[vog]

Dell probably couldn't sell the computer for a lower price with no OS or a free OS without losing money

I find this hard to believe, even when considering all the mechanisms you mentioned. Do you have any evidence for this very counter-intuitive hypothesis?

IOW: Citation needed

[scholia]

Perhaps you need to change the way you think about the PC industry and the way it produces integrated machines?

Even if you skip the huge cost of qualifying parts for a different operating system, and sell PCs without any hardware or software support, there are still extra tracking and stock-keeping costs, and probably extra marketing costs. These will be high, in unit terms, because of the small number of units shipped.

Not being a lawyer, I've no idea whether an OEM could get away with refusing to support the systems it sells. If it can't, you'd have to add the cost of testing and qualifying parts, and I'm not sure how you'd do that. Could you do it for a single version of Linux? Would you have to test for _anything_ the user might install? I don't want to open that can of worms....

[Zak]

Plenty of machines have shipped with buggy drivers, poor OS support for the hardware and similar problems. I've never heard of a consumer PC manufacturer having legal liability for issues like that, and can't imagine it would be different with no preloaded OS or an explicitly unsupported preloaded OS.

The Windows 8 EULA says:

The manufacturer or installer and Microsoft exclude all implied warranties, including those of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement.

It's my understanding (IANAL) that laws in the US and most other developed countries attach a warranty to all products sold that they're suitable for sale (merchantability) and for use the way a reasonable person would expect (fitness for a particular purpose). I believe software usually gets around that requirement by being licensed with such terms included rather than sold.

I think there's a good counterargument here to the claim I often see on HN that a PC with Windows preloaded is an integrated product rather than two independent products sold as a bundle. The license terms very clearly state that the Windows part is not guaranteed to work as expected, or indeed to do anything at all. The hardware, on the other hand generally comes with a written warranty stating that it will work, or the manufacturer will repair or replace it.

[claudius]

> The Windows 8 EULA says:

Which is absolutely irrelevant for example in Germany, as customers (a) buy the computer/license before agreeing to the EULA and (b) most of the statements in the EULA (no warranties, e.g.) cannot be legally included in any contract with a customer/end-user.

[scholia]

A PC has an infinite number of uses and no company can guarantee that it will meet all those needs. Especially if people make them up after they've made the purchase, and don't specify them beforehand.

Otherwise, you should just be an honest buyer. If you don't want a Windows laptop, don't buy one. It's that simple.

[smackfu]

Which part is counter-intuitive?

A windows license costs Dell $X. Each trial software they preload earns Dell $Y.

If they preload enough stuff, the sum of the $Y amounts can exceed $X.

[chollida1]

What is counter intuitive about:

1) companies paying to have their software preinstalled on a laptop

2) the previously mentioned companies software only working on windows

To me this seems like one of the, if not the most, plausible explanation for windows systems being cheaper than Ubuntu

[speeder]

When I was shopping for laptops I found several Dell models with Ubuntu, all of them were 100 USD more expensive than with Windows.

[Tarential]

I have a Dell Vostro 2420 I got with Ubuntu for around $50 less than the same machine with Windows ~6 months ago.

However, it seems this is no longer possible. I've searched Dell's site and the only Vostro 2420 I see with Ubuntu has different hardware (i3 vs celeron). Very disappointing. I will not pay the MS tax.