Windows 7 Should Microsoft Windows 7 be free of charge?

[xolo]

Microsoft’s' newest operating system, Windows 7, has a new campaign out. The advertisements follow certain people around, and they end up showing how "I'm a PC and Windows 7 was my idea".

Of course Microsoft's new operating system was someone else's idea. They haven't had an original idea in any of their operating systems. They have all been stolen from other companies or people. For example, their last operating system Vista was blatantly stolen from Apple's Mac OS X. There were so many similarities, that you cannot chalk it up to coincidence.

But since Microsoft is finally openly admitting to stealing other people's creative ideas, perhaps the entire PC user world should create a class action suit demanding their cut of the profits. Microsoft isn't providing their new product "free of charge" to all of these users that contributed to the new operating system, are they? Did these people receive a paycheck to show that they were under the employment of Microsoft and therefore they own those ideas? Nope. But Microsoft is charging anywhere between $119.99 and $319.99 USD for a license to run the software (you still can't own your own copy; you can only buy rights to use it).

It just seems to be illicit in my opinion. What do you think?

 

[cybercore]

Welcome to w7f !

But since Microsoft is finally openly admitting to stealing other people's creative ideas...

Where does Microsoft openly admit this ?

perhaps the entire PC user world should create a class action suit demanding their cut of the profits.

Interesting thought, but then why don't people whose ideas have been "stolen" present evidence in court?

For example, their last operating system Vista was blatantly stolen from Apple's Mac OS X. There were so many similarities, that you cannot chalk it up to coincidence.

What are those similarities ?

 

[Super Sarge]

I know you said that tongue in cheek, Jobs and Apple stole the GUI from xerox
The GUI

Xerox has been heavily criticized (particularly by business historians) for failing to properly commercialize and profitably exploit PARC's innovations. A favorite example is the GUI, initially developed at PARC for the Alto and then commercialized as the Xerox Star by the Xerox Systems Development Department. Although very significant in terms of its influence on future system design, it is deemed a failure because it only sold approximately 25,000 units. A small group from PARC led by David Liddle and Charles Irby formed Metaphor Computer Systems. They extended the Star desktop concept into an animated graphic and communicating office automation model and sold the company to IBM.
[edit] Adoption by Apple

The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product. Much later, in the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on the same grounds. The lawsuit was dismissed because Xerox had waited too long to file suit, and the statute of limitations had expired.[3]

 

[xolo]

What are those similarities ?

I'm amazed that you haven't heard of any of them;

Link Removed

Similarities: Vista and OS X (Pictures) [Archive] - Mac Forums



Just a few sites that point out a few of the items that were "ripped-off" from Mac OS X.

Interesting thought, but then why don't people whose ideas have been \"stolen\" present evidence in court?

I think they should, but unfortunately Microsoft has so many lawyers that they were able to basically get off scott free on their monopoly lawsuit.

Where does Microsoft openly admit this ?

As I pointed out, in their commercials. "Windows 7 was my idea". Did these people receive paychecks? Were they compensated for contributing to the operating system? If not, then these ideas were "stolen".

 

[Super Sarge]

As participants in the commercial I am sure they are receiving compensation. and a small royalty every time the commercial is aired.

 

[xolo]

As participants in the commercial I am sure they are receiving compensation. and a small royalty every time the commercial is aired.

I'm sure that the actors were compensated, but the actual person that contributed to the operating system? I don't really think so. I have submitted "feedback" to Windows XP. I have never received any kind of compensation. Have you ever submitted suggestions to Microsoft? Have you ever received a check from them?

 

[davehc]

Just to lighten the atmoshpere. Read this:
Folklore.org: Macintosh Stories: A Rich Neighbor Named Xerox

It is "normal" practice for companies to borrow/steal each others material..

What pays off in the end is how useable, or userfriendly, the product is when it hits the retail shelves , and how good the backup may be.

"But since Microsoft is finally openly admitting to stealing other people's creative ideas"

I think you may have misunderstood the slogan, no company, incuding Microsoft, would admit to such a thing. What they are saying is that the OS was built around the operability of the computers, and the people who use them (Us).

The price does seem, to many, to high. But, maybe irrelvant in this context, based on devaluation of currencies and other financial factors, it is very comparitive, and in several cases, cheaper, than earlier OS's.

 

[Super Sarge]

No but to do a commercial and participate in it, I am sure they did not do it for free. I think there are union rules concerning this.

 

[Radenight]

Microsoft’s' newest operating system, Windows 7, has a new campaign out. The advertisements follow certain people around, and they end up showing how "I'm a PC and Windows 7 was my idea".

Of course Microsoft's new operating system was someone else's idea. They haven't had an original idea in any of their operating systems. They have all been stolen from other companies or people. For example, their last operating system Vista was blatantly stolen from Apple's Mac OS X. There were so many similarities, that you cannot chalk it up to coincidence.

