
Microsoft combats Chromebooks by cutting Windows licensing fees by 70 percent - vyrotek
http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/21/5435152/windows-8-1-license-fees-cut-by-70-percent-rumor
======
RyanZAG
Don't most PC makers just make back the Microsoft licensing fees through
bundled software deals? I'm not sure if price is really the reason people buy
Chromebooks either - a ZDNet debase seems to agree [1] - people often buy
Chromebooks for the simple reason that they aren't Windows PCs.

[1] [http://www.zdnet.com/zdnet-great-debate-results-there-are-
go...](http://www.zdnet.com/zdnet-great-debate-results-there-are-good-reasons-
to-buy-a-chromebook-7000023705/)

~~~
lallysingh
Maybe makers can stop bundling so much crap now?

I'm glad there's enough heat to get the hold behemoth on their toes, but yeah,
chromebooks are great because they are appliance laptops.

~~~
hayksaakian
Now that the expectation of crapware has been set, manufacturers will probably
pocket the savings instead of passing them on, while continuing to include
crapware.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Manufacturers will do whatever they can to maximize profit. They already have
razor thin profits, if not losses, they will pocket the savings if they
can...but their competitors might have other plans.

------
ulfw
Would be good for Microsoft to release a Windows RT Book without the desktop.
Would still be a lot better than Chromebook because it does run apps

~~~
honestcoyote
This would be about as successful as the RT tablet. And it couldn't run Office
without the desktop.

~~~
ulfw
So how do you explain the success of Chromebooks, besides it's cheap price of
200-250$? The SurfaceBook I'm suggesting would be in that price range too,
just running a WinRT + IE system rather than Chrome only.

------
TheRealWatson
Microsoft is on an anti-Chromebook crusade at the moment but an MS-branded
Chromebook clone wouldn't shock me. And that would not be the Surface. I'm
thinking something with a proper Internet based OS. Some new variant of
Windows that plays well with their online services like Outlook.com and Office
360. And something that can sit comfortably on your lap without becoming a
balancing act. Microsoft seems to be shooting in all directions so, why not?

~~~
Touche
I don't see IEbooks being much of a success.

~~~
TheRealWatson
Well, IEbook would be an awful choice for the name. I hope we never see an IE
OS. And, to be clear, I don't think it would be a success or that I'd get one.
I'm just saying Microsoft has been acting so erratically that they might very
try that.

------
mitochondrion
It's great that Microsoft finally feels threatened by something, but I
wouldn't use Windows even if they gave away their machines for free.

------
scotty79
Why not just make Windows free for noncorporate useres?

------
phren0logy
That's the smell of desperation...

------
gum_ina_package
It's about time this happens.

------
maguay
Now, why not lower the price of individual licenses to get more people to
upgrade from XP?

------
EthanHeilman
This is like a horse and buggy company competing with the railroads by cutting
the cost of horses. Why use a computer when a slide rule is on sale?

~~~
gress
Are you comparing ChromeOS to a sliderule?

Edit: downvoters - I genuinely don't understand the analogy here - windows is
a superset of ChromeOS that runs on similar hardware so I really don't see
which is which. I picked ChromeOS for my question because it's simpler than
windows, and so more likely to be the sliderule in the computer vs sliderule
analogy.

~~~
joshstrange
Microsoft = Horse and Buggy company

Windows = Windows

Google = Railroad company

Chromebooks = Trains

He is saying Microsoft is trying to complete with something that is leaps and
bounds better than what they have to sell. I'm not saying I agree with the
that statement but that is what he is saying.

~~~
gress
Thanks for partially decoding - what is the sliderule then?

Also other than saying 'ChromeOS is the future, windows is outdated' does this
analogy offer _any_ insight?

~~~
joshstrange
Sorry, I didn't mention those and that was what you specifically asked about.

He is saying why use a computer (Chromebook) when a slide rule (Windows) is on
sale (sale referring to MS slashing licensing costs 70%).

Another way to put his analogy is you (All other things being normal) wouldn't
choose to take a train over an airplane just because the train is cheaper (I
have no clue to going cost for train vs air travel but bear with me). Even
though the train is cheaper it will also take a much longer time to get to
where you are going so the money you saved can be counted as lost due to the
extra time it took.

Here Windows is the train and Chromebooks are the planes, again I am not
saying I agree just trying to help explain the point of view.

~~~
gress
Thanks again, that is actually what I originally through the meant. My problem
in understanding is that analogies usually work because there is some
similarity between the qualities of the analogical objects and the objects
they refer to.

In this case, referring to a chromebook as a computer while a windows machine
is a sliderule _is not an analogy_ because nothing about the
computer<>sliderule relationship holds true about the chromebook<>windows
relationship other than the fact that the op prefers chromebooks over windows
and presumes that computers are also universally preferred offer sliderules.

I.e. There is nothing analogical about the statement. It's just an expression
of preference dressed up to look like an analogy.

It has the same explanatory value as chromebooks:windows::hamburgers:cyanide

