The cost of XP Pro.

O

Oldwolf

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
437
Can someone please explain to me why, after 3 years, the cost of Windows XP Pro is still around $300 at the retail stores???

One would think that, after a few years, that the price would eventually come down, but it hasn't!

2 years after Win 98SE came out the retail price was a third of it's release price.

I smell a scam!
 
What's the scam when you can go online and buy an OEM copy for less than half that? Or, if you must buy retail, the upgrade version is cheaper.
 
djnes said:
What's the scam when you can go online and buy an OEM copy for less than half that? Or, if you must buy retail, the upgrade version is cheaper.
Click to expand...

Don't you have to have a previous version of windows to use the upgrade? Or is there some way around that?
 
Why should it go down in price?

Other than games, most actively developed/maintained software maintains a relatively stable price.
 
Supply and demand, of course, it's the answer to almost all economics questions...
 
Because Microsoft seems to want to encourage warez. I will very much enjoy the day when someone offers a comparable operating system for half the price. I will buy it and never look back. But with no real competition, MS will continue to charge exorbitantly.
 
EnderXC said:
Don't you have to have a previous version of windows to use the upgrade? Or is there some way around that?
Click to expand...



you only need a windows cd of a previous version. Doesn't even need to be installed.
 
repo man said:
Because Microsoft seems to want to encourage warez. I will very much enjoy the day when someone offers a comparable operating system for half the price. I will buy it and never look back. But with no real competition, MS will continue to charge exorbitantly.
Click to expand...

I dont think I can do that.. I may miss the BSOD.. :D
 
repo man said:
Because Microsoft seems to want to encourage warez. I will very much enjoy the day when someone offers a comparable operating system for half the price. I will buy it and never look back. But with no real competition, MS will continue to charge exorbitantly.
Click to expand...
Pirating is an ethics problem, not an economical one.

How the fuck can people afford $1000 PCs (which isn't outrageous for many people here *at all*), yet bitch about a $130 OS which they use a hell of a lot more than the $60 game?

Baffles me every time.
 
Phoenix86 said:
Pirating is an ethics problem, not an economical one.

How the fuck can people afford $1000 PCs (which isn't outrageous for many people here *at all*), yet bitch about a $130 OS which they use a hell of a lot more than the $60 game?

Baffles me every time.
Click to expand...

Come to think of it-- heh, it baffles me too! :eek:

-J.
 
Phoenix86 said:
Pirating is an ethics problem, not an economical one.

How the fuck can people afford $1000 PCs (which isn't outrageous for many people here *at all*), yet bitch about a $130 OS which they use a hell of a lot more than the $60 game?

Baffles me every time.
Click to expand...
Because to the average person, blaming and bitching at Microsoft is far easier than turning their own brains on and thinking for themselves. Besides, XP is actually a good OS, definitely worth owning.
 
God only knows how much MS spends per year combatting piracy. If they concentrated on offering their product for a lower price, that would greatly reduce piracy. And increase goodwill towards the corporation. Hollywood has chosen this path for combating piracy by lowering the price of DVDs.

It would be interesting to see how low MS could drop their prices in the face of actual competition.
 
repo man said:
God only knows how much MS spends per year combatting piracy. If they concentrated on offering their product for a lower price, that would greatly reduce piracy.
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt lowering the price will have a huge impact on software piracy. I have turned away many a clients who simply *refuse* to pay for additional software licenses with a mentality that they (customer) somehow now own the software and can install it on as many machines as they wish.

But I have to ask why are so many games available on warez sites when they cost less than $100 retail?

If people are not willing to pay $50 or $60 for a game, what makes you think lowering the price of Windows would reduce software piracy?
 
Piracy is never going to go away (short of heavy-handed DRM integrated into hardware). The thing is, it doesn't really matter.

Let's look at Microsoft - no matter how much they may bitch about it, they're clearly not actually hurting from it. The software industry, as a whole, is not hurting from it. I'm not saying that piracy is right or wrong, just that it's part of the industry.
 
