The Right Price for Windows

300$ Canadian doesnt cut it.

I think 99$ is the right price
( and for OEM's 30 to 40$ a machine)

Based on XP Pro ( Home is just a nutered Pro)

WinServer 2003 Standard should be 199
and above this charge what you want ( datacenter etc)

I'm not going to argue, I'm just going to ask why? Show me the target market, and show me that the current price hurts that market.

I probably won't argue (lower software prices, no, I refuse!!! ), I just want to see our perspective.

re: "Show me the target market, and show me that the current price hurts that market."

when you buy a new machine - the cost is fine. ( aprox 40 - 50$)

but when you go to staples and see xp pro is 300 dollars thats nuts

Anyone know why it's like that? Someone told me that you don't need to buy a whole computer. It's enough if you buy a HDD, CPU or another vital component and you are qualified for an OEM licence. I don't know if this is true. But if it is, what does Microsoft benefit from me buying a new HDD?

/Lars.

I think that the current pricing is fine.

By the way, Microsoft should actually be raising their prices. With inflation, Microsoft has been taking a hit with the amount of money it makes but has not raised prices.

I'm inclined to agree. If you consider:

-The number of programmers microsoft employs
-The hours those programmers put in to get the project done
-The executives who boss the programmers around
-The hours those executives put in to "motivate" the programmers, and
-Bill Gates' salary

$300 doesn't really seem that nuts.

I always felt MS prices were pretty reasonable on many of their products (not all).  I think any OS that is as functional as XP merits that price.  Modern day OSes handle so many things transparently that we take for granted everything it does for us (which is really a testament to how well modern OSes are made).

If you sit down and really think about all the things an OS does for you even while just sitting there and doing "nothing" (which an OS never does), I think you will reach the conclusion that $300 is a reasonable price to pay.  I think that the mentality that OSes are over-priced stem from the fact that people feel they use programs (Word, IE, Photoshop, etc...) but they never feel like they are "using" an OS in the same way and hence place little value into what the OS actually does.

And while on the topic of prices, I noticed some posts regarding VS being over-priced.  I have to disagree with that as well.  It is over priced for those wanting to use it for academic purposes and I do feel that MS should sell a fully-functional, not-for-profit version of VS for anyone interested in learning (regardless of wether or not they are in an "academic" environment) for ~$100.00.  I know that you can buy C# or VB.NET stand alone for $100 but they do limit the types of projects you can do dramatically.

For businesses who plan on using the tech to generate money or build apps to increase internal productivity, I think a measly $600 for VS.NET 2003 is really nothing.  I work for a small business and we just spent $1,800 on a high quality scanner, $6,000 on a high quality, high speed color laser printer, $900.00 on a digital camera, and $2000.00 on a high end PC for graphic design work.  What's $600 compared to that?

Axyun wrote:

 What's $600 compared to that?

About 6.12%

jamie wrote:

300$ Canadian doesnt cut it.

I think 99$ is the right price
( and for OEM's 30 to 40$ a machine)

Based on XP Pro ( Home is just a nutered Pro)

WinServer 2003 Standard should be 199
and above this charge what you want ( datacenter etc)

I know I would like it to be lower but let's be serious for a second. Small shareware applications like Trillian, Getright, Winzip are in the $25-40 range. Are you saying that making an operating system with all the functionality it has can be considered equivalent to 4-5 of these applications?
I think not. Lets face it an OS gives you far greater functionality than any other common app, and by all accounts making an OS is far more difficult (specifically referring to the hardware controlling part) than developing an application that uses the OS' APIs.
So no, the price is not high if you consider the other prices to be ok.

Perhaps some incentives for reducing the price include the fact that the OS is something that is essential for you to use other software applications. Microsoft's profit margin on Windows and Office is also extrememely high (80%+ the last time I heard). I am sure that if the market share for Windows was not so high it would be a lot cheaper.

Also, a lot of money is made just on client access licenses - so even if you buy a new PC, you still have to pay extra to use it on a LAN. This license fee (or Windows tax as some call it) offers a good incentive to not use Windows.

Also, there is the fact you can download many free Linux based OS's that consist of several ISO images and generally have far more programs than Windows does. You could download a distribution that includes everything any people will need, and you can even set up a web server for a very low price (hence 67% share for Apache) - just mix Apache, PHP, MySQL and Perl and you have a very powerful web server.

Also a lot of the shareware programs have free alternatives:
WinZip - FilZip, EnZip, 7-Zip, Zip Genius, TUGZip etc
Trillian - Jabber, Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger, Miranda IM, GAIM
GetRight - Download Express, Fresh Download, Leechget

Personally I never use shareware at all, after all most (all?) shareware has a freeware / open source equivalent. I cannot really see the big appeal of Winzip when there are so many good alternatives. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if many organisations used it internally a lot without paying the license fee (because the software still works after the evaluation license has expired, and how would the Winzip company know if you were using it illegally?).

I think it depends on who you are really. If you are a company that makes a lot of money from supported Windows and developing software for it (i.e. with Visual Studio), then it is not too expensive - the price may even be raised. However, if you have a very tight budget and/or you get it because all your applications are written for it, then it can be expensive. For example, for things like health and education, the price could be a lot lower as the more money spent on software is less spent on patient care / educating people.

However, now with Novell supporting Linux with SuSE and the presence of Evolution for email and Open Office for Word Processing / Presentations etc there is now a very viable alternative that can be a lot cheaper. I'm not really too keen on Sun as they really try to hide the fact that most of Sun Java Desktop is based on GPLed software that people have developed in their free time and Sun is taking the credit for (although they probably can take a bit of credit for some apps like Open Office).

There is a review of JDS on Linux.com and it really criticises it. One criticism is that it uses a old version of the Linux Kernel (old as in over a year) and has poor support (both technical and hardware).

I think out of all the flavours of Linux, Novell's SuSE may turn out to become the best one. You can even download a LiveCD to try it out.

sbc wrote:

Microsoft's profit margin on Windows and Office is also extrememely high (80%+ the last time I heard). I am sure that if the market share for Windows was not so high it would be a lot cheaper.

Rhetorical question: How can it be too expensive if everyone buys it?

I'm sure that the reason they have such a high profit margin is simply because they can. Prices are not just a random number taken out of thin air. They are certainly carefully researched to give the highest possible profit - where the number of licences sold multiplied with the price is at it's maximum. I think Microsoft is willing to listen to their customers. As long as it does not hurt the bottom line. After all, let us not kid ourselves - making money is what an enterprise is all about. OSS geeks do it for fun. Microsoft do it for money. As a geek and proponent of Microsoft technology I don't want to think about it in those terms. But deep down I do remember something from my economics classes in college.

I think the only way to change this situation is to vote with the wallet. As some OSS people already do. As long as Microsoft can continue to make a huge profit, they would be stupid not to do it.

Please note that I'm not saying that your analysis is wrong SBC. I understand what you are implying. I just don't want to go there.

/Lars.