When Business Processes Hurt Their Companies

When Richard Jobity pointed me at How I got a Windows Vista refund from HP, I was not only happy to see that Hewlett-Packard had refunded the person who did not want to accept the Windows Vista End User License Agreement (EULA), I was impressed with the fact that the fellow had gotten his money back. While I am known for supporting Free Software and Open Source, that isn't really what pleased me. What pleased me is that someone took the path least traveled. It also pleased me that he is running Drupal.

Here's the thing: When you get a laptop, either you accept Microsoft's EULA - or not. Most people don't bother with even trying to say 'no' when the EULA pops up on the screen, they simply click through and say yes. Why? It is simply the easier thing to do; you can accept the EULA or just toss Linux on the machine. What you can't reasonably do is choose not to accept the EULA and get a refund for the software on the laptop. One person got a refund from Hewlett Packard because of persistence. They stayed on top of it, they did not budge.

Question: If you sell a product that has a precondition of use in accepting the license of a software package, but you do not have other options available to users who choose not to accept the license, is this really a choice?

This is apparently what Hewlett-Packard, as well as other computer manufacturers do. Leave all the Free Software/Open Source stuff on the side: They sell a product that asks a user if they will accept a software license after the product is purchased. That doesn't seem fair, it doesn't seem right and it most certainly doesn't seem like they care about their customers as much as Microsoft's EULA. Granted, they may be shooting products out with a shotgun for the masses, but if you offer a choice it should be legitimate.

I came across this comment on the post, I was slightly amused. I'm almost done reading Subject To Change: Creating Great Products & Services for an Uncertain World: Adaptive Path on Design (Adaptive Path), which is about these sorts of issues - and the whole comment reeked of someone who didn't think much of the people who purchase products - forcing people to accept Microsoft's license is something that they don't even blink about. The comment said that the only reason this person got a refund was because he wasted enough time and resources of Hewlett-Packard. This lead me to respond, and also to write about it here.

If you're going to offer a choice, shouldn't it be a real choice? Of course it should; accepting a license agreement at gunpoint isn't exactly ethical and is, at the least, questionably legal. When a user is afforded such a choice, it is the responsibility of the company selling the product to have a means of handling the issue. It is not the fault of the user that they do not agree with a license agreement on a product that they just purchased - they may not have seen it before, or even knew it existed. Don't blame the user for wasting your company's money: Your lack of planning did that. Shame on you.

What should be embarrassing to Hewlett-Packard, and by proxy other laptop/computer manufacturers, is that they don't seem to have a process in place for those who are given a choice but choose the path the manufacturers don't like. If you're not going to afford users a choice, then why even have the question anyway? Why not just be honest and cram it down people's throats? I, for one, would not like it - but at least it would be honest and representative of how you feel about the people who buy your products.