The sad and pointless life of the Windows N versions
Browsing the operating systems available through the university’s Dreamspark account, I came across something I had never heard of before: a load of Windows versions with an N suffix in their name. I was intrigued but Dreamspark failed to explain how these differ from the normal versions, so off to Google I went, to discover a story of yet another cack-handed response to a legal challenge that eclipses even the infamous 'browser choice' app for sheer stupidity.
Basically it all goes back to 2004, when the EU Commission
ruled that Microsoft selling Windows Media Player as an integral part of the
operating system was anti-competitive, and ordered them to make available
versions that do not include Media Player. These became the N versions, which
are sold only in EU countries and are identical to their non-suffixed
counterparts except for the absence of Media Player. Windows XP was the first
to have an N version and this has continued through Vista and 7 to the current
Windows 8 N versions. The EU ruling however didn’t require Microsoft to offer
only the N versions instead of the full versions, which remain available
alongside them.
At this point you might be thinking “I don’t need Media
Player so I’ll buy the N version and save myself some money”. Seems logical,
but hold on a minute: the N versions are the same price as their equivalent full versions! Microsoft’s
justification for this is that Media Player is available as a free download for
N version customers to bring their OS up to the full spec, so for the
same cost you have a choice between a full version with all features, or a
version missing a feature that you have to download yourself. Surely that’s a
total no-brainer and renders the N version’s entire existence completely
pointless, except as a means of satisfying some badly-implemented EU
bureaucracy!
For once though, Microsoft don't have to take the blame for this bizarre situation as they are simply complying with a governmental mandate. This ruling was a total waste of time and hasn't achieved anything useful as it failed to give any proper reason to choose the N versions and everyone continues to buy the 'anti-competitive' full versions instead. In order to enforce their position, the Commission should have either required Microsoft to sell only the N versions instead of the full versions, or forced them to price the N versions lower, properly justifying their existence and giving customers a meaningful choice. All it has achieved is requiring the company to waste time and effort building a product they expect no one in their right mind to ever buy.
For once though, Microsoft don't have to take the blame for this bizarre situation as they are simply complying with a governmental mandate. This ruling was a total waste of time and hasn't achieved anything useful as it failed to give any proper reason to choose the N versions and everyone continues to buy the 'anti-competitive' full versions instead. In order to enforce their position, the Commission should have either required Microsoft to sell only the N versions instead of the full versions, or forced them to price the N versions lower, properly justifying their existence and giving customers a meaningful choice. All it has achieved is requiring the company to waste time and effort building a product they expect no one in their right mind to ever buy.
One wonders just how many N versions of Windows have ever
been sold, but it’s telling that they have existed for an entire decade and I
have been totally unaware of them until now. Has anyone else ever heard of or even used one of these pointless operating systems?
No comments:
Post a Comment