4 ms·

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in the tablet or phone markets. Heck, it's barely a market participant. If Apple doesn't have to let people install Windows on

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in the tablet or phone markets. Heck, it's barely a market participant. If Apple doesn't have to let people install Windows on an iPad, then the same should apply to Microsoft. This time, there's no "but there's a monopoly and the rules are different for monopolies" excuse.

kennywinker 15y ago
But we're not talking about just phones and tablets... "[...] yesterday, Qualcomm announced plans to produce Windows 8 tablets and ultrabook-style laptops built around its ARM-based Snapdragon processors" Those will be locked out as well. This is exactly what Cory Doctorow was talking about in his article the other day about "the war on general purpose computing" - (http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html)
- cooldeal 15y ago
  Sorry, that war was fought and lost won with the iPhone and iPad. If anything, Microsoft is better in the sense that it offers more share of the app cost to the developers and also doesn't charge tithes like Apple does on content.
  - fluidcruft 15y ago
    (yet)
  - aptwebapps 15y ago
    > Sorry, that war was fought and lost won with the iPhone and iPad. No, not really. There's still a long way to go. And Microsoft's revenue sharing model vs Apple's doesn't have much to do with that.
    - freehunter 15y ago
      This is part of why I bought an HP Touchpad when it wasn't on the fire sale, and a Palm Pre+ before that. The Palm folks (even at HP now) not only don't care that you're hacking their device, they actually actively encourage it. They've gone out of their way to provide an "oh shit" button for when you've completely frazzled the bootloader and nothing else works. The Touchpad runs webOS, Android, and Ubuntu, and HP/Palm doesn't give a shit. Now that their OS is open source, too, I'd love to see the rise of HP/Palm in the hacker community. They're not just accepting of hackers, they actively encourage it in all aspects.
  - Steko 15y ago
    "If anything, Microsoft is better in the sense that it offers more share of the app cost to the developers and also doesn't charge tithes like Apple does on content." These are just value propositions from an also ran. Apple takes a cut on sales because that's what store's do. If I sell cereal to a supermarket and you walk in and buy a box, the store does not give me all of that money. Why? Because the store worked hard to get that customer to walk in. Similarly Apple worked hard to make ITMS and App Store work, bringing millions of customers to the apps and music. And no one calls the supermarket's cut a tithe either. Why support MS because they came later, copied the successful innovation and undercut it by a few %? Supporting the company doing the innovating seems like a better path to incentivizing other companies to innovate new products and markets instead of just copying what's successful.
    - cooldeal 15y ago
      >Apple takes a cut on sales because that's what store's do. If I sell cereal to a supermarket and you walk in and buy a box, the store does not give me all of that money. Why? Because the store worked hard to get that customer to walk in. Similarly Apple worked hard to make ITMS and App Store work, bringing millions of customers to the apps and music. And no one calls the supermarket's cut a tithe either. The tithe reference is to the content, not the cut of the cost of an app, which Apple neither hosts nor delivers, but takes a 30% cut of. Eg. http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ Also, why can't your argument extend to ISPs? They have done all the hard work getting the customer, why shouldn't they be able to charge YouTube for allowing them to show ads to their customers?
      - AutoCorrect 15y ago
        they do charge YouTube, it's just hidden in the ISP to ISP agreements.
- molmalo 15y ago
  But it's still not a monopoly. If you want your ultrabook to run Linux, buy an x86 where you can disable secure mode. If you want an ARM, then Microsoft deserves the same treatment as the others. If Apple can lock its iPad, the same applies to Microsoft.
sounds 15y ago
I think the point here is that Microsoft is requiring additional restrictions that Android does not - when they both use the same handset hardware. Why should we give Microsoft a pass? Because they're the underdog? No. Android is not 100% open (e.g. binary-only kernel modules for proprietary hardware, Google not releasing honeycomb, ...) But that's no excuse for Microsoft to use cryptography against the customer. Microsoft must face the ill-will it generated this way, including the ill-will toward its attempts to mandate UEFI Secure Boot on the PC. This move on the ARM platform will be used (by me and others) to demonstrate that the UEFI Secure Boot requirement on the PC cannot be accepted.
- throwaway64 15y ago
  Plenty of android devices have a bootloader that is just as locked down as the windows 8 ARM requirements.
  - vena 15y ago
    They're not locked down by Google.
    - throwaway64 15y ago
      so what, that does not change the reality of the situation for the people that buy the devices. EDIT: I am a device user, not a hardware OEM, like im certain most of the posters here are, to users of the device it really does not matter at all WHO is forcing the lockdown, the fact that it happens is the issue. Not sure why that very obvious point garners downvotes.
      - vena 15y ago
        It very much changes the issue. That is not an OS developer requiring third-party hardware OEMs prevent loading another OS as part of their licensing agreement. This is fairly specific anti-competitive behaviour, it's not an issue of locking devices in general.
X-Istence 15y ago
Apple manufacturers both the hardware and the software and then sell it, there is no 3rd party involved in this transaction. Microsoft builds the OS and licenses it to a manufacture, they build the device and sell it. At least 3 parties involved. Microsoft's requirements need to be met to be able to license Windows 8 for tablets. Microsoft is forcing manufacturers to lock down their devices or else they aren't allowed to use Windows 8. Google licenses the Android source code/platform/name whatever, and a manufacturer builds the devices. The manufacturer chooses to lock down the boot loader. Google doesn't make any requirements on the manufacturers to lock their devices down. That is where the difference lies. Microsoft is being bad here because they are forcing something on its manufacturers that its manufacturers may not have wanted to implement. I don't see why Apple should have to let people install Windows on an iPad, or for that matter even make it easy for people to do so if they pleased. I don't see why manufacturers should have to let people flash whatever firmware they want to their device. But I do see why Microsoft shouldn't be telling manufacturers that the manufacturers customers can't flash their device if they so pleased.
- dangrossman 15y ago
  > Google doesn't make any requirements on the manufacturers to lock their devices down. But they do. Google has many requirements and if you don't meet them, you won't be licensed the Google apps. That's the same thing Microsoft is doing here. You can choose to make a tablet that doesn't meet their requirements, you just can't sell it with Windows if you do so. Microsoft isn't preventing anyone from making products or selling tablets running other operating systems... just that the ones they sell with Windows can't be re-flashed.
  - X-Istence 15y ago
    There is no requirement from Google to build a device that the customer can't change at will after they purchase it. The manufacturers themselves have locked the boot-loaders not at the will of Google.
    - sounds 15y ago
burgerbrain 15y ago
Your argument seems to assume that I think it is okay for Apple to do what they do... Let me put it this way: 1) Two wrongs do not make a right. 2) Both are worthy of criticism. 3) What Apple does is off topic anyway. This discussion is about Microsoft.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  The argument is about how it is illegal, and the SFLC complaining to governments to fix this. If they force MS to license their software to any OEM, they should similarly force Apple to license Mac OS X to Psystar and also unlock the iPhone and iPad's bootloaders.
  - kstenerud 15y ago
    It's not about forcing companies to license their software; it's about forcing companies to allow unlocking of the bootloader, thus forcing them to compete on features rather than antifeatures (consumer lock-in). Locked bootloaders on general purpose computing devices are bad news for consumers and for innovation in general. Just imagine how the PC landscape would have evolved without clones. I'd be more than happy to see government intervention in cases like these.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    It's anti-consumer. Who cares if it's legal?

