4 ms·

Huh? Locking a machine to Windows is the manufacturer's choice, not Microsoft's. A better comparison is if MS banned installing apps not distributed by MS.

adriancr 5y ago
> Huh? Locking a machine to Windows is the manufacturer's choice, not Microsoft's. Microsoft used to tax OEMs on all pcs with x86 sold as having windows pre-installed on them (otherwise OEMs wouldn't be allowed to sell windows at all). This got them into anti-trust issues. By the same mechanism they could have asked OEMs to lock machines to windows. Anti-trust lawsuit could have lead to Microsoft being broken up into separate companies. It would be funny if Microsoft avoided that only for Apple to be broken down into separate companies. (one for app store, one for iphone, etc) > A better comparison is if MS banned installing apps not distributed by MS. If they did this what would be the consequences?, are potential anti-trust lawsuits going to appear again? Also see what happened with bundling internet explorer in europe.
cesarb 5y ago
> Locking a machine to Windows is the manufacturer's choice, not Microsoft's. Microsoft has hardware certification requirements for machines that ship with Windows, and these certification requirements mandate whether or not a machine will be locked to Windows. On traditional x86, these requirements mandate that it must be possible to both disable SecureBoot and enroll the owner's keys; on ARM, Microsoft changed these requirements to forbid both options (https://softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confirms-UEFI-fears-locks-down-ARM/ https://softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confi...), so that these machines would be locked to operating systems signed by Microsoft. If manufacturers want to be able to ship machines with Windows, they have no choice but to follow these hardware certification requirements; and it's not hard to argue that Windows is a monopoly, such that manufacturers have no choice but to ship machines with Windows. > A better comparison is if MS banned installing apps not distributed by MS. Isn't that what "S mode" does?

adriancr 5y ago

> Huh? Locking a machine to Windows is the manufacturer's choice, not Microsoft's. Microsoft used to tax OEMs on all pcs with x86 sold as having windows pre-installed on them (otherwise OEMs wouldn't be allowed to sell windows at all). This got them into anti-trust issues. By the same mechanism they could have asked OEMs to lock machines to windows. Anti-trust lawsuit could have lead to Microsoft being broken up into separate companies. It would be funny if Microsoft avoided that only for Apple to be broken down into separate companies. (one for app store, one for iphone, etc) > A better comparison is if MS banned installing apps not distributed by MS. If they did this what would be the consequences?, are potential anti-trust lawsuits going to appear again? Also see what happened with bundling internet explorer in europe.

cesarb 5y ago

> Locking a machine to Windows is the manufacturer's choice, not Microsoft's. Microsoft has hardware certification requirements for machines that ship with Windows, and these certification requirements mandate whether or not a machine will be locked to Windows. On traditional x86, these requirements mandate that it must be possible to both disable SecureBoot and enroll the owner's keys; on ARM, Microsoft changed these requirements to forbid both options (https://softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confirms-UEFI-fears-locks-down-ARM/ https://softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confi...), so that these machines would be locked to operating systems signed by Microsoft. If manufacturers want to be able to ship machines with Windows, they have no choice but to follow these hardware certification requirements; and it's not hard to argue that Windows is a monopoly, such that manufacturers have no choice but to ship machines with Windows. > A better comparison is if MS banned installing apps not distributed by MS. Isn't that what "S mode" does?