i hate when they state "it costs $xxx". the only thing it costs is a lazy programmer to develop a half assed protection mechanism.
other than that, you cannot put a cost on piracy. this article and many others that i have seen ASSUME if someone couldn't pirate something they would have to buy it and that's where the lost profit is.
WRONG. if i had to pay $200 for Windows XP for each computer and $500 for 2k3 ES, would I? hell no. i don't have $200 to spend on crappy software. Maybe if microsoft wasn't a bunch of greedy assholes and sold a "household" license $200 wouldn't be so bad. there are 7 computers here. I'm not spending $1400 on OS software let alone anything else.
$250 billion in "profits"? sounds like just trying to make this article sound like it's worth a damn.
Amen. If MS in particular wants to curb piracy of their products, then sell a license of XP Home that's good for 4-5 PCs. I can't count how many people have come to me asking for a way to be able to install the copy of XP they have on more than one PC they own. MS's bread and butter customers are OEMs and businesses, so it isn't going to kill them to let Joe Schmoe install XP on 4-5 PCs at his home under the same license. Hell, most people only have 1 PC at home! So what is really gained in their current licensing program?
How many people do you think actually buy a copy of Windows for each computer they own. Next to ZERO. -- "I'm comin' down fast, but I'm miles above you!"
·
·