5 ms·

> It's a shame that toothless regulators can't do anything about it There's no law or regulation that requires computer makers to always allow operation and se

> It's a shame that toothless regulators can't do anything about it There's no law or regulation that requires computer makers to always allow operation and set-up while offline. ...I think having a law to require MS to allow offline set-up by all users would be an overreach, but a reasonable alternative would be to require Microsoft to sell Windows LTSC to anyone who asks for it, not just Software Assurance and MSDN Subscribers.

mihaic 2y ago
> I think having a law to require MS to allow offline set-up by all users would be an overreach Why? Do you think it would lead to a better or worse world?
- chii 2y ago
  overreach of regulations leads to a worse world. Your options are to simply not use microsoft windows. it is a cost that is borne by you (ala the switching cost). There can be no such an option where you get to keep what you have, but also legislate exactly what you desire, without paying any of the costs.
  - mihaic 2y ago
    I agree with the principle of overreach being wrong. I'm just asking why you'd think it would be an overreach in this case, when the entire world basically has 3 real choices for OS: Windows, MacOS and Linux, and a lot of the business world is bound by legacy reasons to Windows. I understand that there are downsides to over-regulating, but there are also downsides to under-regulating.
graemep 2y ago
No specific law, but competition laws are quite generic in their requirements so it is possible that they do need to allow users that much control over their machines.
outofpaper 2y ago
>having a law to require MS to allow offline set-up by all users would be an overreach HOW? Until now we haven't needed a law because OS developers haven't been this brazen. In any case there are likely actually a few laws that can be used to litigate the you shouldn't need to be online to install and setup a computer. I'll bet that if they don't fix it themselves a class action will be incoming n citing privacy or child safety or maybe some other laws.
- immibis 2y ago
  Hasn't Apple always been this brazen, and never been punished for it? Google phones too. Apple's current punishment is for something else.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Why would there be a law covering such a specific and legally unimportant detail? And do you really want to live under a government that regulates everything in such specific detail? Microsoft can choose to support or not support offline accounts. Users can decide if they care and if they'd rather use something other than Windows. What's the problem exactly?
  - temac 2y ago
    The problem could be abuse of a dominant position. Maybe Mac has now a market share good enough so that MS can pretend they are not in a dominant position in this sector, although if all it takes for an industry to abuse their users is that they all commit it together, each with their still high market share, that would also be an issue for citizens. Esp. in duopoly cases.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      But again, why should the government regulate this? We don't have a fundamental right to own and use computers, or to offline accounts for our computers. What legal line could be drawn to allow the government to regulate this without regulating all kinds of product and business decisions? Would it be reasonable for them to regulate what colors of crayons must be included in ever box of Crayola crayons? And if not, what is the legal boundry allowing them to say what features an OS has without allowing the crayon regulation?
gostsamo 2y ago
You can have a regulation requiring that devices are not dependent on internet services and that people can manage them themselves. This is consumer protection 101 where people are protected from predatory business practices.
lozenge 2y ago
The number of auto opt in updates clearly violates privacy law. The ease of accidentally agreeing and the inability to view contracts before purchase violates consumer law.
pndy 2y ago
> I think having a law to require MS to allow offline set-up by all users would be an overreach Honestly, no - it wouldn't be considering that for many decades we could use Windows without being connected to Microsoft cloud services. At the moment MS is "only" enforcing an online account during OOBE.* The next step will be an unavoidable Windows-as-as-service product with "subscribe to remove ads and unlock xyz feature" - that's the goal they're heading for years. They could do as simple as having two versions of OS: Windows Free with ads, telemetry, mandatory online account and a paid Windows Pro with all these limitations gone, with an offline account and more control for the end-user. And that's what the regulators, govt's agencies should really make happen. Sadly they prefer working over content scanning and damaging encryption, violating our privacy while pleasing entertainment industry with wild goose-chasing pirates. [*] - last time I check in W10, singing out right after OOBE and reverting to a local account still puts residual traces all around the profile to the point that you never are truly signed out.

mihaic 2y ago

> I think having a law to require MS to allow offline set-up by all users would be an overreach Why? Do you think it would lead to a better or worse world?

chii 2y ago
overreach of regulations leads to a worse world. Your options are to simply not use microsoft windows. it is a cost that is borne by you (ala the switching cost). There can be no such an option where you get to keep what you have, but also legislate exactly what you desire, without paying any of the costs.
- mihaic 2y ago
  I agree with the principle of overreach being wrong. I'm just asking why you'd think it would be an overreach in this case, when the entire world basically has 3 real choices for OS: Windows, MacOS and Linux, and a lot of the business world is bound by legacy reasons to Windows. I understand that there are downsides to over-regulating, but there are also downsides to under-regulating.

graemep 2y ago

No specific law, but competition laws are quite generic in their requirements so it is possible that they do need to allow users that much control over their machines.

outofpaper 2y ago

>having a law to require MS to allow offline set-up by all users would be an overreach HOW? Until now we haven't needed a law because OS developers haven't been this brazen. In any case there are likely actually a few laws that can be used to litigate the you shouldn't need to be online to install and setup a computer. I'll bet that if they don't fix it themselves a class action will be incoming n citing privacy or child safety or maybe some other laws.

immibis 2y ago
Hasn't Apple always been this brazen, and never been punished for it? Google phones too. Apple's current punishment is for something else.
_heimdall 2y ago
Why would there be a law covering such a specific and legally unimportant detail? And do you really want to live under a government that regulates everything in such specific detail? Microsoft can choose to support or not support offline accounts. Users can decide if they care and if they'd rather use something other than Windows. What's the problem exactly?
- temac 2y ago
  The problem could be abuse of a dominant position. Maybe Mac has now a market share good enough so that MS can pretend they are not in a dominant position in this sector, although if all it takes for an industry to abuse their users is that they all commit it together, each with their still high market share, that would also be an issue for citizens. Esp. in duopoly cases.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    But again, why should the government regulate this? We don't have a fundamental right to own and use computers, or to offline accounts for our computers. What legal line could be drawn to allow the government to regulate this without regulating all kinds of product and business decisions? Would it be reasonable for them to regulate what colors of crayons must be included in ever box of Crayola crayons? And if not, what is the legal boundry allowing them to say what features an OS has without allowing the crayon regulation?

gostsamo 2y ago

You can have a regulation requiring that devices are not dependent on internet services and that people can manage them themselves. This is consumer protection 101 where people are protected from predatory business practices.

lozenge 2y ago

The number of auto opt in updates clearly violates privacy law. The ease of accidentally agreeing and the inability to view contracts before purchase violates consumer law.

pndy 2y ago

> I think having a law to require MS to allow offline set-up by all users would be an overreach Honestly, no - it wouldn't be considering that for many decades we could use Windows without being connected to Microsoft cloud services. At the moment MS is "only" enforcing an online account during OOBE.* The next step will be an unavoidable Windows-as-as-service product with "subscribe to remove ads and unlock xyz feature" - that's the goal they're heading for years. They could do as simple as having two versions of OS: Windows Free with ads, telemetry, mandatory online account and a paid Windows Pro with all these limitations gone, with an offline account and more control for the end-user. And that's what the regulators, govt's agencies should really make happen. Sadly they prefer working over content scanning and damaging encryption, violating our privacy while pleasing entertainment industry with wild goose-chasing pirates. [*] - last time I check in W10, singing out right after OOBE and reverting to a local account still puts residual traces all around the profile to the point that you never are truly signed out.