1) So now it's a moral or legal law that you have to comply with ODF? And if you don't you're bad, bad, bad? Will someone please call the adults.
2) Porchrat: Regarding per-CPU licences: The first thing you need to know is that this idea was first suggested to MSFT by IHVs. I kid you not. Almost all IHVs prefer "per-CPU" volume counts to any alternative. This is not something MSFT foisted on IHVs with a heavy hand. Your reasoning sounds OK, but it's actually a bit more interesing than that. There are other factors that alter the economics so that in reality you probably end up paying less because your hardware supplier freely and willingly entered into a "per-CPU" licence agreement with MSFT. This sounds counterintuitive, but it's true, because there are many other points your logic algorithm doesn't consider, and these all add to making a substantial difference. Let me give you some examples:
- Upfront volume commitments get a better price than the same volume without commitment. Why? Less revenue certainty means greater risk, and that translates into price. This is standard and almost universal business practice for centuries, especially in high volume high value business. By making an upfront volume purchase commitment a purchaser can get a better per-unit price. This holds for components, commodities, etc, and it is also true in software.
- Payment terms must factor in the cost of money as well as the spread between costs incurred and revenues received. This can make a significant difference in total fully burdened cost.
- Administration and verification costs can be substantial. This element is especially important in software licensing agreeements where price is tied to volumes, because unlike almost any other physical commodity, 99.9% of software's value is intellectual not physical, and the replication cost bears little or no relation to the intellectual value. If an IHV quickly needs another 10,000 MOSFETs or HDDs or whatever to meet a special order he has to buy them in from a component manufacturer or distributor, and that is easily tracked and audited, because these are physical goods. It's an entirely different story with software, so verifying the record-keeping is essential.
- For any IHV who signs a "per-CPU" agreement, in any case almost all their shipped systems will include Windows, otherwise it's not worth it. If you know anything about the PC manufacturing business you will appreciate that it's actually cheaper and easier for them to count total manufactured systems (of say a model range) than to manage each unit discretely. MS and the IHV can easily and independently (and therefore more cost-effectively) verify the number of units shipped (eg CPUs, HDD supplied to the IHV) than the alternative of recording, reporting, verifying and auditing each unit and serial number.
Bottom line: The term "per-CPU" agreement does not mean that every system made and shipped by the IHV is licensed with Windows, even of it ships "naked". Neither does it mean that Microsoft get a payment for every PC shipped, even if it actually comes without a licence. It refers only to the number used to calculate volume discounts. In retrospect it's probably a bad choice of words, but it's a sound and reasonable principle. It's a number both parties can easily agree, measure, administer, audit and verify. There is absolutely nothing sinister or predatory about it. Just ask the IHVs themselves. After all, they are the ones who decide whether they'll include Windows with their machines. Or not.
Yes, it sure sounds as if your naked PC (MSFT term for system with no opsys licence) from a per-CPU IHV is more expensive because someone has to pay MSFT for the licence that isn't shipped on it. However, the IHV is actually getting a volume discount that actually make his average systems cost lower. What your IHV is actually saying is: "It's actually cheaper for me (therefore more profitable/lower price to you) to count each system made toward the volume discount commitment and to get alll the price advantages in volume commitment, actual volumes shipped, payment terms, and lower admin costs. My whole line is geared to loading and shipping Windows as default, so it's easier and cheaper to handle the exceptions than to have extra processses for the great majority. From a manufacturing vewpoint it's a disruption of our process flow, packaging, documentation, and shipping process to make PCs without Windows (ie it costs us). We'll take the price of Windows off the naked PCs (and we lose more here) just to keep that small number of customers happy, but that's more hassle (and cost) for us." Apart from the direct royality cost, for some IHVs it actually costs them more to make naked systems outside of the high-spurt lines.
Microsoft is far from unique in this, by the way. You'd be surprised how many of your regular goods include per-system licence fees, royalties and other charges even when they are not directly applicable to that particular device/unit. But it is not up to me to reveal.
So, in reality no naked system actually has a paid-for Windows licence; and MS does not get revenue for that naked system. It's as true to say that the IHV gets the naked system to count towards his volume discount even though he doesn't actually ship a Windows licence on it.
confused:HUH?!?!
). That level of crazy makes me think you are the kind of person that thinks toasters talk to him.