kennywinker 15y ago

But we're not talking about just phones and tablets... "[...] yesterday, Qualcomm announced plans to produce Windows 8 tablets and ultrabook-style laptops built around its ARM-based Snapdragon processors" Those will be locked out as well. This is exactly what Cory Doctorow was talking about in his article the other day about "the war on general purpose computing" - (http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html)

cooldeal 15y ago
Sorry, that war was fought and lost won with the iPhone and iPad. If anything, Microsoft is better in the sense that it offers more share of the app cost to the developers and also doesn't charge tithes like Apple does on content.
- fluidcruft 15y ago
  (yet)
- aptwebapps 15y ago
  > Sorry, that war was fought and lost won with the iPhone and iPad. No, not really. There's still a long way to go. And Microsoft's revenue sharing model vs Apple's doesn't have much to do with that.
  - freehunter 15y ago
    This is part of why I bought an HP Touchpad when it wasn't on the fire sale, and a Palm Pre+ before that. The Palm folks (even at HP now) not only don't care that you're hacking their device, they actually actively encourage it. They've gone out of their way to provide an "oh shit" button for when you've completely frazzled the bootloader and nothing else works. The Touchpad runs webOS, Android, and Ubuntu, and HP/Palm doesn't give a shit. Now that their OS is open source, too, I'd love to see the rise of HP/Palm in the hacker community. They're not just accepting of hackers, they actively encourage it in all aspects.
- Steko 15y ago
  "If anything, Microsoft is better in the sense that it offers more share of the app cost to the developers and also doesn't charge tithes like Apple does on content." These are just value propositions from an also ran. Apple takes a cut on sales because that's what store's do. If I sell cereal to a supermarket and you walk in and buy a box, the store does not give me all of that money. Why? Because the store worked hard to get that customer to walk in. Similarly Apple worked hard to make ITMS and App Store work, bringing millions of customers to the apps and music. And no one calls the supermarket's cut a tithe either. Why support MS because they came later, copied the successful innovation and undercut it by a few %? Supporting the company doing the innovating seems like a better path to incentivizing other companies to innovate new products and markets instead of just copying what's successful.
  - cooldeal 15y ago
    >Apple takes a cut on sales because that's what store's do. If I sell cereal to a supermarket and you walk in and buy a box, the store does not give me all of that money. Why? Because the store worked hard to get that customer to walk in. Similarly Apple worked hard to make ITMS and App Store work, bringing millions of customers to the apps and music. And no one calls the supermarket's cut a tithe either. The tithe reference is to the content, not the cut of the cost of an app, which Apple neither hosts nor delivers, but takes a 30% cut of. Eg. http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ Also, why can't your argument extend to ISPs? They have done all the hard work getting the customer, why shouldn't they be able to charge YouTube for allowing them to show ads to their customers?
    - AutoCorrect 15y ago
      they do charge YouTube, it's just hidden in the ISP to ISP agreements.
molmalo 15y ago
But it's still not a monopoly. If you want your ultrabook to run Linux, buy an x86 where you can disable secure mode. If you want an ARM, then Microsoft deserves the same treatment as the others. If Apple can lock its iPad, the same applies to Microsoft.

