If you don't like their product or policies, don't use it. If you use it then you should pay for it. Use Linux, a BSD Unix, or a Mac. People who pirate Microsoft products don't really hurt Microsoft, they hurt the rest of the competition.
Don't get me wrong, Microsoft isn't helping themselves with this, but @melling has it on the head.
In the current climate, it's this kind of blog post that undoes a lot of the good work people are doing around protesting SOPA/PIPA. For those with a very simple view of copyright, saying you're going to 'steal Microsoft's IP' because you've been inconvenienced is just evidence that Something Must Be Done and the proposed law is a Good Thing.
Certain applications that professionals need are only available on Windows. Most games are as well. Even for software with Mac/*nix versions, a person may have quite a bit of money tied up in Windows-only licenses.
I'm not commenting on whether pirating Windows is ethical. I'm just pointing out that sometimes you'll have to ditch a lot of software to ditch Windows.
You're just reinforcing their argument. By not using the competition, you're ensuring the market for those products on the competition's OS doesn't exist. It's actively strengthening Microsoft's hold on the markets you frequent.
OK. The primary application that I need Windows for is Quickbooks Enterprise. I also still use my Windows Photoshop license since it was expensive, and not transferrable to OS X. My primary operating system is already OS X, and I only use Debian Stable on servers. I run Windows in a VM when I need those application, and only when I need those applications. How would you suggest replacing Quickbooks Enterprise? Do I just stop keeping accounting records? What about the 13 years of records that are already in the accounting system? Should I throw those out? What about inventory and accountant's copies? Will you train my customer's accounting firm to use some other package? What about the inventory database?
Microsoft has 90% desktop market share. Software developers won't support other operating systems until they have more market share, and people won't switch to other OS'es until there's more software.
If the software you need only runs on Windows then you should pay for Windows. Those that can move to Mac, Linux, etc and get away with using Wine or other alternatives should. The markets for alternative OS'es will grow then more people will be able to move.
Sounds like you are stuck on the Windows environment. You should stay and pay for Windows. There's nothing wrong with that.
You've got a point. That why Microsoft turns a blind eye on piracy in developing countries. Piracy is the only way they can get os market share they want. That's the reason why their copyright technical protections are so lousy.
I always use the competition to the extent that it's available. My main point is that sometimes, there simply are no good non-Windows substitutes.
Secondly, I'm pointing out that a lot of people have spent money on licenses for Windows software that has a Mac/*nix equivalent. (I haven't personally, but this applies to a lot of people.) If you have hundreds or thousands of dollars invested in those licenses, switching away might not be financially viable.
If either of these situations applies to you, I sympathize with your complaints about Windows and its licensing system.
His point is that there are no good non-Windows substitutes precisely because the non-Windows market for that software is too small and that by using the Windows version you are removing yourself from the already-too-small market that you should have been part of, which continues the cycle. Your points are definitely valid, but they only reinforce the argument that pirating Windows only harms the competition. Put another way, if you were completely unwilling to either pay for or pirate Windows, the market for the hypothetical non-Windows substitute for a program you need would is guaranteed to be one person larger than it currently is, whereas with the willingness to pirate Windows, that market may be one person smaller.
Correct. I use OS X 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time, I'm running Windows-only software. I'd much rather be able to run that stuff on my Mac.
I faced that problem (I had some money in Windows-only licenses). I still cut the cord and moved to the Mac.
If I find it necessary to move from the Mac to something else, as much as I hate it I will cut the cord and not worry about the software investments that I have made.
If you have an application that only works on Windows, then you need to either (a) deal with the Microsoft Tax and all that implies or (b) yell at your software vendor and tell them you want alternative platform support.
Quite a lot windows-only software works with Wine, .net stuff runs on Mono and there is still ReactOS -- open source OS written from scratch, binary compatible with Windows.
If you don't like their product or policies, don't use it. If you use it then you should pay for it.
This strikes me as a valid ethical position, though I happen to think things are more complicated than that.
People who pirate Microsoft products don't really hurt Microsoft, they hurt the rest of the competition.
This, on the other hand, doesn't make sense. You seem to be assuming that the invariant is that the user will not be paying Microsoft. And that might be true for you. If you're not going to be sending any money to MS no matter what, then yes, using MS products helps them somewhat.
For the author of the article, however, the invariant is that he will be using MS products. Since he's going to be using their products in any case, when he is fed up with their policies and decides to pirate instead of purchase until they get fixed, of course this hurts them.
If you want to argue that nothing is invariant, and that the best way to hurt MS is to both stop purchasing and stop using, well, of course that's true, but it's not relevant. What the author is talking about is simply stopping paying for something until it gets fixed; whether he still uses it or not is of very minor importance to MS next to whether or not he pays for it. His goal isn't to destroy MS or make them irrelevant; on the contrary, he just wants a better customer experience.
