LCA: The future of the Linux desktop [LWN.net]

LCA: The future of the Linux desktop

Posted Jan 31, 2013 12:13 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
In reply to: LCA: The future of the Linux desktop by eru
Parent article: LCA: The future of the Linux desktop

Also the explanation for the crapware presence on bundled Windows, straight from the horses mouth, was illuminating.

It's nice to have this confirmed by someone who worked at one of these companies. It's also interesting to see that the companies bundling this stuff obviously don't care about the cost to the customer of having a bunch of advertisers "sponsoring" the Microsoft licences, presumably pitching it to the ignorant deal-seeking mindset as "company X has picked up the tab and covered the cost of Windows for you" and letting them think that they're getting a great deal (they're not paying an arbitrary price on top of the base cost of the system), when in fact everyone concerned is depriving the purchaser of choice and weighing the system down with potentially undesirable software.

Indeed, crapware is just another opportunity to generate after-sales revenue by offering services to remove it. Perhaps the only beneficial effect it has had has been to compromise Microsoft's vision of the Windows user experience so much that people would rather consider something else, even if that means people have been driven to buying a Mac instead. But what we should really have is complete pricing transparency. Then, if someone wants to sponsor the cost of a system - say, Yahoo wants to put their site as the default browser start page, or Amazon wants their products in the user's search results - then those companies can offer such stuff openly, and it need not even be tied to a particular operating system.

Then again, I'm sure a transparent and voluntary system of sponsorship, advertising and even crapware would be a threat to Microsoft and, under threat of sanctions, will therefore never emerge from a major vendor or retailer.

(Log in to post comments)

bundled crapware and the Windows monopoly

Posted Feb 1, 2013 1:14 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

the companies bundling this stuff obviously don't care about the cost to the customer of having a bunch of advertisers "sponsoring" the Microsoft licences,

I think they probably do care about the cost to the customer and just know that cost better than you. I'm not sure I follow your math, but the fact is that the computer costs less because it has Windows plus crapware than if it had Linux (which implies no crapware). The question is would the customer rather pay more for Linux. Or for Windows without crapware, for that matter. I have no trouble believing the answer is no.

As for crapware being just another opportunity to generate revenue by offering services to remove it, I can't believe that because the explanation Bdale gave sounds like a fully plausible additional purpose.

You mention pricing transparency, but you seem to be describing something else. Transparency would be customers can see how the price of the computer got to be what it is (e.g. $200 for the OS minus $250 for crapware that runs only on that OS), whereas I think you're talking about flexibility (e.g. customer could decline the crapware for an extra $250 and take $250 from someone else for different crapware).

bundled crapware and the Windows monopoly

Posted Feb 1, 2013 21:23 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]

I think they probably do care about the cost to the customer and just know that cost better than you.

I would hope that they would know the difference in price and indeed what effect that would have on their sales. However, as we saw with HP's announced abandonment of personal computer manufacturing and sales, and the sudden subsequent U-turn around that decision, the big vendors have raced to the bottom in terms of pricing and margins (and thus costs and arguably product quality), and feel that the only way forward is to compete purely on price through whatever means (subsidising from crapware peddlers or the likes of Microsoft and Intel) or to get out of the game.

(Getting out of the game has a knock-on effect for HP because without a PC portfolio they won't get their foot in the door for various sales opportunities - people like to deal with a single vendor sometimes, which can also be an abdication of their responsibilities in certain sectors, but that's another story - and one would have thought that the CEO would have been better informed about such things before opening his mouth, but I guess corporate knowledge doesn't always reach where it needs to.)

I'm not sure I follow your math, but the fact is that the computer costs less because it has Windows plus crapware than if it had Linux (which implies no crapware). The question is would the customer rather pay more for Linux. Or for Windows without crapware, for that matter. I have no trouble believing the answer is no.

People will buy the thing that costs the least if there's no notable difference between that and the thing that costs more. But I'm also referring to the non-financial cost: the frustration that people have with certain kinds of crapware like bundled anti-virus products and things that make the experience of using the computer worse. If crapware were completely benign and even enhanced the experience, it would be a win-win-lose situation rather than a win-draw-lose (at best): the people who lose irrespective of the quality of the crapware are vendors of alternative products.

As for crapware being just another opportunity to generate revenue by offering services to remove it, I can't believe that because the explanation Bdale gave sounds like a fully plausible additional purpose.

Oh, it most certainly is a revenue-generating opportunity. That's another aspect of the "financial acrobatics" basis of modern retailing.

You mention pricing transparency, but you seem to be describing something else. Transparency would be customers can see how the price of the computer got to be what it is (e.g. $200 for the OS minus $250 for crapware that runs only on that OS), whereas I think you're talking about flexibility (e.g. customer could decline the crapware for an extra $250 and take $250 from someone else for different crapware).

I want both! And once you have transparency, which is already mandatory for things like mobile phone plans in various places, the next question that people ask is about being able to unbundle products because it becomes clear that they are being sold a shopping list of products and not a single monolithic thing. It may seem absurd to some that someone would rather pay $50 extra for "the same product" and not be subjected to advertising, but that's actually a widely recognised business model in itself.

There are practical issues like how one might get, say, Ubuntu plus Amazon advertising specifically instead of Windows plus crapware advertising, or just plain Ubuntu or Windows, or even nothing at all, and this would obviously affect the supply chain of the big vendors who would rather have everything negotiated and installed before the computer leaves the factory, but I see that as a consequence of the inflexibility of the vendors fed by their own self-destructive behaviour. Apple managed to do pretty well with their margins even before they started to push their services into every corner and crevice of their products.

bundled crapware and the Windows monopoly

Posted Feb 3, 2013 21:33 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

But I'm also referring to the non-financial cost: the frustration that people have with certain kinds of crapware like bundled anti-virus products and things that make the experience of using the computer worse.

OK, then you're looking at this differently than I do, because I believe that frustration is reducible to money and is therefore tantamount to a financial cost. But if you want to differentiate costs that way, then I'm sure you're right: HP doesn't care about the nature of the cost to the consumer, only the amount. I.e. if HP's leaders believe a customer isn't valuing that frustration highly enough and should pay more for a computer without crapware, they don't care -- they'll sell the customer the cheaper crapware-laden one anyway.

As for crapware being just another opportunity to generate revenue by offering services to remove it, I can't believe that because the explanation Bdale gave sounds like a fully plausible additional purpose.
Oh, it most certainly is a revenue-generating opportunity. That's another aspect of the "financial acrobatics" basis of modern retailing.

We seem to have a language barrier here, because you're apparently refuting something I didn't say. You said at one point crapware is "just" an opportunity to generate revenue by offering services to remove it," which means it has no other purpose. I don't think now that even you believe HP has no other purpose in putting the crapware on the machine.

bundled crapware and the Windows monopoly

Posted Feb 4, 2013 10:09 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]

I think we agree that people do buy cheaper things that cost them more in the long run: that's the very nature of a false economy. Once the product is in the hands of the customer who then struggles with crapware (after all, there's a reason why it is known as crapware and it isn't because Armitage Shanks has put it there), the vendor's objectives are to minimise support costs (by hopefully building the product just good enough to not fail during the warranty period) and to encourage the customer to spend money with them again.

(These days, the way that people can be tricked into buying a new product to replace a broken old product and still be made to feel that they're treating themselves, when they should really be angry with the manufacturer and vow never to give money to them again, is perhaps one of the crowning achievements of those who have defined our "consumer culture".)

As for the revenue-generating opportunity, we definitely have our wires crossed: by "just another opportunity" I meant that it's yet another way for people to make money from a poorly made or optimised product, not that it has no other purpose or value for the vendor.