Brian Kelsay wrote:
Yes, the cost of replacement is far greater than the cost of the computer, when you're talking about Windows. Especially when the licenses are tied to the hardware.
So a corporation might hold onto a low productivity computer rather than engage in an expensive upgrade of which only a small part is the cost of the computer.
This situation may offer a wedge of entry for Linux. The shortest concept outline is to be catching a company before a commitment to vendor of either hardware or software has been re-approved for the next cycle. and a sub $100 hardware costing changes all the rules.
Our target being that next cycle gets made of Linux supporting hardware suppliers and Open Source software providers. Small margin huge volume? This bears a close look at-
Then again since Wal-Mart is arguably one of America's largest corporate IT spenders they may self source - A sub $500 no gimmick price laptop with Linspire and Crossover Office! What do THEY pay for it?
http://news.com.com/Wal-Mart+debuts+498+Linux+laptop/2100-1044_3-5498006.htm...
Getting from $ 498 to $100 could come very fast...
Crossover Office from what I have been told makes the data migration nearly painless for example. OR at least a lower "cost" that any other fix.
Then if one factors in the "avoided costs" of both MS and their ilk what would a new oem laptop cost? What if a few of the larger fortune 500 companies ordered one of these even for only half of their employees?
Or perhaps AOL deciding to saturate the market with cheap computers suited to their target market of new zero base users. IF the "fresh meat" has zero to unlearn Linux is more viable!
Oren
" Like- how weird- there were these stacks of aol free trial disposable laptops"