bundled crapware and the Windows monopoly
Posted Feb 1, 2013 1:14 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata
In reply to: LCA: The future of the Linux desktop
Parent article: LCA: The future of the Linux desktop
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).
to post comments)