You ought to ask MS:
Microsoft Thailand Plays Catch-Up With Linux

Date: 2/26/2004


(Article Central) Microsoft is developing a slimmer version of its Windows operating system for low-cost PC projects in Thailand a country where Linux steadily grows in popularity. The new OS will be released in limited and selected markets following the release of Windows XP Service Pack 2 this May.

Microsoft originally refused to support a similar program initiated by the Thai government last May, although Linux accepted. Microsoft started to lose market share to Linux and eventually began offering the Windows XP Home and Office standard editions to those buying budget PCs under the project for about $37 US. Microsoft has also put out a simpler and cheaper version of its Windows XP family for Thai users.

Until now, Microsoft has preferred to sell Windows and Office for the same price regardless of the country. However, analysts predicted last year that pirated versions of Windows were selling for $8 US each and would eventually force Microsoft to reduce prices.
Click to expand...
http://www.thewhir.com/find/articlecentral/story.asp?recordid=785&page=1
 
Arrogance often results in the law of unintended consequences rearing its ugly head.

Because of the cost of removing the R-12 refrigerant, a proven cause of ozone depletion, landfills in California have begun charging about $30.00 for disposing of old refrigerators. This has had the unintended consequence of many old refrigerators being dumped in the country. So do they make the sensible move, and subsidize the fee to decrease roadside dumping? No, they instead increased the fine for roadside dumping. If you get caught doing it, you will have to pay through the nose. But I'm unaware of any decrease in the number of refrigerators by the side of the road.

It would be far cheaper to subsidize the cost of R-12 recovery than it is to have to send road crews out to pick up all of the old refrigerators, which still need to have the R-12 recovered anyway. And I've also heard of people cutting up their refrigerator (thereby releasing the R-12 into the atmosphere, completely defeating the purpose of the law) to avoid having to pay the disposal fee. But legislators would apparently rather cut their nose off to spite their face than try to resolve the situation in a productive manner.

MS are an arrogant corporation. I detest arrogance, and I would gladly use any competitors comparable product in order to not reward MS's arrogance by buying their products. How many people have you heard say that they are sticking with 2000 because they do not want to deal with the activation process with XP? Could MS's anti piracy schemes backfire by causing ill will towards them? How much sympathy can the average person muster towards one of the most profitable corporations in history? In the routine filing with the Securities Exchange Commission, the company also revealed Windows desktop profit margins were as high as nearly 86 percent.
 
repo man said:
How many people have you heard say that they are sticking with 2000 because they do not want to deal with the activation process with XP?
Click to expand...
None, because it's so easy, a total and complete dumbass can do it. For all of Microsoft's "arrogance" there is an equal number of consumer "arrogance" and "ignorance" at how business is done and what must be done to protect the assets of a business. Microsoft is in a position where, no matter what decisions they make, someone will bitch and complain. Example:

The put JVM in XP at the start to make it easier for the end user. Sun sued, claming it was stifling the competition. Now we all are forced to run Sun's bloated, slow ass JVM instead of using the MS one that run in the backgroun, completely uninstrusive. Many people, including Java developers complain about not having the MS JVM anymore. The moral of the story: Either way, someone's going to bitch and Microsoft.
 
It's true, I've never actually heard anyone say that they weren't going to upgrade from 2000 or 98 because of activation; but I've read it in many computer forums, especially when I was active on Overclockers.com.

The Java problem you've mentioned is unfortunate. But MS have contributed to this with their anti competitive business practices. Remember when they hired away most of Borland's software engineers?

Check out the reading list attached to Microsoft's announcement of Visual Basic 5 Control Creation edition. There you will find an insult aimed at Borland which suggests that Microsoft is more concerned than it lets on about the competitive threat posed by Borland's Delphi. The author of Visual Basic Client/Server How-To is listed as Buck Forland. Can anyone doubt that this is a nom de plume and that the real author draws his salary at Microsoft?
Click to expand...
http://www.computing.co.uk/news/21865

They have a virtual monopoly, they know it, and they are doing everything they can to maintain it by stifling competition.
 