sounds 15y ago

I think the point here is that Microsoft is requiring additional restrictions that Android does not - when they both use the same handset hardware. Why should we give Microsoft a pass? Because they're the underdog? No. Android is not 100% open (e.g. binary-only kernel modules for proprietary hardware, Google not releasing honeycomb, ...) But that's no excuse for Microsoft to use cryptography against the customer. Microsoft must face the ill-will it generated this way, including the ill-will toward its attempts to mandate UEFI Secure Boot on the PC. This move on the ARM platform will be used (by me and others) to demonstrate that the UEFI Secure Boot requirement on the PC cannot be accepted.

throwaway64 15y ago
Plenty of android devices have a bootloader that is just as locked down as the windows 8 ARM requirements.
- vena 15y ago
  They're not locked down by Google.
  - throwaway64 15y ago
    so what, that does not change the reality of the situation for the people that buy the devices. EDIT: I am a device user, not a hardware OEM, like im certain most of the posters here are, to users of the device it really does not matter at all WHO is forcing the lockdown, the fact that it happens is the issue. Not sure why that very obvious point garners downvotes.
    - vena 15y ago
      It very much changes the issue. That is not an OS developer requiring third-party hardware OEMs prevent loading another OS as part of their licensing agreement. This is fairly specific anti-competitive behaviour, it's not an issue of locking devices in general.

X-Istence 15y ago

Apple manufacturers both the hardware and the software and then sell it, there is no 3rd party involved in this transaction. Microsoft builds the OS and licenses it to a manufacture, they build the device and sell it. At least 3 parties involved. Microsoft's requirements need to be met to be able to license Windows 8 for tablets. Microsoft is forcing manufacturers to lock down their devices or else they aren't allowed to use Windows 8. Google licenses the Android source code/platform/name whatever, and a manufacturer builds the devices. The manufacturer chooses to lock down the boot loader. Google doesn't make any requirements on the manufacturers to lock their devices down. That is where the difference lies. Microsoft is being bad here because they are forcing something on its manufacturers that its manufacturers may not have wanted to implement. I don't see why Apple should have to let people install Windows on an iPad, or for that matter even make it easy for people to do so if they pleased. I don't see why manufacturers should have to let people flash whatever firmware they want to their device. But I do see why Microsoft shouldn't be telling manufacturers that the manufacturers customers can't flash their device if they so pleased.

dangrossman 15y ago
> Google doesn't make any requirements on the manufacturers to lock their devices down. But they do. Google has many requirements and if you don't meet them, you won't be licensed the Google apps. That's the same thing Microsoft is doing here. You can choose to make a tablet that doesn't meet their requirements, you just can't sell it with Windows if you do so. Microsoft isn't preventing anyone from making products or selling tablets running other operating systems... just that the ones they sell with Windows can't be re-flashed.
- X-Istence 15y ago
  There is no requirement from Google to build a device that the customer can't change at will after they purchase it. The manufacturers themselves have locked the boot-loaders not at the will of Google.
  - sounds 15y ago

burgerbrain 15y ago

Your argument seems to assume that I think it is okay for Apple to do what they do... Let me put it this way: 1) Two wrongs do not make a right. 2) Both are worthy of criticism. 3) What Apple does is off topic anyway. This discussion is about Microsoft.

recoiledsnake 15y ago
The argument is about how it is illegal, and the SFLC complaining to governments to fix this. If they force MS to license their software to any OEM, they should similarly force Apple to license Mac OS X to Psystar and also unlock the iPhone and iPad's bootloaders.
- kstenerud 15y ago
  It's not about forcing companies to license their software; it's about forcing companies to allow unlocking of the bootloader, thus forcing them to compete on features rather than antifeatures (consumer lock-in). Locked bootloaders on general purpose computing devices are bad news for consumers and for innovation in general. Just imagine how the PC landscape would have evolved without clones. I'd be more than happy to see government intervention in cases like these.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  It's anti-consumer. Who cares if it's legal?