Windows as a software package would have never been affordable to individuals or local-level orgs in countries like India and Bangladesh (especially in the 2000’s) that are now powerhouses of IT. Same for many SE Asian, Eastern European, African and LatinoAmerican countries as well.
Had the OS been too difficult to pirate, educators and local institutions in these countries would have certainly shifted to Linux and the like. The fact that Windows could be pirated easily is the main factor that led to its ubiquity and allowed it to become a household name. Its rapid popularity in the '00s and early ‘10s cemented its status as the PC operating system. It is probably the same for Microsoft Office as well (it is still a part of many schools’ standard curricula).
The fact that Windows still remains pirateable to this day is perhaps intentional on Microsoft’s part.
Absolutely, and Microsoft knows this. You could even upgrade a pirated version of Windows to a legit copy when they did the upgrade drive for 7 I believe it was. Did it myself. And they completely turn a blind eye to OEM key reselling, which is why you can get legit windows keys for less than $10 these days.
They’ve also never done anything substantial against pirates, all they do is pester about buying a key and warn about the risks. The “worst” they do is stop you from using windows update which some see as a feature. When they could just completely lock you out and/or report you to the police.
The money is in server for Microsoft, but they’re losing that battle slowly but surely since they can’t make windows actually work properly in a container setting. I have customers that love Microsoft but despite their best efforts at making containerized windows workloads work it just sucks major ass. And virtually everybody is coming around to realize just how insane of a paradigm shift containers are.
And losing that battle is why 12 will likely move to subscription. And I’m willing to bet money that, in 10 years time, will be considered the starting point for Microsofts dramatic loss of market share in the home PC market. From 90% or so now down to like 50 ish %. But maybe some smart guys at Microsoft will nip that in the bud.
Although I mostly agree with you, this is not true:
The “worst” they do is stop you from using windows update
The worst they do is practically force you to buy a windows license with most laptops and even some pre-built tower PCs.
Yes there are some vendors/manufacturers who don’t force you or ask, if you want an Ubuntu/Mint/Pop_!OS or smth. but most just don’t give a shit.
in my country vendors are forced to offer a free OS/no OS option.
most new laptops here come with linux preinstalled lol
I would argue there’s nothing to snip in the bud, since the home PC is a dying breed anyway. It is increasingly only used by hobbyists and professionals. Some people will use a laptop issued from work but the choice of OS in those cases is seldom theirs. Other than that it’s all phones, tablets, consoles, TVs etc.
The PC market itself is shrinking.
Wait fr?
Yes. It’s even extreme in some places. For example, more than half of Australian households reported in a 2022 survey that they never accessed the internet from a desktop PC that year (source; also, paywall warning). In Hungary, desktop ownership dropped from 47.5% in 2014 to 39.2% 2019. It’s safe to assume the downwards trend has continued into 2023.
Japan dropped from 81.7% in 2013 to 69% in 2022 (this is for PC ownership in general and doesn’t differentiate between desktops and laptops) and Germany dropped from 64.5% (desktops) in 2006 to 42.9% in 2022.
Even African countries, which had depressingly low computer ownership to begin with, have seen a stagnation at around 7.5% (yes, it’s that low) between 2015 and 2019.
These are just a few examples, but you’ll see a similar trend everywhere you look. Looking at these statistics reminds me of this Apple ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfR_Jj4grZE
Edit: WTH, Spain?
Your data shows desktops, but it doesn’t show laptops. It’s not news that laptops are more common than desktops.
I thought we were talking exclusively about desktops. My bad.
But not all of the data shows desktops only. The ones I linked for Japan and Africa are for computer ownership in general.
Wow that’s just crazy. I thought it was going the other way
PCs are expensive and unpractical.
I wanted a PC, bought a tablet. Ideally, I’d want a SFFPC plus screens that I could easily move. I’d settle for a SFFPC with a dedicated graphics card if I couldn’t move it. I’d also settle for a notebook that would allow me to easily swap HDDs/SSDs. However, none of those things are possible and/or have a good cost-benefit, so I got a tablet.
Notebooks are too clunky compared to tablets because they are attached to a keyboard and to a screen. If those parts were removable, they would be more successful. Tablets would also be more popular if you could use them as PC screens (some from Lenovo already come with this featur).
Manufacturers are moving in the opposite direction, soldering memory, and making as hard as possible to change parts.
13 or so years ago, whenever the first iPads were coming out, that was my first thought. Why don’t they take their laptops, and have the screen removable that it instantly turns into an iPad? Or a windows computer that does the same thing. Microsoft did it with the surface, and it worked pretty well. Still wasn’t quite what I had imagined, but pretty much was. Apple could have made a killing doing something like that, I’m still convinced (if it was PC based when docked though, not their cell phone/iPad OS).
