Microsoft had serious competition?

£50 max for the top of the range flavour should be their starting point...

[watercooled]

You might want to check over your post, you're using Red Flag Linux and Red Hat Linux interchangeably - they are not the same thing.

Edit: Missed post. I disagree £50 (what I paid - preorder) is money wasted for Windows. Sure you can get other OSes for free but it's MS's business choice. Anyway, plenty of people and quite possibly you included frequently pay £40-45 on games which get far less use than the OS on their computer. I think £50 is completely justifiable for Windows 7. And I'm strongly against piracy (as you may know from previous posts) if that's what you mean by 'free'. But I won't turn this into a rant.

I do agree about the competition bit though, Windows has basically none in the mass market. There are other OSes but as far as most end users are concerned, Windows is just 'it', they don't know any different. It's the same as the argument I make towards CPU/GPU MFR fanboys - they don't seem to realise things wouldn't progress nearly as fast as they do and what did exist would be far more expensive without the competition that exists now.