So when Microsoft removed their own JVM, and people were up in arms about it, and developers mainly regarded the sun alternative as crap, is that somehow Microsoft's fault? Can you spin that a little more to fault Microsoft somehow?

How about the recent announcement by some major OEMs that they will not carry or ship the version of XP with Windows Media Player stripped out? Microsoft is being forced to offer this version as per the settlement with the EU. Is this again Microsoft's fault the OEM's don't want to carry it?

Your missing one key point. 99% of the people using Windows want their PC to be fully functional when they bring it home from Best Buy, or when it's delivered straight from the OEM. Microsoft tries to accomodate 99% of it's customers, and suddenly they are stifling competition. As I said before, it's a lose-lose situation for them because someone's always going to complain. You call them arrogant, I call it arrogant to bash them for what isn't their fault.
 
I miss having a JVM that works... :(

repo man, you're still trying to justify piracy no matter how you slice it. The fact that $40 games are pirated, and that people won't pay $30 to recycle an old fridge is kinda proof that no price short of free will stop the pirates.
 
An explanation isn't the same thing as a justification. Nothing will stop piracy. No one in law enforcement talks about bringing the crime rate to zero; it isn't possible. But reducing crime is possible, and so is reducing piracy. MS knows that a lower initial price reduces piracy (and helps eliminate a possible foot in the door for a competitor) which is why they responded as they did in Thailand.
 
Note: I work at Microsoft, This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Now that the legal is out of the way. People seem to think that spending 50 dollars on a game they use maybe a month or two is worth it. Yet, having an operating system that is maintained, and used all the time isn't worth 3 times that much? XP shipped in august of 2001, which makes it 4 years. We've had numerous updates to XP, 2 service packs, etc... You got all that for your 150 bucks. Amortized, it's almost nothing.

I play world of warcraft, I paid 50 bucks for the right to log into Blizzards servers, and 15 bucks a month. I would have rather paid 150 bucks and never had to pay a monthly fee, however blizzard learned from diablo that people will pay. ;)

Onto the piracy issue, look at Croteam's stats when they put it to the test. They sold their kick ass game Serious Sam for 20 bucks. It was still pirated. People always blame something for why they do something they know is wrong. (Defense Mechanisms) So do how you see fit, but know that I will not support you on these forums if I know it's not legit.
 
And yet with that "almost nothing" price, MS are able to post a very high profit margin, one that oil company execs can only achieve in their wet dreams.
 
repo man said:
An explanation isn't the same thing as a justification. Nothing will stop piracy. No one in law enforcement talks about bringing the crime rate to zero; it isn't possible. But reducing crime is possible, and so is reducing piracy. MS knows that a lower initial price reduces piracy (and helps eliminate a possible foot in the door for a competitor) which is why they responded as they did in Thailand.
Click to expand...
It's not the business' job to prevent priacy, it's their job to make $$$. Piracy is an accepted loss, sure they'd like to reduce it, but not at the cost of their bottom line.

edit: Thailand has nothing to do with piracy, it had to do with competition (aka Linux) and it's price (free). The first sentence in your first quote says it all.
"Microsoft is developing a slimmer version of its Windows operating system for low-cost PC projects in Thailand a country where Linux steadily grows in popularity."
 
repo man said:
And yet with that "almost nothing" price, MS are able to post a very high profit margin, one that oil company execs can only achieve in their wet dreams.
Click to expand...
A very very simple look at the products produced by those two industries will show why that is. Again, not Microsoft's fault that the software business can allow that while manufacturing business can't. Think of what it costs a company to make one car...and then another, etc etc. What does it cost Microsoft, or any other software company, to print out extra CDs of their software? There you have it.
 
I just don't comprehend why this is even a topic.

Microsoft has all the rights to charge whatever the market will pay. If they want to charge $500 a copy, they could, but they would not sell as many copies. The words I am looking for is market saturation. Microsoft needs to keep the market saturated with their products so the network effects of Microsoft OS's and Office products makes the next man purchase their products.

And as for Microsoft's profit margins, once the software is designed, the developers are paid, each additional copy of Windows XP costs next to nothing. That is why they have such delicious profit margins. Hell they spend more on advertising than assembly, shipping and distribution of their OS. Of course they would have incredible profit margin. If you ever went to Business school, you would find out that Microsoft and many other software companies (EA, Blizzard, SAP) have a newer style of business that has extreme costs upfront and very little costs once the product has been released. Selling Windows XP for 4 to 5 years is what lends to those profit margins. Just because the news, the Wall Street Journal, or the investor's business daily can't grasp that business model does not make it or the firm the competes with it "Arrogant". they are just business savvy.
 
Phoenix86 said:
Pirating is an ethics problem, not an economical one.

How the fuck can people afford $1000 PCs (which isn't outrageous for many people here *at all*), yet bitch about a $130 OS which they use a hell of a lot more than the $60 game?

Baffles me every time.
Click to expand...

$1000 is more than reasonable for a powerhouse gaming system. Midrange and lowball pcs are now available for as little as $200....And the other guy is right, Pirating is an economical issue for BASIC CONSUMERS. I thought to myself when I got my 3rd computer (1st being a dell, followed by a compaq laptop, and the 3rd was the first computer I built) why the fuck would I pay for Windows for a THIRD time? I sure as hell am not paying for an OS for a third time. The main issue with piracy is companies with thousands upon thousands of computers using pirated copys.....Basic consumers MS Could give a shitless about...
 
Microsoft is a business. They employ thousands of the most competent people they can get. They are constantly working to improve their products. Those paychecks are still being issued regardless of how many copies of MS products are sold. Is the price too high? Possibly. Is piracy the answer? No.

I run a small repair shop out of a spare bedroom. As much as I could use the revenue, I refuse to put pirate software of any type on any machine. I have lost quite a bit of business for taking this stand. I hope to be able to join the OEM builders program soon. MS provides incredible benefits to it's members. In the mean time, $85 is not a bad price for a copy of XP Home, considering the customer walks away with a copy they can install, if they hose their boxen.

In the cases where customers insist on an alternative, I have installed Linspire, Mandriva, even ReactOS. In the case of Mandriva, for only $12 a month, they can download programs ported to that distro. Only done that twice, and both customers returned with money to install a legal copy of windows. I could be wrong, but I believe Linspire exacts an annual fee, for download priveleges. Only done that once, and the box never left my house with Linspire installed. That customer stiffed me on the OS, and went to a major retailer for satisfaction. Chalk one up the the "Geek Squad".

Piracy is a fact of doing business, in many different industries. How many legal copies of anything, exist in China? Joking with some friends, we speculated there is one legal copy of everything, and a billion pirate copies. The sad fact of the matter is that a retail copy of XP represents, most, if not all of a families annual income, in many countries. In an ideal world, the cost of windows, would represent no more than 5% of the cost of a rig. The $200 system would use a $10 copy of XP, while the $3,000 rig would cost $150 for the OS. Is that fair? No, it's communism.

I use mostly open source software. May have to use 2 or 3 different free programs in place of a premium one. There are many flavors of Linux, BSD, even ReactOS, that are totally free. The growing popularity of Linux in poorer nations is encouraging. A few hundred million contributors to the project, can only strengthen it.

 
$300? You're not living right. $124.99 is more like it, helps if the company you work for partners with Microsoft. :D. ($65 for XP home too.) This would be an e-penis post except I'm getting outsourced. Such is life, heh.

That being said it's worth the full price, I'm really impressed with XP.
 
Leadman584 said:
The growing popularity of Linux in poorer nations is encouraging. A few hundred million contributors to the project, can only strengthen it.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid it's quite the opposite. The growing popularity of Linux in poorer nations will only serve to weaken it. With more people who don't know WTF is going on using Linux, more virus writers who want to get their name out there will begin to target it. Additionally, 99.99% of those few hundred million people will contribute absolutely nothing. Compared to the number of people who use PCs, a very, very small amount know how to program and an even smaller amount would know how to make true contributions to an OS.
 
repo man said:
Because Microsoft seems to want to encourage warez.
Click to expand...

That's about the most ignorant comment one could possibly make on the matter.

Go OEM. XP Pro is ~$150 and Home is ~$85. Not a bad deal.
 
OEM For life. Only like 180$ and you just dont get the box.

But I will buy Longhorn Retail when it comes out, I dont care if its 500$ :)
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
OEM For life. Only like 180$ and you just dont get the box.

But I will buy Longhorn Retail when it comes out, I dont care if its 500$ :)
Click to expand...

Just one hitch with OEM, it has to be sold with hardware to be legit. Of course one could always buy that extra 512MB of RAM to go with it or that nice new DVD burner to copy the movies you just rented from Blockbuster...
 
Phoenix86 said:
Pirating is an ethics problem, not an economical one.

How the fuck can people afford $1000 PCs (which isn't outrageous for many people here *at all*), yet bitch about a $130 OS which they use a hell of a lot more than the $60 game?

Baffles me every time.
Click to expand...


Most insightful post I've all day. Well put.
 
Ranma_Sao said:
Note: I work at Microsoft, This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Now that the legal is out of the way. People seem to think that spending 50 dollars on a game they use maybe a month or two is worth it. Yet, having an operating system that is maintained, and used all the time isn't worth 3 times that much? XP shipped in august of 2001, which makes it 4 years. We've had numerous updates to XP, 2 service packs, etc... You got all that for your 150 bucks. Amortized, it's almost nothing.

I play world of warcraft, I paid 50 bucks for the right to log into Blizzards servers, and 15 bucks a month. I would have rather paid 150 bucks and never had to pay a monthly fee, however blizzard learned from diablo that people will pay. ;)

Onto the piracy issue, look at Croteam's stats when they put it to the test. They sold their kick ass game Serious Sam for 20 bucks. It was still pirated. People always blame something for why they do something they know is wrong. (Defense Mechanisms) So do how you see fit, but know that I will not support you on these forums if I know it's not legit.
Click to expand...

Point taken, windows does cost money to make. But with all the errors and crashes I've recieved over the past 4 years (and still going - Microsoft not helping me) I feel it isn't worth as much as it costs. u'd think after, wot over 20-ish years in development windows would finally work.

I paid alot for flight sim 2004, and am very pleased with it well done microsoft, just get the OS sorted out....

no doubt i will be recommended to upgrade to longhorn to fix my errors.....lol

4 years stress for $150 not bad....
 
just the other day at the Tampa, FL AMD roadshow, one of the Microsoft guys was bragging about how they have something like $1B available in CASH to use at their will.

think about it, $1B freakin' dollars! thats a crapload of zeros.......

*on a side note*

I also agree that if MS made their OS software much more affordable that software pirating would go down quite a bit.

I for one am not going to say that I have never used a pirated OS because I have. after all, who hasnt at some point in time?

however, that doesnt mean that I'm still using a pirated OS because I'm not. I turned "legal like" about six months after XP first came out but that was only because I did some sort of online training thingy with MS and they sent me a full version of XP Pro for free. now, you cant beat that. ;)

there's no way in hell I'm going to fund Bill Gates' richest man in the world status by paying him the outrageous prices that they charge for their operating systems. there's always ways to getting around that but still being legal at the same time.
 
Leadman584 said:
The $200 system would use a $10 copy of XP, while the $3,000 rig would cost $150 for the OS. Is that fair? No, it's communism.

Click to expand...

On buying XP at that sort of price, I bought it oem at ~$100US, yet I still find that I use linux distros just as much as XP at a cost of nothing. :)

On a tangent here,
Are you saying that communism is unfair?
The actual theory of communism is quite fair...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top