> whether he still uses it or not is of very minor importance to MS next to whether or not he pays for it.
What's more important than whether he pays for it is whether everybody else will still pay for it.
If everyone around you use Windows, you probably have to still use Windows in order to be able to collaborate with them. And you don't even have to think about open standard.
The more people around you use other OS, the more you are likely to think about using platform-independent technology. Then the more likely you are to be able to move to other platform since there are less and less fraction of people holding you on Windows.
The author using Windows gives everyone around him the inertia of moving to other platform. He is part of the reason why most people knows how to use only Windows.
And then when big company wants to buy a platform they will chose Windows because most people use it. And big company will pay. And big company will buy more expensive software and extra support.
Microsoft has tried their damndest to ensure that you must buy their OS in order to use a computer. They've done this directly using the Windows Tax, and indirectly with over two decades of anti-competitive business practices, some merely shady and others outright illegal.
"If you don't like it, then don't use it" is pretty useless advice in this situation.
And the amazing thing is that they managed to do it again for Android. Except this time Apple is in a better spot than they were with PC operating systems.
I don't agree. This is only a possibility for some people. I gave up on Windows about five years ago and have been a happy Linux user since. I don't have any pirated software at all on my system.
But most people aren't ready or capable of learning a whole new operating system they have to install and manage themselves (unless Linux comes preinstalled on the computer). And most importantly, almost everyone uses certain software for which there is no equivalent on other OSes.
Now consider a certain user who is completely fed up with the way Microsoft has been (mis)treating their paying customers and doesn't want to support this behaviour with his money anymore. If you're not opposed to piracy "on principle", which is fine but ends all discussion before it can even start, then pirating Windows seems like a possible (yet illegal) solution.
My family got by for a long time on a legal XP + MS Works. They then had to pirate the real MS Office because teachers at school only accept PPT files, and OpenOffice's export was too broken.
I buy all my software but I still can't really blame them.
Office 2010 Home And Student is $119 and it gets you Powerpoint, Word, Excel, and OneNote.
If that's too much, though, I'd recommend just using either http://office.live.com or http://docs.google.com. They're easier to use, the files don't get lost, they have all the features students will need, the documents auto-save, they're available on any computer with an internet connection, it's easy to share the documents (read-only or read-write) online, and the services are free. I've set my daughter up to write all her papers online, and it works great.
If you haven't tried http://office.live.com, you should check it out. It's really a slick.
I believe in copyright and commercial software and everything, but teachers should not press my family into buying software when free alternatives exist. They can just accept PDF slides which OOo can produce, since when are slide animations critical?
I think the "more right" reaction would be to complain about this, at increasing levels of hierarchy, rather than support a monopoly that will push the $119 bill on other families who might be worse off. Either way, I don't blame them for not wasting too much time on it.
It's the same with Photoshop. If Photoshop had perfect DRM (or if users would selflessly follow EULAs), then I am sure we wouldn't be stuck with Adobe's terrible monopoly and insulting usability.
I see why it won't happen: Many pirates can't wait until a 99% feature-compatible competitor emerges. People who don't want to buy Windows or Photoshop can also not just throw money in a Kickstarter pot instead (imagine how much $$$ that would be?!) - I can't see a good competitor emerging without iterative market forces.
A tragedy - I would love to work full-time on a killer product pitted against either of them, but I just can't see how it fits into the scheme of the market. :(
> A tragedy - I would love to work full-time on a killer product pitted against either of them, but I just can't see how it fits into the scheme of the market. :(
Gimp would be a good competitor to Photoshop if it could just get a ton of focus on usability. If you want to "fight" Photoshop, that would be a good place to help out.
And who will employ me to work on it full time? I know of no example where occasional hobbyist contributions have led to good usability, except for Terminal-based text editors (and only in the eyes of some).
I think the GIMP stinks and I would still honestly dedicate myself to it for a small salary. I would madly dedicate myself to it if I were to sell it commercially and with perfect copyright in place, because then my "salary" would depend on my merits. But I won't, because I know everybody is used to warezing Photoshop by now. (FWIW, I spent a long time being the target of laughter and facepalms by not warezing Photoshop but supporting cheaper alternatives instead. There's even a social push to do it now.)
Maybe this will work again once we have perfect DRM in the disguise of SaaS, but that's a day I fear for different reasons.
I believe this is the main reason Microsoft never really went about pirates in China. Just imagine if they were fighting it so hard, that most Chinese would use Linux now, which could've caused other users in other countries to use it, too. That would pretty much mean Windows would have only 50% market share, perhaps less. I mean, I'm sure a big chunk of that 90% market share they have now is with pirated licenses.
What if their product came preinstalled on a laptop and yet every few weeks it would say that I am a victim of a counterfeit software, demand that I would re-download some validation app, refuse to install it, demand a reboot and then calm down for another few weeks.
Can I pirate a copy, because it is getting damn ridiculous. What do you say?
