Microsoft can't afford to support OEM Vista?

Send to a friend Print

Help more people find out about this story

Del.icio.us
StumbleUpon

Angus Kidman14 May 2007, 2:15 PM

Microsoft might have $US7.6 billion in spare cash in the bank, but when it comes to supporting users who purchase Vista on a new machine, the software giant is all too ready to cry poor.


Conventional wisdom holds that if you feel the urge to upgrade to Windows Vista, buying it pre-installed on a new machine is the best way to go. The advantages are allegedly twofold: there should be fresh and functional drivers for all the built-in hardware, and you get OEM pricing (much lower than the retail $400-$700 price range) for your new OS.

That discount pricing comes with a nasty twist, however. Because you've purchased an OEM copy, Microsoft won't extend to you the courtesy of a 90-day support period for Vista, which it does offer to customers who struggle through the upgrade process on their existing machines. Instead, it will direct you straight back to your hardware manufacturer.

If, however, the manufacturer decides that you have a software problem rather than defective hardware, it will send you straight back to Microsoft, which will demand a consulting fee (currently $80 for Australian users) to even think about the problem, and without offering anything approaching a guaranteed fix.

In a characteristic fit of no comment, Microsoft declined to make a spokesperson available to discuss the issue of its support policy with APC. However, in a prepared statement, it offered the following minimal justification for its help-no-customers approach: "Microsoft makes versions of its software products available to manufacturers and system builders at prices which reflect the expectation that the OEM will provide the after-sales service, not Microsoft." Translation: we're not making enough money from you to make it worth our while to fix your OS problems.

This is a breathtaking enough statement in its own right, but Microsoft also offered an interesting twist. "In most cases, the support provided by the OEM is as good, if not better than that provided by Microsoft because the OEM is familiar with the system hardware as well as the software." Translation: we don't know what our OEMs are installing, but we're certainly not going to take responsibility for it. And by the way, the quality of our own support is apparently open to question.

What does this mean in practical terms? If you anticipate needing support for your Vista upgrade (and that certainly doesn't seem to be an uncommon scenario), you might be better off purchasing a full retail copy and claiming the free support. At $80 a pop, it won't be too long before you make your money back.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

justthething84:

Go to your local computer shop and buy some blank CDs (or anything cheap) and you can get an OEM version of Windows Vista Ultimate for $220 instead of $750. Same version just with out the pretty box.

29 February 2008, 8:30 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Annonymous:

Awww... What a shame, the pretty box is the only reason to buy Windows.

29 February 2008, 8:42 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

raindog:

Go read the onerous EULA again and you'll find the qualifications for OEM software were tightened considerably for Vista. That is not to say there isn't someone desperate enough to sell a copy that way. High Stakes.

29 February 2008, 8:42 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Wes:

If I were to buy Vista I would surely buy the OEM version because if I anticipated so many problems to need so much support then there is no need to buy it in the first place. In that case I would stick to XP.

29 February 2008, 8:42 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

john:

Ms can keep Vista, it crashes so much it should have been promoted as a crash-test-dummy. Its a very fast o/s, looks great ...but just wish it wouldn't crash if you just look at it the wrong way ... as well as eat your incoming emails, contact file etc etc etc.

Back to Xp home for me.

29 February 2008, 8:30 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Mr. Smith:


I'm not actually sure what is so catastrophic about all this but anyway...

I love the this comment "Translation: we don't know what our OEMs are installing, but we're certainly not going to take responsibility for it." is made as if MS are idiots for making it. I reckon "Translation: we don't know what our OEMs are installing, but we certainly ARE going to take responsibility for it." is even more absurd.

But thats just me I guess.
Mr. Smith

29 February 2008, 8:30 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

tin:

I'm not surprised. MS have always been really hard to contact without spending money.

I remember needing a patch that was one of the "you must contact support" patches... But when I went to the contact page, the closest thing I could find was a number that said "if you have bought a retail product", which I hadn't.

29 February 2008, 8:30 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous1:

I think if we look at the larger picture of the OEM agreement it will be easy to see where M$ is coming from. While M$ is not short of a quid, and not offering some basic support is a bit rough, the OEM license clearly states that the software must be sold only with a fully assembled system and that the software must be installed on the hard drive of the fully assembled computer using the OEM Preinstallation Kit, and that the system builder is responsible for end-user support. In essence you will not be purchasing the software to upgrade an existing OS on another PC. Therefore the only way to legally obtain it is to get it on a PC which should be fully functional with all relevant drivers, etc. What support should the end-user need that the system builder cannot provide? Any support under this scenario is probably due to something the system builder has not tested in the first place.

