Windows 7 Starter: The anti-feature edition

Much has been written about the many SKUs (editions) in which Microsoft Windows 7 will hit the market. There are the usual subjects, such as 'Professional' or 'Enterprise'. These editions are defined by the additional features they provide. For example, to get the Aero graphical user interface, you will need to have at least the 'Premium' edition. To get encrypted file systems, you need at least the 'Professional Edition', and so on. This type of re-packaging of different feature sets is a pretty standard way for vendors of any kind of product and allows them to sell at different prices in order to reach the highest number of potential customers. So far, so good.

What struck me the most, however, was the Starter edition, a lightweight version for netbook computers, that will only be capable of running three applications concurrently (quoted from here). Three applications, maybe IE, an email client and a Word processor? Or IE, and two pieces of adware. :-)

This is a prime example of an anti-feature, a 'feature' of the software, which had to be specifically put in place in order to limit what the user can do. So, while the other editions provide features that allow users to do more, this particular 'feature' deliberately cripples the software and limits the user's options. These days, anti-features are often found around DRM. But as we can see here, anti-features can pop up in the most unexpected places. Also consider another example of a Microsoft anti-feature, which I personally had to deal with, designed to reduce the capabilities of competing web-server software.

So, back to Windows 7 Starter. You have to imagine the code that had to be put in place to implement this no-more-than-three-apps limitation. Somewhere in the core of their OS there must be some lines, similar to this:

bool allow_new_app() {
    if (edition == "STARTER" && num_apps == 3) {
        return FAILURE;
    }
    else {
        return SUCCESS;
    }
}

Specific code, just introduced to cripple the capabilities.

I don't have a problem with software being sold in different editions, with more features and support bundled in. What annoys me, though, is if the vendor puts in anti-features. In the open source world such anti-features don't exist, since they can easily be removed. With proprietary software you don't have that option. You are at the mercy of the code provided by a corporation who is interested in its own bottom line, not you, the user. One of the key reasons for not running proprietary software, and definitely not a proprietary operating system.

So, why is this feature here? How does this help Microsoft's bottom line?

The Starter edition is aimed at the netbook market. As some have reported, Windows 7 is light-weight enough to actually run on those machines. But the price point of netbooks is so low that vendors cannot pay a lot for software license fees. That is one of the reason why initially we saw a lot of netbooks based on GNU/Linux. No problem with license costs there. Microsoft noticed that with the increasing popularity of netbooks Linux suddenly managed to enter the mainstream market. They couldn't allow this to happen, since obviously they have no interest in users being exposed to any alternatives to Microsoft Windows and applications.

To counter this, Microsoft started to provide Windows XP really, really cheap to netbook manufacturers. Depending on how you calculate it, you get the impression that they either didn't charge anything or just a couple of dollars, just to ensure that it could stop the spread of Linux in that market segment.

Now we get Windows 7 Starter. Artificially limited to three apps. My guess is that it is going to be incredibly cheap, so that netbook vendors can easily put it on their boxes without noticeably increasing the price. Thus, no need to put Linux there. Good for Microsoft. After a while, users will notice that this three-app limit is actually quite annoying. They will then want to upgrade, and maybe - if they are lucky - they get a discount from Microsoft, maybe they have to pay full price. Why not offer Home Premium or Home Basic to the netbook vendors at the same low price as Starter? Because then they would have to discount these higher-margin versions, which Microsoft surely doesn't want to do. It reduces the perceived 'value' of those versions and makes it tougher for Microsoft to demand higher license fees from other OEMs.

So, Microsoft will be able to limit the spread of Linux (most important for them) and will still get some license money out of those customers who later decide to upgrade their netbook OS.

Microsoft 2, consumer 0.

Please note that even on low-powered netbooks there is absolutely no reason to limit the number of apps to three. On our Asus EEE PC 701 (with Linux) we often have more than three apps open at the same time. Any normal OS can do paging as necessary, and since some apps use more memory than others, a hard limit of three is completely rediculous from a technical standpoint. Let the OS and the user find their own limits, based on the hardware and the mix of apps they are running. So, the only explanation I can think of for the three-apps limit is as outlined above.

Would any Microsoft apologists care to offer another explanation?

Other related posts:
Half of Australians think it's OK to pirate Microsoft software
Vista: Microsoft's biggest failure yet?
How Microsoft wins against GNU/Linux in schools