bundled crapware and the Windows monopoly [LWN.net]

bundled crapware and the Windows monopoly

Posted Feb 3, 2013 21:33 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
In reply to: bundled crapware and the Windows monopoly by pboddie
Parent article: LCA: The future of the Linux desktop

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.

(Log in to post comments)

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.