Ari Torhamo wrote:
> ke, 2007-08-29 kello 07:44 +0200, Mario Vukelic kirjoitti:
>> On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 20:24 -0500, Brad Johnson wrote:
>> > There is more than enough precedent on Google alone for using the
>> > phrase "Windows Tax" in this manner.
>> Newsflash: something can still be stupid even if many people say it.
> As I understand it, Microsoft tax means that when you buy a (compatible)
> PC, you are forced to pay Microsoft for the Windows operating system too
> - wether you need it or not. It's also called 'tax' because nowadays in
> developed countries we are nearing the situation were people are
> supposed to own a computer - like a phone.
> The situation is exactly the same when you buy an Apple computer. You
> are forced to pay for their operating system - wether you need it or
> not. I understand that the fact that Apple is smaller may make you think
> that it's somehow different in this regard. But where's the difference?
> The two players share the market and collect the tax.
The difference is simple. Apple makes hardware. Microsoft doesn't. It's
perfectly acceptable (and proper) to provide the software to make hardware
work. Microsoft, however, forces vendors to package Windows with their own
hardware. That's an illegal business practice, and many courts have told
ubuntu-users mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: