Re: Product Key help needed please!!!

"frag" <news2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dieel7$tm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Vanguard (NPI)? He'z just ziz guy, you know?
>
>> And you think you are going to get those replacement keys for free?
>
> Where did I say I expected them for free?

Or cheap then. Whatever. The point was is that you demand replacement keys
for a car that you don't own and from someone that was never involved in the
service or product that you paid for. Works for me. Mine is getting rusty
so I'd like to get keys for someone else's, and because I can get the keys
must mean that I have rights to use that car.

>> And without proof that you are the owner of that vehicle?
>
> I've already stated I can provide proof of purchase.

>From the OEM'er. That has never been contended.

>> Oh, yeah,
>> and those replacement keys are going to cost 4 times the price of the
>> car, uh huh, right.
>
> MS XP MCE cost me £75 (inc VAT). MS want to charge me £399 (+ VAT) to
> replace the key.

Because Microsoft cannot give you the same product that you have. You want
a single-copy end-user license. They sell volume licenses to OEM'ers.
Their pricing for an OEM that wants just 1 license would be quite expensive,
as you found out. I don't recall seeing volume pricing on their web site,
but your pricing shows a glimpse of what it would cost to get a single copy
of a volume license which means no volume discount (because there was no
volume about the count of 1).

> If I rented the car I'd still expect the owner of the car to sort the
> problem. And since in MSs case, they retain ownership, it'd still be
> MSs responsilbility to sort the lost key problem out.

Wrong again. The owner of the car isn't the one that rented you the car.
The owner of the car may be a fleet service that rents out their vehicles to
some rental agency from whom you rented the vehicle. The owner owes you
nothing. Their contract was to provide the vehicle to the rental agency.
Your service contract is with the rental agency, who may or may not be the
owner of the vehicle. You think everyone that rents you anything must be
the actual owner? Your contract with the rental agency extends to no one
else. Microsoft, the owner, contracts with party A to sell them thousands
of licenses who then uses them to fabricate a complete system, and party A
then supplies them to party B who sells them online at a web site. So, by
your logic which defies all contract law, if Microsoft is liable in
responsibility to provide service or replacement at reduced cost (rather
than at full cost), then so should whomever fabbed the system for the
reseller from whom you bought the system. Yeah, good luck with that.

>> You think the
>> dealer, manufacturer, or anyone else should be giving you replacement
>> keys for a vehicle that you do NOT own? Sure would make stealing,
>> er, "using" those rental cars a lot easier.
>
> Ah, here we go. You think I'm trying to steal the product.

No, I think you want to bitch abount someone who was never been involved
with you in a contract for parts and service in which you and they were
never the agreeing parties. You want anyone that supplied the *parts* used
by the OEM that built the entire system to cover for your loss. When the
pilot assembly doesn't work in your Sears water heater, you think the pilot
assembly manufacturer should cover your *** because Sears refused to? The
pilot assembly manufacturer doesn't give a gnat's fart about end users
because they don't sell to end users. They sell to companies that buy in
volume so they can themselves manufacture the water heater that was then
sold to Sears to resell under their name.

> Idiot.

Feeling better now?

> Try reading my original post, and as well as that, understand and
> comprehend, if you're capable, (which from current evidence doesn't
> look likely) the parts where I stated I can produce proof of ownership
> and anyone can view it if they want to.

So what does the EULA actually say for the product that you received from
the OEM? It's possible that Microsoft had a momentary lapse of legal sanity
at the time that they wrote it so end-users can actually ply Microsoft for
support.

> Is this all you do in this newsgroup? Try to boost your own ego by
> slagging off "baddies" and brown nosing the actual helpful members of
> this group?

Feel even more better now?

>> > I've got absolutely no problem paying a reasonable fee for a new
>> > key. But £475 to replace the key for a product that cost £75?
>>
>> Don't know where you are getting those prices.
>
> www.scan.co.uk and Microsoft (0870 6010100)

This reseller is actually allowed to sell a non-OEM Windows MCE all by
itself and not as part of a computer system? They can't even sell an OEM
version of Windows MCE by itself. So, as you mention, they cannot actually
sell you a product that contains a license for Windows MCE that ties
Microsoft to provide support. They have to fab a system (or get one from
someone else) that will include it as a component of a larger system. It's
a good bet that they didn't fab the Windows MCE enabled computer, either,
that someone else put it together for them with whom they contract to have
those built, and you don't get to deal with the fabricator, either, just
with scan.co.uk. Microsoft sold the volume licenses to the fabricator who
then sold the system to scan.co.uk who then sells it to you. When the
reseller sells a "retail" version of software, that contract does extend
back to the manufacturer of that software product. When the reseller sells
you an OEM product, no other party is involved other than you and the OEM.

>> Have you yet actually called Microsoft
>
> Proof that you don't read anything, yet again.
>
>> So they would've sold you a product key for THEIR upgrade or full
>> version product - but it certainly sounds like you got the pricing
>> all wrong or you were asking them about the wrong product.
>
> There isn't an end user version of MCE, as you should know.

Exactly, which means you only get MCE through an OEM or reseller. So you
already knew what you were getting into when you choose, for some reason,
that you had to have the multimedia version. Now you want to pretend to be
blind to the fact that Microsoft was not involved in the contract. Reading
the EULA included in the MCE system would probably tell you exactly what are
Microsoft's liabilities for support.

> And of
> course if you bothered to ring the UK MS number they'd give you the
> same price as they told me.

You want to get the same discount that an OEM gets for volume purchases?
And you want to get the same per-unit price that the OEM gets for buying
thousands of units but when you only get one?

>> £399 is $703 USD. There is no single-license version of Windows XP
>> that sells for that much.
>
> Well duh huh, it doesn't exist as an end user product dummy.

It does if you want to buy in volume. I'm sure a single-volume license will
be pricey. That's why you need to go back to the OEM.

> And the price is in no way related to the price of any *product*, it is
> (from what MS said to me) the price of a single business support call
> from an unregistered company.

Of course, only now do you mention that. But it makes sense since you want
to buy a 1-license "volume" purchase rather than get the discounted per-unit
pricing by OEM'ers that buy tons of licenses.

> Clear now?

Sure, that you want an uninvolved party to provide you with a per-unit price
(actually you want it cheaper) of a product that is only sold to OEM'ers
that must included in a larger system. You want them to provide you with
support although they were never involved in the sale and never any monies
from the sale (you paid the OEM, not Microsoft, and no share of the monies
between the OEM and Microsoft are your monies; those were separate and
wholly disconnected sales). When you try to purchase the OEM-only product,
you want them to give you the per-unit pricing available as a customer of
another OEM'er that has purchased thousands of units.

>> > You only find out a company has poor customer service backup when
>> > you need it and it fails you. Both the OEM and MS have done that
>> > here.
>>
>> The sales contract never involved Microsoft.
>
> But the product does. Even if the OEM had stuck their bitmap and phone
> number in the System Properties screen.

So the EULA actually says Microsoft is directly responsible for support to
YOU as the end-user of their MCE product which isn't available for 1-license
end-user purchases?

> I said I have no problem paying a reasonable fee. I've said it about 5
> times now. Do let me know if you still haven't grasped it.

That still requires the other party (Microsoft) to volunteer beyond their
contractual obligation with the OEM to deal with an end-user.

> What loss? MS have got the money from the sale.

>From the OEM, not from you. If the OEM buys 100,000 licenses, they pay
Microsoft for all of them. They don't get refunds because they didn't
happen to sell them all off. They paid Microsoft. You pay the OEM.


>> I find it hard to believe that you, as a programmer, don't know how
>> OEM software support works.
>
> Quote my post where I said that.
>
> Oh, its another of your assumptions.

No, it's obvious that you are a programmer and never been involved in
selling your company's products. When they sell their product to a reseller
that builds an entire system which happens to include your company's
product, the buyer deals with the reseller for servicer. Selling your
product to party A who then includes it in a product that they package that
is sold to party B doesn't incur liability or responsibility for support by
your company to party B. It all depends on what was the contract between
your company and party A, not what party B would *like* to have been
included in those terms.

Nope, I'm not a salesman, either. Just another programmer and QA tester
that has bought enough software and other stuff to know how contracts work
and who are the actual designated parties in the contract.

Go back to Sears when the pilot assembly breaks in your Sears-branded water
heater that you bought from Sears. Stop bothering the pilot assembly
manufacturer or complaining that anyone involved in manufacturing any
component of the product somehow owes you. What you propose really doesn't
sound good for anyone's economy. Toss out contract law since every
non-involved party that can be associated with a product in any way will
then become involuntarily involved.


.

Loading