Part of the reason the OS costs so much is because they insist on bundling all this junk in with it. Granted, Blu-Ray support was not included, but all the other licensed codecs that you got (the ability to view JPGs, the ability to use ZIP-compressed folders, the ability to listen to MP3s, etc) are all licensed, and those licenses cost money, which Microsoft quite happily passes on to the consumer. So you're paying for what you get, it's not 'free' in any sense of the word.
If those licenses were not included -- if those bits didn't come with the OS -- then the OS would not cost so much*. And you could use your saved cash to buy whatever additional bits you needed. This is how the entire OS paradigm was planned to work. An OS -- an Operating System -- was never meant to do everything the way it does now. This is why you hear geeks griping about how Windows is fail-prone. It is -- and the primary reason is because they keep cramming so much stuff under the hood and slathering on coats of paint to hide the rust.**
Look, the ability to view Blu-Ray (or any other proprietary content stream) is not ever free. It can't be. The companies that create the container format -- Blu-Ray, in this case; odd codecs in others -- are banking on the revenue stream from people buying said software, either directly at X bucks a pop bundled with their own branded player, or via licensing deals with other vendors to make it work transparently behind the scenes. No matter what, they get paid, and you're the one paying for it.
If Blu-Ray support was included in Windows 7, it would have a higher price, as simple as that. Now, undoubtedly -- because Gates and Co. are intelligent, despite rumors to the contrary -- there are plans in place to include Blu-Ray in future releases or patches. I'd be willing to bet that Microsoft in fact planned their price point such that they could include Blu-Ray at what they consider a viable licensing rate without affecting the retail price -- which means that currently they are enjoying a tad more profit per sale than they might otherwise. This is... debatable, ethically, but it's sound marketing and business planning. It lets them add content down the road ("Look! We're now giving you Blu-Ray, free!") without having to sacrifice profits or anger the user base.
(* in an ideal world where they hadn't already opened the genie's bottle of bundled software, of course; it's quite impossible to go back, now.
** this does not make me a *nix aficionado; I wish the Nixxers would get their damn act together already and produce something actually easy to use, without going to the extreme that Windows has where it tries to do everything and ends up dropping all that it's juggling every other moment)
--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs
If those licenses were not included -- if those bits didn't come with the OS -- then the OS would not cost so much*. And you could use your saved cash to buy whatever additional bits you needed. This is how the entire OS paradigm was planned to work. An OS -- an Operating System -- was never meant to do everything the way it does now. This is why you hear geeks griping about how Windows is fail-prone. It is -- and the primary reason is because they keep cramming so much stuff under the hood and slathering on coats of paint to hide the rust.**
Look, the ability to view Blu-Ray (or any other proprietary content stream) is not ever free. It can't be. The companies that create the container format -- Blu-Ray, in this case; odd codecs in others -- are banking on the revenue stream from people buying said software, either directly at X bucks a pop bundled with their own branded player, or via licensing deals with other vendors to make it work transparently behind the scenes. No matter what, they get paid, and you're the one paying for it.
If Blu-Ray support was included in Windows 7, it would have a higher price, as simple as that. Now, undoubtedly -- because Gates and Co. are intelligent, despite rumors to the contrary -- there are plans in place to include Blu-Ray in future releases or patches. I'd be willing to bet that Microsoft in fact planned their price point such that they could include Blu-Ray at what they consider a viable licensing rate without affecting the retail price -- which means that currently they are enjoying a tad more profit per sale than they might otherwise. This is... debatable, ethically, but it's sound marketing and business planning. It lets them add content down the road ("Look! We're now giving you Blu-Ray, free!") without having to sacrifice profits or anger the user base.
(* in an ideal world where they hadn't already opened the genie's bottle of bundled software, of course; it's quite impossible to go back, now.
** this does not make me a *nix aficionado; I wish the Nixxers would get their damn act together already and produce something actually easy to use, without going to the extreme that Windows has where it tries to do everything and ends up dropping all that it's juggling every other moment)
--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs