3 ms·

>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 bee

>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?
    - toldyouso2022 2y ago
      Yeah, I used to be a libertarian too, and heavily invested, and the thing is that someone will do a bad thing with the law eventually, so you may as well do good things with the law instead of cucking out because bad things will be done wheter you do good things or not.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        I don't actually consider myself a libertarian, I just generally haven't found big governments to be the best solution long term and would rather see them treated as a last resort. Its not about doing good or bad things, and I don't see myself as having cucked out either. Someone will do what I consider a bad thing whether or not there are laws saying they shouldn't. And ultimately, who am I to say what they can't do as long as it isn't stepping on anyone else's rights? In this more specific topic, I don't like how Microsoft has been setting any semblance of privacy on fire but I also don't see why I would need the government to fix that. Consumers have other choices, and if people care enough it will hit Microsoft's bottom dollar. With regards to Teams, I have actually been on teams where that tool was so broadly hated that they wouldn't use it whether free or not. If Microsoft was somehow blocking other chat apps on Windows that'd be a whole other ball game.
    - BigJono 2y ago
      Why does something need to be a "fundamental right" to be worth protecting? Huge swathes of the population have been using operating systems on personal computers mostly the same for thirty years. How does it benefit society for one or two companies to build a moat then go to the casino and bet the entire industry on black? Microsoft isn't Uber. Their moat is decades of work on kernels, drivers and backwards compatibility that can't be replicated overnight by a competitor. If they self-immolate to chase some idiotic AI/cloud fad, that does a large amount of real economic damage. I don't even know if I want any regulations in the tech industry, especially after all the e2e encryption bullshit everyone (especially my country's government) is trying to pull. But if I did, this would be right at the top of the list for risk/reward. If cloud sync and AI are so good then sell cloud sync and AI, don't risk established markets to try and flog it off on people that don't want it with dark patterns.

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?
  - toldyouso2022 2y ago
    Yeah, I used to be a libertarian too, and heavily invested, and the thing is that someone will do a bad thing with the law eventually, so you may as well do good things with the law instead of cucking out because bad things will be done wheter you do good things or not.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I don't actually consider myself a libertarian, I just generally haven't found big governments to be the best solution long term and would rather see them treated as a last resort. Its not about doing good or bad things, and I don't see myself as having cucked out either. Someone will do what I consider a bad thing whether or not there are laws saying they shouldn't. And ultimately, who am I to say what they can't do as long as it isn't stepping on anyone else's rights? In this more specific topic, I don't like how Microsoft has been setting any semblance of privacy on fire but I also don't see why I would need the government to fix that. Consumers have other choices, and if people care enough it will hit Microsoft's bottom dollar. With regards to Teams, I have actually been on teams where that tool was so broadly hated that they wouldn't use it whether free or not. If Microsoft was somehow blocking other chat apps on Windows that'd be a whole other ball game.
  - BigJono 2y ago
    Why does something need to be a "fundamental right" to be worth protecting? Huge swathes of the population have been using operating systems on personal computers mostly the same for thirty years. How does it benefit society for one or two companies to build a moat then go to the casino and bet the entire industry on black? Microsoft isn't Uber. Their moat is decades of work on kernels, drivers and backwards compatibility that can't be replicated overnight by a competitor. If they self-immolate to chase some idiotic AI/cloud fad, that does a large amount of real economic damage. I don't even know if I want any regulations in the tech industry, especially after all the e2e encryption bullshit everyone (especially my country's government) is trying to pull. But if I did, this would be right at the top of the list for risk/reward. If cloud sync and AI are so good then sell cloud sync and AI, don't risk established markets to try and flog it off on people that don't want it with dark patterns.