j79zlr said:
I guess I don't understand. Why would you pay $1000 for 2003 Server when FreeBSD is free, more secure, and all around better?
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?
tom9042 said:
Of course "reasonable price" and "Microsoft" are not often used in the same sentence, unless the word "not" is in there somewhere.
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.
Elektro Slime said:
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..............
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.