In many cases, the cost of the license to the OEM is negative. That's because the cost of the Windows license is more than outweighed by the payments they get for crapware, adware, and 30-day trials, they get paid to pre-install (and the crapware requires Windows). It would actually cost them more to ship with no OS.
That's been true historically in a lot of cases, but isn't the whole point of the Framework to do things in a different and better way? It would be very disappointing if a laptop like this was shipping with that kind of junkware installed as standard even on a Windows pre-install. In fact, it would instantly reverse my position having just heard about these guys from something like "I wish you luck, this is a much healthier direction to push the industry in, and by the way let me know when it's available in the UK because I am definitely a potential customer" to something I won't repeat here that involves not wanting anything to do with them or their products.
Good answer. In that case, I shall remain happy to have discovered you today and I shall continue to wish you luck in shifting the market in healthier directions. :-)
FWIW, I'd be much more interested in your products as a solid platform for running Linux than whatever junk MS is including in Windows 10 this week anyway. But sometimes small issues can say a disproportionate amount about where a business really stands on some issues I care about, and things like having control over my own hardware and software for reasons ranging from longevity to privacy are high on my personal list.
