Windows Licensing for Hobbyists

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:14

This means a lot of revising of the Sticky

This has been recently added to the OEM partner channel:

Edit: n ow as a PDF attached.

If you have access to the partner channel then here's the link: http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=563841

So this effectively means that OEM software is not for use by the vast majority of users here

*Awaits MS bashing*

Cob · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:20

Well they've just slowed down the uptake of their next OS.

People were happy to spend £70-80 on OEM Vista. Not-so-many will be willing to spend a few hundred on retail Windows 7.

Tho, tbh, if OEM is still freely available to the man-on-the-street then it might not cause too many issues. People will still buy it and not care if they aren't abidding with the EULA.

Or they'll pirate it.

Paul11 · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:28

and is it the job of ocuk to make each customer prove that they are or are not reselling the pc to a third party..

you could just have a tick box next to the purchase of any oem software that says .."i agree that i am reselling this equipment to a third party"

i cant see how they expect you to police this

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:32

Paulus said:
i cant see how they expect you to police this

They probably won't. Most people won't care, but for people like me who do, it just adds complexity I don't need.

Brian Stuart · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:39

Agreed, for the few systems I build for customers it is a pain in the neck as they are all individually specified, but for myself I have retail so no problems.
I do agree however that it will be impossible to police.

clv101 · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:45

If MS want to smooth the uptake of Windows 7 they should follow Apple's example. One product, one price, end of. (And a server version).

Vertigo · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:47

Really don't see what they hope to achieve here. I'd wager many people who were happy to pay around £60 for an OEM copy in order to be fully legit will baulk at paying twice that all of a sudden, especially when it will be for Windows 7, which is basically Vista SP3.

What's the situation going to be with existing OEM copies installed by self-build users when it comes to upgrades? Will buying an upgrade copy of Windows 7 to apply over these OEM licences be valid or will we be required to start again with full retail? I have three machines here with kosher OEM Vista licences on them and there's no way in hell I'm paying around £400 to upgrade them all to Windows 7!

I never had an issue with their licensing before and often criticised those who violated the old OEM licensing terms but Microsoft have lost the plot with this.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:51

clv101 said:
If MS want to smooth the uptake of Windows 7 they should follow Apple's example. One product, one price, end of. (And a server version).

It's different for Apple though as they will always recoup costs from their overpriced hardware.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:53

Vertigo1 said:
What's the situation going to be with existing OEM copies installed by self-build users when it comes to upgrades? Will buying an upgrade copy of Windows 7 to apply over these OEM licences be valid or will we be required to start again with full retail? I have three machines here with kosher OEM Vista licences on them and there's no way in hell I'm paying around £400 to upgrade them all to Windows 7!

I'm not sure tbh, but you could just say that you sold it to a family member who subsequently sold it back to you after an upgrade.

This is silly IMO.

clv101 · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:56

Burnsy2023 said:
It's different for Apple though as they will always recoup costs from their overpriced hardware.

That's no excuse for having the many versions MS have with Vista. Price it at whatever price it needs to be - but make it simple. The overwhelming majority of licences sold will be OEM, with laptops (now outselling desktops) and with the big box shifters like Dell. What MS choose to do with licences sold on their own makes very little difference their bottom line.

Vertigo · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:57

It just doesn't make any sense at all. They're going to lose far more money than they gain and create a huge backlash from "hobbyists" into the bargain. Lose-lose situation.

When do these new rules come into force btw? Is it with immediate effect or do we have a window in which to get hold of OEM licences legitimately?

EDIT: Actually, reading the above, it looks like they're classing this as a clarification of the existing System Builder conditions rather than an actual change. If that is the case then are they claiming these terms & conditions were always the case and thus anyone who has installed OEM on a self-build machine is not correctly licensed?

Paul11 · 28 Jan 2009 at 11:01

Vertigo1 said:
When do these new rules come into force btw? Is it with immediate effect or do we have a window in which to get hold of OEM licences legitimately?

as far as i read it, it has always been the way and MS is just clarifying it....

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 11:03

Paulus said:
as far as i read it, it has always been the way and MS is just clarifying it....

It's different to what I've been told by the MS Licensing team historically though. :mad:

Paul11 · 28 Jan 2009 at 11:16

Burnsy2023 said:
It's different to what I've been told by the MS Licensing team historically though.

that doesnt surprise me... and i agree, they should just make one version and keep things simple

MS does it with all their products and all it does is confuse consumers.

bledd · 28 Jan 2009 at 11:17

they should tread gingerly

'pc hobbyists' are more likely to be able to source illegal software

having a welcoming price steers many away from piracy to owning legit software

fact

are they saying it'll be harder to buy OEM windows?

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 11:20

Bledd, I agree. I also think their pricing structure is a bit off. With retail sales being a small part of their revenue, surely they could reduce the price a little? It'll increase sales if anything.

bledd · 28 Jan 2009 at 11:22

exactly

i'm all for paying for software, and i've donated a hefty ammount to freeware projects over the years.

but for me and the average joe, paying £100+ for software is out of the question, and like 90% of users 'use linux instead then' isn't an option..

Vertigo · 28 Jan 2009 at 11:25

Well it's always been the case that OEM software was only legitimately available for use by System Builders, it's just the definition of what constitutes a System Builder that's in question.

Historically it's been the case that self-builders could legitimately call themselves System Builders and thus use OEM software but now MS are claiming they can't call themselves that and never could.

If MS are now saying that every self-builder who bought an OEM licence in good faith is now unlicensed then they're taking the mick and I will never buy a legitimate copy of their software ever again. I don't mind paying a reasonable price for something but if you can't trust them not to pull the rug from under you at a later date then what's the point in even trying to be properly licensed?

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 11:35

Vertigo1 said:
Well it's always been the case that OEM software was only legitimately available for use by System Builders, it's just the definition of what constitutes a System Builder that's in question.

Historically it's been the case that self-builders could legitimately call themselves System Builders and thus use OEM software but now MS are claiming they can't call themselves that and never could.

No, that's not what has changed. The change is whether the transfer to a third party through being sold was an absolute requirement or not.

Brian Stuart · 28 Jan 2009 at 11:36

They really seem to have lost the plot. No doubt it is the bean counters at MS that have pushed this "clarification" through.
As Burnsy says to reduce the cost of retail would increase their sales amongst the "hobbyists"