Discussion in 'Green Room' started by delta4s, Dec 10, 2004.
The nation also suffers rampant arsenic poisoning. Apparently, all those UN projects to drill water wells in the 1960s ignored the fact that most of the nation sits on top of large, natural arsenic deposits.
Yeah...I would say that Bangladesh has other problems to tackle, while, I guess, old Billy will have to wait to buy his next ivory back scratcher...or maybe not.
LOL...anything that Microsoft does becomes news these days.
It's odd that they decided on Bangladesh though.
Piracy rates in bangladesh,india and pakistan are at 100%. You cant really blame em... i mean how can you tell a person who gets about a $1000 USD a month to spend $200 on software... what are they gonna live on? This is absurd...
Instead what they should be doing is selling low priced versions of their products ( u know like textbooks) maybe a lil cut down in terms of extra feature but the core components should be there.
That said, even in a so called oil-rich country like Saudi Arabia, piracy rates are also in the high 80's. Actually piracy dwarfs sales of legitamte software in all of the middle east cpuntries, all though The UAE is doing a pretty decent job of trying to curb out this problem..............
So now tell me, how many of y'all can swear upon ur mother's grave and say that uv neva used pirated software, ever in ur life?.......i unfortunately cant
Pffffft, I like piracy. Booo to microsoft.
End piracy, use open source.
If microsoft didnt have the price so high for the products than people would prob by them more. Bill has plenty of money now to lower the price plus bill doesnt even developed have the crap that microsoft sells so fook bill!
1) Bill doesn't single-handedly make decisions for Microsoft.
2) All of Microsoft's revenue doesn't go straight to Bill's bank account.
uuh.... Tittle..... u should read the story a tad more.
ya...... it is rather cheap....
1) he is their CEO, so he has a big say
2) Alot of it does
Ballmer is the CEO.
Anyway, it's still rather stupid to curse at Bill personally for any and all of Microsoft's shortcomings. There are a large number of people involved in marketing who meet and decide pricing etc, and thousands of developers and management people who, all together, get a fair share of the profits as well.
Plus, a significant part of Bill's personal income goes towards charity and education. Not every big-shot rich guy does that.
ok, chairman, somehow I still think his input is weighted heavily
Of course it is...when he's actually involved.
The question is - is he actually involved in every single decision that the company makes? Because if he is, that would be pretty damn admirable.
Somehow I do think he is involved in what they will charge for their OS, its not M$ fault that their customers will pay $300 for an OS or $600 for an Office suite, because they do, why should they charge less. I guess I don't understand. Why would you pay $1000 for 2003 Server when FreeBSD is free, more secure, and all around better? I have two legal copies of XP that I paid $5 for when I was in college, same thing with OfficeXP, but there is no way in hell I could spend the full retail price and feel like I got my money's worth.
NetRyder and j79zlr -- you're both right. I like Bill Gates because of his foundation, but hate Microsoft because they charge monopoly prices.
However, there is too much piracy in Asia. These are the people who should be using open source software, if they don't want to pay a reasonable price for Microsoft products. Of course "reasonable price" and "Microsoft" are not often used in the same sentence, unless the word "not" is in there somewhere.
I was saying if they would lower the price maybe people wouldnt pirate it so much.
Because for some people, time might be more valuable than money?
A company, for example, might have to invest a lot of time and money in re-training employees to deploy, administer and use a UNIX based server, and they might lose productivity in the process. When Windows is the most dominant operating system in the world, it's reasonable to assume that most people are already familiar with it. There are reasons companies choose the products they do. It's not like Microsoft holds them at gunpoint and forces them to pick a Microsoft solution over an open-source one now, is it?
It's the same case with most large-scale commercial software. One could argue that VMware or Adobe Photoshop are unreasonably priced too. Sure, you could go ahead and use The GIMP as a completely free alternative to Photoshop if you choose to do so. But that doesn't mean you can expect Adobe or everyone in the world to give you free stuff, right? How is it any different with Microsoft here?
I don't see how people can make MS the "bad guy" here for rightfully trying to cut down on piracy of its software. Like any other software company, MS doesn't want piracy, regardless of whether it's the US, UK or Bangladesh. Why is that so unreasonable?
Besides, I can bet that piracy levels would not go down significantly even if Windows was sold for a more reasonable price. Cut it down to $99 a box, and people will want it for less. Cut it down even lower, and people will want it free. That's obviously just not going to happen.
Bingo. You stated a plausible solution and the consequent problem both in the same post.
Microsoft already has the so-called "Starter Edition" which is a cut-down (and quite crappy) version of Windows XP for sale in certain countries. But do you really think people would settle for a cut-down product...let me rephrase that...do you really see people paying for a cut-down product when they can get a pirated version of the full thing from the local roadside vendor for free or for some dirt cheap price?
As you said, piracy is a big thing in Saudi Arabia too, although there might well be people there who are far wealthier than upper-middle class folks here in the US. The fact that people can afford to buy software legally doesn't necessarily stop them from taking the cheaper, not-so-legal way out.
That's the key reason why MS is trying to weed out pirated software vendors. Assuming that cutting down prices is going to solve the problem is just naive.
i think microsoft software is way too expensive. paying for hardware is already a hassle so why should ppl have to pay $200 just for stupid xp that gets blue screens half the time. bah
Read the post above. Are you being forced to use Windows? No. Those free Linux CD's are calling your name.
(As a sidenote, you're obviously doing something very wrong if XP blue-screens on you half the time, but that's not the point of this thread.)
ok so they should atleast lower the price......i mean on software alone can cost you like $1000, people in developing countries want something cheap and simple to use, they hardware they get will total to like $200 or so and already thats a lot for them, so i dont see how they spend almost 5 times more on software. Yes i know about linux and im sure the last thing these people want to worry about driver compatibility and al the other hassel involved......
BTW AMD is workin on their Personal Internet Computer, the kit costs about $250 and includes a monitor,kdb,mouse and this lil CPU thingy. Users will have to pay $10 a month to use it. That's all nice n all but what i didnt like when one of thier reps, Pierre Brunswick reffred to its potential customers as "Poor People", why couldnt he use something like the 'misfortunate' or something but "Poor People" is degrading them!