…and they knew it from the beginning.
Even the MPAA and RIAA know piracy fuels culture and makes golden hits into platinum hits and boost sequel album sales and auxiliary items (toys and lunchboxes).
They can’t help themselves because to the execs and shareholders, it feels like lost sales and theft. And the DRM market capitalizes on those feelings.
That’s the genius of proprietary software business models, also adobe is guilty of this, let people pirate your software so they dominate using your software. Once their skills are built on it once they get to the workforce they won’t even question using a libre alternative. In the end they manage to dominate the market
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft
Ignoring unauthorized copying
… Bill Gates said “And as long as they’re going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.”
The practice allowed Microsoft to gain some dominance over the Chinese market and only then taking measures against unauthorized copies. In 2008, by means of the Windows update mechanism, a verification program called “Windows Genuine Advantage” (WGA) was downloaded and installed. When WGA detects that the copy of Windows is not genuine, it periodically turns the user’s screen black. This behavior angered users and generated complaints in China with a lawyer stating that “Microsoft uses its monopoly to bundle its updates with the validation programs and forces its users to verify the genuineness of their software”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents
… the documents identified open-source software, and in particular the Linux operating system, as a major threat to Microsoft’s domination of the software industry, and suggested tactics Microsoft could use to disrupt the progress of open-source software.
I think Windows is successful because it was defacto preinstalled on all computers. Even people in third world countries are buying computers whole, not a basket of parts to assemble.
Also software. You’re not going to assemble a computer, install Linux, and then not be able to run anything on it. You want to run all the software that was built to run on Windows, which was built to run on Windows because it came installed on every computer, etc. (Remember Linux back then really couldn’t run all that much. No office? No games? You’re toast.)
Windows is largely successful because there was nothing else good enough for Intel to use back in the late 80s. They struck a partnership and it took off, indoctrinating people into the Windows way of life for decades to come. Most people hate new tech, it means that they have to learn something new that they’d rather not (akin to telling someone to write with the opposite hand than the one they’ve been using their entire lives), even if that thing is simple. Piracy just strengthened that already strong foothold that they had.
Windows being easy to pirate wasnt the reason for it’s popularity. It had market share because they allowed for it to be preinstalled on machines for virtually nothing. They allowed it to be preinstalled on machines for virtually nothing because the OS wasn’t the flagship product.
MS Office has always been the major flagship product for the company. This was true in 1994 and still is today. Office is so important to their revenue streams that it’s fairly common knowledge and has been mentioned by former employees that OS development would focus on compatibility with Office programs, not the other way around.
Specifically if you look at the years around Office XP and 2003, that suite is used very much as a CVS. They deprecate their operating systems using Office.
Not true at all. You’re thinking the past 20 years instead of the past 35 years. Windows was already “the” OS around the world well before you could just pirate a copy online. They cut deals and made sure if you bought a pc it has windows on it. They made sure the countries you speak of had dirt cheap cd keys without piracy. Microsoft in the late 80s/90s had a lot of moving parts that went into making sure the only OS you’d be using was windows. Even after they got in trouble in 1992-94 and in 2000-2001.
Piracy or not. Windows was almost anyone’s only choice.
The past 20 years is what’s relevant for all countries apart from Japan, China and those in North America and Eastern Europe when it comes to PCs.
I don’t think any cost above ₹200 (~ $2.5) would have been justifiable for an OS in third world countries in the '00s, and the “dirt cheap CD keys” were certainly more expensive than that anywhere.
I’m afraid you’re simply making things up. Microsoft donated computers with windows to all the third world countries. Literally the only way any schools had PC’s in third world countries was because Microsoft delivered them there, and any business’ that got computers used windows because they had office use applications and it was the only OS that anyone had previous practice with using, because of the donated computers.
It’s hilarious that you think Microsoft’s charity is what brought computers to the third world. Do you even hear yourself?
Of course it has. Maybe try pulling your head out of your ass.
Unbelievable. You genuinely think the rest of the world wouldn’t have had computers had your god Microsoft not been so benevolent as to donate a few machines to a few schools for PR
Stay happy in your pathetic white saviours’ world, I guess. There’s no point discussing anything with you
When most people bought their PCs, Windows was already bought and paid for and installed by the vendor, so piracy might not have hit as hard as you think.
If you’re Microsoft, that last thing you want is people having a choice of operating system - either in the store, or when they get home - so you make sure it’s a done deal before the PC is unboxed.
That’s SOP for Microsoft, and what got them into trouble when they were bundling Internet Explorer.
It’s also worth noting, that Linux hasn’t always been a competitive desktop product for the home market.
This is far from true in 3rd world. People buy pc without os, the shop helped customers install pirated version because its way more cheaper than buying preinstalled windows pc. There’s people who still remember the windows cd key by heart more than they remember their spouse’s birth date.