But since Microsoft is finally openly admitting to stealing other people's creative ideas, perhaps the entire PC user world should create a class action suit demanding their cut of the profits. Microsoft isn't providing their new product "free of charge" to all of these users that contributed to the new operating system, are they? Did these people receive a paycheck to show that they were under the employment of Microsoft and therefore they own those ideas? Nope. But Microsoft is charging anywhere between $119.99 and $319.99 USD for a license to run the software (you still can't own your own copy; you can only buy rights to use it).

It just seems to be illicit in my opinion. What do you think?

I can see your points, I really can.. But, on the other hand I just can't agree enough to get upset about it.. I mean really, thousands of companies all over the world do the same thing every day.. Which is "steal" or "borrow" other companies or other people's ideas.. They might change it slightly just so it's not an obvious "theft" but the bottom line is they still do the same thing..

And this is nothing new, this kind of behaviour amongst companies has been going on for years.. So unfortunately getting upset over it isn't going to do a whole hell of a lot..

And if you look back to Windows 7's launch, Microsoft DID give out quite a few free copies of the OS.. The various contests and what not that ended up having a copy of Windows 7 as the top prize.. And let's not forget Houseparty! How many thousands of free copies of Windows 7 Ultimate (Which is a $400 value in Canada) were given out through that.. A LOT! So if you take those things into consideration, I think Microsoft was pretty generous this time around when it came to giving away free copies of their new OS..

So I guess my opinion would be NO, Windows 7 should not be free of charge..

 

[cybercore]

I know you said that tongue in cheek,

No, I mean it a freindly discussion.

Jobs and Apple stole the GUI from xerox
The GUI

Rest assured I have heard of this, but I can't figure out why this wasn't proven in court.


Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apple Computer, Inc. (now Apple Inc.) sought to prevent Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, \\\\\\"Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...\\\\\\"

The court ruled: "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface."

In addition to that, something looking similar does not necessarily mean stealing. Did Microsoft indeed steal the codes for the GUI, or did MS do its own hard work?




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm amazed that you haven't heard of any of them;

Good that you are amazed, I wanted to hear exactly what you would like to discuss.

Link Removed

Similarities: Vista and OS X (Pictures) [Archive] - Mac Forums


Again, something looking similar does not necessarily mean stealing. "Similar" is the key word. Did Microsoft indeed steal the codes for the GUI, or did MS do its own hard work ?

If Vista was "stolen" from Apple, then why didn't Apple sue and win? And why did Microsoft plagiarize it again in Windows 7? Kind of going around in circles.

I think they should, but unfortunately Microsoft has so many lawyers that they were able to basically get off scott free on their monopoly lawsuit.

I do not agree, or why does Microsoft, with so many lawyers, occasionally loose cases in court? It must be their sophisticated strategy or simply a coincidence.

As I pointed out, in their commercials.

MS can hire millions of people to generate ideas, and I've heard MS employees actually get paid.




~~~~~~~~~~~~

Solo, Super Sarge, thanks for your points of view. If you invite me to join your lawsuit against MS, I will definitely think about it. Until then.

Cheers.

 

[Radenight]

All very valid points Cybercore!! Well said.

 

[wfor1pilot]

The price does seem, to many, to high. But, maybe irrelvant in this context, based on devaluation of currencies and other financial factors, it is very comparitive, and in several cases, cheaper, than earlier OS's.

Too High? The price is outright ABSURD: I just checked the local computer (super store) weekly advertised prices.
The List is as follows:
1. Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit Full Version > $319.00 Upgrade $219.00
2. Microsoft Windows 7 Professional Full Version > $ 299.00 Upgrade $199.00
3. Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium Full Version > $ 199.00 Upgrade $119.00

ABSURD!!!

 

[RAK]

Too High? The price is outright ABSURD: I just checked the local computer (super store) weekly advertised prices.
The List is as follows:
1. Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit Full Version > $319.00 Upgrade $219.00
2. Microsoft Windows 7 Professional Full Version > $ 299.00 Upgrade $199.00
3. Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium Full Version > $ 199.00 Upgrade $119.00

ABSURD!!!

Your posts is a little out of context or you may have misconstrued Davehc's meaning. He is agreeing that the price is high. But he is saying that, in terms of price comparison of some years ago, and the then value of any single currency, say when XP was first retailed, it is not more expensive and may be even cheaper.
For example:

Microsoft Windows XP Professional. Average shop price - 3 Sep 2001 - $257.99 - $267.72
The official inflation rate, since 2001, is estimated at approximately 23%. If XP were to be sold today, as a new OS, this would put it around +/- $320

 

[wfor1pilot]

Your posts is a little out of context or you may have misconstrued Davehc's meaning. He is agreeing that the price is high. But he is saying that, in terms of price comparison of some years ago, and the then value of any single currency, say when XP was first retailed, it is not more expensive and may be even cheaper.
For example:

Microsoft Windows XP Professional. Average shop price - 3 Sep 2001 - $257.99 - $267.72
The official inflation rate, since 2001, is estimated at approximately 23%. If XP were to be sold today, as a new OS, this would put it around +/- $320

The title of the tread being "should Microsoft Windows 7 be free of charge": I think the prices I quoted "are" absurd.

Point:
I just pony'd up full price (little more then a year ago) for Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit with all of it's bugs and (painfully slow) poor performance. Now, without admitting that Vista sucked and didn't live up to it's advertised advances and performance; Microsoft has basically re-released a better "Vista" and changed the name. So yeah, for suckers like me it should be free. I think I should have more options then to just throw it (My "full price" Vista) in the trash and "Pony up" again !

 

[RAK]

I guess it comes to a point of view. I am regularly bombarded, by "Spamming Email, with offers on software, which I already own and use, to obtain the newer version at a price. Sometimes it can be tempting, but normally, if my existing software does what I require of it, I just ignore. I would not, normally, expect a commercial company to make such offers without payment - they would have little purpose, or financial interest, in continuing their operation under those circumstances.
Not in context with the thread title, but, fwiw, Over one year ago it was overadvertised that Vista was a b**ger. It was also well advertised that the latest OS from Microsoft was on the way. Reports from Beta testers and others were already, by then, glowing (although sometimes overhyped). At the same time, Microsoft issued a blog, reprinted on most tech pages, stating there would be a cheaper "upgrade" offer. This was misconstrued, by many of those "expert" pages, as a free offer. As you know, the free part only referred to those who purchased a computer with Vista OEM installed.

I must confess that I have an aversion to the way "guarantees" are applied. By arguing I have won this case several times. If I pay the full prive for an item, which very quickly develops a fault, I feel I have a right to have a replacement, not a three month old repaired product. Unfortunately, this was not the case here. Vista was sold as a fully working OS. That is exactly what it was. - It ran, in it's miserable state, "out of the box". I still run on of my computers with Vista. It is totally customised and all the garbage is removed. I will say, that this requires knowledge, which the global customers should not be assumed to have. But the Vista computer performs, to most intents and purposes, as well as my Windows 7 computers.

 

[Agent Data]

Any idea how expensive Win7 is in Australia?

Link Removed

 

[cybercore]

Every opinion expressed in this forum is equally valuable. As for Davehc's point, it looks quite valid to me personally.

Davehc is agreeing that the price is high. But he is saying that, in terms of price comparison of some years ago, and the then value of any single currency, say when XP was first retailed, it is not more expensive and may be even cheaper.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The title of the tread being \\\\\\"should Microsoft Windows 7 be free of charge\\\\\\"

I would second the idea of Windows 7 FREE of charge, but then what would be the motivation to develop Microsoft Windows OS ?

Any idea how expensive Win7 is in Australia?

Why is Windows 7 so expensive in Australia? | News.com.au

This is what Microsoft's general manager of Windows consumer marketing James DeBragga says

"We don't talk a whole lot about pricing because we don't set it, we can't set pricing, the channel sets the pricing," said Microsoft's general manager of Windows consumer marketing James DeBragga, referring to major retailers.

Beyond just the exchange rates of the currency, it depends on the channel model... in terms of the margins that they charge and how the retailers need to make money.

They're going to set their prices, we don't set their prices so essentially you're going to be in a pure competition model where the market will set the price and the retailers will compete against each other."

 

[Agent Data]

True, but Microsoft could control pricing (to any level) if they wished to do so - they don't for the obvious reason!

What Americans get cheaper is 'subsidised' by other countries, not just Australia or EU.

Is Win7 worth (value for money) its price in the EU or Australia? - definitely & clearly NO! US pricing is better, yes.

Link Removed

 

[RAK]

Wow. I Just did an XE on the Aussie price of Aus$429. Us£386. About £356 in the UK. I live in western Europe, where the price is about the same as Australia, but I suppose it must have something to do with the country,s cost of living index. Nevertheless, someone is putting a bit of cash in their pockets outside of the US!

P.S. Oh, and yes, cybercore.I fully support your lovely idea. OS free! Maybe all their other products too - lol.

 

[cybercore]

True, but Microsoft could control pricing (to any level) if they wished to do so - they don't for the obvious reason!

They say Microsoft cannot do much about pricing because it is the distributing channels charging so much:

We don't talk a whole lot about pricing because we don't set it, we can't set pricing, the channel sets the pricing

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P.S. Oh, and yes, cybercore. I fully support your lovely idea. OS free! Maybe all their other products too - lol.

LoL, the idea is not mine, I was only saying this:

I would second the idea of Windows 7 FREE of charge, but then what would be the motivation to develop Microsoft Windows OS ?

Microsoft would not want nor would it be able to make good products free of charge.