What Exactly Are You Paying For?

Microsoft have long used excuses to justify their high prices and value to consumers when the consumer faces a choice. One of those excuses is that FOSS / Linux offers no support, where Microsoft's products do. I've often wondered about how that plays out in the real world, outside of Microsoft's rose tinted world.

Most PC users I know use Google as their support, or their friends, family and colleagues at work. That applies regardless of which OS they run, or what their problem is. They are used to going online and searching forums, blog posts etc for solutions and fixes. None of them think to call Microsoft for support. None of them think to call Dell, HP etc for support. None of them think to call Comet or Currys for support.

This is for non-business users obviously, an expensive contract with money slipping away for every minute of downtime means the IT department will have a number to call for a one-to-one fix.

The idea of users helping other users is the FOSS philosophy at work, it's how FOSS software is created in the first place. It's the natural environment of a FOSS project. So imagine my surprise when I read this article about Microsoft now employing those ideas to Windows 7 support.

In this case they've seen the value it provides to their users, of course the cynical and Microsoft tempered mind would point out that it also lets volunteers support their products without wages. Considering Microsoft are haemorrhaging cash, and are continually hostile to anything "FOSS" I'll leave it up to you to decide what motivated them. The fact that they lay off staff in high wage countries and hire in low wage countries is just a coincidence I'm sure.

"What we have found is we are seeing far more take-up of self-service...forums and Twitter to get responses."

They usually demonise "users supporting users" as unreliable, where the people helping may not be skilled in the subject and give bad advice, either maliciously or because they just don't know any better. They claim the fact that you may not get a response at all, or quickly enough for your busy life. They claim that other users can't possibly know the software as well as the makers of it. This is one point I agree with on some levels, although it can easily be turned back on Microsoft.

Microsoft have been accused recently of copyright infringement by Plurk, where someone in the Microsoft development chain copied around 80% of another companies codebase to pass off as their own. Do Microsoft know that software better than the developers? They claimed to BE the developers before it was exposed after all.

Before this Microsoft had withdraw a freeware tool to let users install Windows 7 from a USB thumbdrive because of a GPL violation. It's since been addressed and the tool is back online and in compliance, but do Microsoft know that code better than the developers? I'm guessing not, or they'd know it was GPL code. Microsoft have no problems with "free software" as such, as long as it's under a licence they can exploit for their own aims. The GPL is like kryptonite in this regard. They'd NEVER willingly and knowingly use GPL code.

They state that the concentration of online resources for Windows 7 before launch played a major part too. I'd agree, the concept of good documentation being made public is new to Microsoft, judging by the way they evaded the EU's demands to produce it for interoperability anti-trust concerns. Now they've seen the value of it, or at least a few Microsoft employees have; I hope they don't get punished for it.

So if Microsoft are saving cash on paid support, what exactly are you paying for? Their products are not cheap, they're nowhere near "best in class" for anything. The EULA is already heavily stacked against you in what you can and can't do with that Windows or MS Office licence in terms of how many PCs it can be installed on, connection limits etc as they have other products like server licences to sell. Take a look at the "Home & Student" licence terms sometime to find out what constitutes "non-commercial use".

What this means is that yet again the FOSS philosophy proves it's worth, and as much as Microsoft would prefer it didn't exist, they can't help but use it themselves. Their world is crumbling by the week, as are their excuses for their own continued existence.