I hear about a Windows "tax" off-and-on, usually as criticisms of Microsoft technologies. Yet the issue is a bit complicated. Even if Microsoft technologies cost more than alternatives, like Linux and other free software solutions, then why do consumers consistently make Microsoft the market leader in most technological spaces in which the firm competes?

One immediate explanation is that consumers see more value in Microsoft technologies than free software they can just download from the Internet. Another option is that Microsoft competitors in the free software movement have not sold consumers on their political philosophy of the freedom to tinker. However, the most likely explanation is that consumers may figure that they are paying for, errr, dealing with baggage, with free software and other ideologically driven technology movements.

The rational consumer will reason:

Windows tax = cost of Windows,

free software tax = cost of technology + prattle on revolutionary ideologies.

Consequently, the free software movement is a revolution you couldn't even give away for free because of its ideological oddities.

Update: I must apologize to readers. In my haste, I did not consider the free software movement's possible strategy of paying consumers to use its software. Thats definitely a plan worth considering if you can't give away your stuff for free.