Mate, the most advanced and popular MS product activator is open source, hosted on GitHub owned by Microsoft and Microsoft is fully aware of it. And, just like in the 90-s when one serial key was known to every human on earth and was never blocked, they give exactly zero fucks. I won’t even be surprised if I see some commits with bug fixes from Microsoft themselves.
just like in the 90-s when one serial key was known to every human on earth and was never blocked
How would they have blocked it? Windows activation didn’t exist in the 90s.
They could block it in new releases and service packs if they wanted to. But they never did. When XP came out with online updates, the keys were once again well known and were never blocked.
Same with Photoshop, Maya etc. These corps know that letting consumers pirate their software will create more legit end users. Since people will get used to their software and won’t easily switch when they enter the professional workforce where these corps don’t condone piracy and actually audit businesses. At least in Western nations they even audit small businesses. Like my friend used to work at a small engineering firm in the Netherlands and Autodesk came by to audit the CAD licenses.
How do those companies audit businesses that they don’t know are using their software? Do they have a special force built just to track creative releases from indie makers?
at work we once bought licenses from Autodesk and one day, when we realized that we didn’t need it anymore and we could use a better alternative, they sent us a letter where they assumed that we stopped paying because we started to pirate. They basically threatened us to allow to run some malware on our computers to check compliance, or someone could tip us off to local authorities. They even tried to bribe the person who read the letter by ending the letter with something like “in case of piracy, the whistleblower could be rewarded financially”. It was a regular mail, so we just ignored it.
That’s very common with Microsoft products too. Their vendors get to use @microsoft.com emails (distinguishable by an extra “v”) so they frequently pose as “auditors” to pressure businesses into buying licenses.
It’s a grey area because a business with all licenses in order would not care either way, but software being what it is it’s hard to stay compliant all the time even if you try, and that’s when the vultures descend.
For example say you appoint a new CTO and they realize your company of 200 PCs uses pirate Office copies, so they buy 200 genuine licenses, but they’re cut short of actually installing the matching Office version because Office is a piece of malware-acting crap and is actually very hard to completely purge from a domain install. So they end up holding correct licenses but using technically pirated versions. This is where a genuine audit would not care (you paid for the newer version and are using the older, crappier version; due to their fault, I might add? you do you Microsoft got paid) — but an unscrupulous vendor would try to scare you into paying more to “fix it”.
For private individuals and small institutions, yes, they would definitely use linux if windows was 100% impossible to pirate.
For corporations and bigger institutions, no, they would 100% continue to use windows just because of the control they can have on their devices, group policies, single sign on, and so on. It’s possible to do that on Linux, but not as easily. They’re already paying 15 dollars / month to microsoft just for AAD/entra/[whatever they call it this week] or even more to have office integrated with that and $200 for a permanent license for a single PC is a drop in the bucket
Linux is designed to be able to do group policies like that very well
Remember, Linux originates back from the terminal days, and the vast majority of servers run Linux. If any OS is made to function well in large organizations, it’s Linux. Windows is popular on desktop for reasons other than better group policies.
Windows as a software package would have never been affordable to individuals or local-level orgs in countries like India and Bangladesh (especially in the 2000’s) that are now powerhouses of IT. … Had the OS been too difficult to pirate, educators and local institutions in these countries would have certainly shifted to Linux and the like.
While i somewhat agree with your overall statement, this part is just wrong. Linux in the late 1990s and 2000s was very different from today, where you just plug in a CD/USB and select your region. Linux back then was very nerdy, you had to choose your hardware first to make sure there was a linux driver and the installation process was very difficult, especially before plug&play where you had to know which IRQs and slots you had to use for network, sound and videocard to avoid conflicts. I remember trying to install Linux from a CD, only to work my war from one error message to the next because it did not like my videocard, soundcard or both.
Also, what would you do with a linux pc at home or at work if it could not run word, excel, duke nukem 3D, TTD, programs you knew from work/school or software you could pirate from your friends?
PTSD…
I once destroyed a CRT monitor by misconfiguring X11.
Nowadays Linux just works to the point where my 72 year old mother is able to deal with Pop_OS without issue.
But man, those early days of unstable drivers, slow dial-up internet, and navigating through Usenet and IRC for decent support was a nightmarish labor of love.
The silky smoothness that we have now was built on caffeine and the backs of millions of greybeards.
(For the record: “Greybeard” is a nerdy term of endearment that I’ve seen adopted by people identifying all across the rainbow. Kinda like dwarfs on Discworld).
Greybeard is also the name for an experienced DRG player
One of the zillion reasons why piracy is morally correct and the exact reason I will never pirate. (use open source instead)
