Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly would assume that’s a pretty honest price for an OEM license paid by a company as big as Asus, they definitely don’t pay retail!
Why do you assume that? I’m genuinely asking. I’m aware of big companies generally paying lower rates for things, but I believe that’s usually driven by the increased leverage a big buyer has, while Asus has absolutely no leverage, if they switch to Linux today they’ll be out of business tomorrow. It certainly costs MS less to deal with one professional org than a million flaky individuals, but price is determined by…
And yeah, Asus DOES need to sell windows laptops because the market demands it, but it doesn't mean they need to follow all of Microsoft's rules/goals. ("Pleeeeease put an NPU in every laptop and advertise copilot for us, pleeeease") Giving them a steep discount gives Microsoft a lever to pull if they feel like punishing an OEM later, though with the goal of avoiding anything that halts the sale of PCs with windows on it, which is bad for all parties.
You can't really model that on a supply/demand curve. Microsoft supplies Windows licenses, but Asus supplies a big chunk of market access. A license to software is an infinitely available resource which only has a value determined by the market's willingness to pay for it; a market that microsoft has historically been dogshit at accessing themselves. (Surface product line, for example)