The 2008 blog post argues that Windows wasn't truly "free" for businesses, despite the common perception. While the OS itself came bundled with PCs, the associated costs of management, maintenance, software licensing (especially for Microsoft Office and server products), antivirus, and dealing with malware significantly outweighed the initial cost of the OS. The author contends that these hidden expenses made Windows a more expensive option compared to perceived free alternatives like Linux, particularly for smaller businesses. Ultimately, the "free" Windows license subsidized other revenue streams for Microsoft, making it a profitable, albeit deceptive, business model.
In a 2008 blog post titled "Windows Is Free for Business," author Dave Gutteridge elucidates a then-contemporary business strategy employed by Microsoft, arguing that the pervasive perception of Windows as a paid operating system was not entirely accurate. He posits that the actual cost of Windows for businesses was frequently absorbed, masked, or offset by other expenses and licensing agreements, effectively making it functionally free in many scenarios.
Gutteridge begins by highlighting the bundled nature of Windows. He observes that most businesses acquire their Windows operating system pre-installed on new computer hardware. The cost of the OS, therefore, becomes integrated into the overall price of the machine, obscuring its individual value and contributing to the illusion of its non-gratuitous nature. This bundling, he argues, makes it difficult for businesses to discern the true cost of the operating system itself, as it’s not itemized separately.
Further, Gutteridge elaborates on the role of software assurance agreements. These agreements, often purchased by businesses for access to updates, upgrades, and support for Microsoft products, frequently include Windows licenses. Thus, businesses perceive the cost as being associated with the ongoing support and maintenance, rather than the initial acquisition of the operating system itself. The perceived value proposition shifts from solely acquiring Windows to gaining access to a suite of services and ongoing software improvements.
He also discusses the impact of large enterprise agreements. Large organizations often negotiate comprehensive licensing agreements with Microsoft that encompass a multitude of software products and services. Within these complex arrangements, the cost of individual Windows licenses can become diluted or even entirely absorbed into the overall contract cost. The overall economic benefit derived from the comprehensive agreement outweighs the focus on the individual cost of Windows.
The author underscores that while businesses technically pay for Windows, either directly or indirectly, the actual cost is often obfuscated by these various purchasing mechanisms. The lack of a separate, visible charge for Windows creates the impression that it is, for all intents and purposes, free. He concludes that this “free” perception contributes significantly to Windows' dominance in the business market, as the apparent lack of direct cost removes a significant barrier to adoption. This effectively allows businesses to focus on the overall hardware and software ecosystem, rather than the operating system cost itself, further reinforcing Windows’ entrenched market position.
Summary of Comments ( 32 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43246403
Hacker News users discussed the complexities of Microsoft's "free" Windows licensing model for businesses. Several pointed out that while the OS itself might not have a direct upfront cost, it's bundled with hardware purchases, making it an indirect expense. Others highlighted the ongoing costs associated with Windows, such as Software Assurance for updates and support, along with the costs of managing Active Directory and other related infrastructure. The general consensus was that "free" is a misleading term, and the true cost of Windows for businesses is substantial when considering the total cost of ownership. Some commenters also discussed the historical context of the article (from 2008) and how Microsoft's licensing and business models have evolved since then.
The Hacker News post titled "Windows Is Free for Business (2008)" linking to davegutteridge.com/windows_is_free_for_business has a modest number of comments, primarily focusing on the nuances of the original author's argument about the "free" nature of Windows for businesses.
Several commenters challenge the premise that Windows is truly "free," highlighting the associated costs like hardware, support, and software licensing for other necessary programs. One commenter points out that the total cost of ownership (TCO) for Windows includes not just the OS itself but also the ecosystem around it, which can be substantial. This is echoed by another who mentions that while the OS might be factored into other costs, the real expense lies in the necessary Microsoft Office suite and the compatibility constraints it imposes.
Some comments discuss the shift in perception of software costs over time. One commenter reminisces about the days when software was a significant expense and how it's now often bundled or perceived as a less prominent part of the overall IT budget. This leads to a discussion about how hardware costs have comparatively decreased, making the software component seem more significant in some contexts.
Another thread of discussion centers on the comparison between Windows and Linux in a business context. One commenter contends that the "free" argument for Windows is misleading, particularly when considering the potential cost savings and flexibility offered by Linux alternatives. This sparks a small debate about the practicalities of switching to Linux in established business environments, acknowledging the potential benefits but also the challenges of migration and compatibility.
A few comments also touch upon the role of piracy in the perception of Windows' cost, suggesting that widespread illegal use might contribute to the idea that the OS is somehow "free" for businesses. However, this is not a dominant theme in the discussion.
Overall, the comments offer a critical perspective on the original author's claim, emphasizing the hidden and indirect costs associated with Windows in a business environment. They explore the broader context of software costs, comparing them to hardware expenses and alternative operating systems, while also acknowledging the evolving perception of software value over time. The discussion remains largely focused on the financial aspects, without delving deeply into technical comparisons or specific use cases.