29 February 2008, 8:30 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

UnfairAdvantage:

So in other words, they don't give a shit.

29 February 2008, 8:30 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Julzz202:

WHO CARES ABOUT OEM VISTA

Vista is much better than MAC OS X because it's got the best look ever and MAC is so cheap looking thats why theres got no virus because it's not a gaming Pc (OPPS DID A SAY PC I WAS ABOUT COMPUTER)
But vista errors look very nice with Aero On it Mac DOES NOT HAVE AREO. oh yer Vista is more faster than MAC OS X i have them both and i perfer VISTA and Microsoft Products better than MAC

READ THE PAGE ON THIS WEBSITE "IT'S A WINDOWS WORLD"

29 February 2008, 8:30 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Geekboy:

Are you on drugs?

29 February 2008, 8:42 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Hillary:

Uh, yeah, well. I to admit that I too have both a vista machine and an OSX machine. I would say that OS X is significantly more polished looking than anything MS has come up with to date. I agree that Apple does not have aero, they call thirs "Aqua" and it predates "aero" by quite a few years. Also, when you say Vista is "more faster than OSX" what are you comparing? Does your Vista Machine have "morely ramory" than your Mac? Lastly what are you comparing? Is it Vista to Tiger, or Vista to 10.0.1? that would also make a big difference, as OS 10.0.1 was apples first true break with its previous version, wheras Vista traces all the way back to NT. In future, please make your comparisons more specific (I.e. Tiger vs Vista, not Vista vs OSX, Just as I would never expect win 3.1 to be as good as Tiger.)
Lastly: Please, Sober up and get a good night's sleep before you reply, so that you can make at least a little sense

29 February 2008, 8:42 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

SteveL:

I wonder how this works under Australian Consumer law, if the support cost is not made clear at the time the Consumer makes their purchase decision. I seem to remember Quicken having to refund their call center charges because of non disclosure up front at the time of purchase.

29 February 2008, 8:30 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Simmo123456:

Guys you have to remember Microsoft are a business just like any other. There not going to give people something they didn’t pay for. Yeah its still a lot of money for the OEM but really if you don’t like it don’t buy it, stop whining about it.

29 February 2008, 8:30 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Reason:

...is sad. I can only assume the author was late for a story deadline, or is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Let's examine the facts:

Microsoft sells a cheaper version of Windows directly to system builders, with the stipulation that they are responsible for support. (i.e., you take the discount, you don't get support)

From that, how can you possibly conclude "Microsoft can't afford to support OEM Vista?"?

It's like buying a hamburger because it's cheaper than a cheesburger, then saying McDonalds is too cheap to give you cheese.


This is not rocket science folks.





29 February 2008, 8:30 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Mark:

I am actually in agreement with the OEM support model in this case. Normally OEMs install a heap of other applications to sweeten the deal. Microsoft should not be the first line of call for a non standard install of their product. Good hardware vendors have support agreements in place with Microsoft, they should be able to address the issue their customer has encountered.

The PC industry has created this issue for themselves, it's a cut throat business with tight margins - Microsoft have responded by producing a Vista edition suited to that market, and implemented a user pays system to ensure that the cost can be kept down for most users. The alternative is to build the support charge into the OEM pricing adding to the price of a new PC for all users.

Microsoft also offer many self help sources, which in my experience address the majority of issues end users will hit. Finally a quick Google search will often reveal issues that Microsoft don't want to publish themselves!






29 February 2008, 8:30 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

hazza96:

to ensure that the cost can be kept down for most users

You do know that Vista is the most expensive OS Microsoft have released... if you are right then I would hate to see the cost if they didn't screw the OEM buyers over.

29 February 2008, 8:42 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Jito463:

How is this considered news? Microsoft has NEVER provided support for OEM versions, dating all the way back to Windows 95 (and probably even earlier).

As Reason stated, they're specifically sold at a reduced cost because MS expects the company selling the OEM product to provide support for it. This is simply the way it works, and has worked this way for a very long time.

Someone needs to clue in the author to this. Oh, wait. That's right, I just did.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags