4 ms·

It is Microsoft that is pushing this.

by giZm0 14y ago

recoiledsnake 14y ago
I am referring to the criticism about ARM devices that Windows RT runs on, not about the x86 version.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  And users of ARM devices shouldn't have the freedom to choose which software they run unless it's one approved by the manufacturer and the companies it serves, right?
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    Did you even read my OP? I never said anything like that. They're calling out the platform which has no marketshare and making zero mention of the iPad which has around 60 million tablets sold. FYI that's an ARM device. So you mean they think iPad users shouldn't have the freedom of choosing which software they run but Windows RT users need to? Right?
    - rbanffy 14y ago
      I think iPad owners should be able to run whatever they want, but that's Apple hardware running Apple software, much like my Sony TV is Sony hardware running Sony spin of Linux. That's why I don't own an iPad. UEFI secure-boot is Microsoft pressuring other companies, companies that have no reason to restrict their users (thus reducing the perceived value of their devices) into making their devices tied to Microsoft software. That'll result in thin margins for hardware makers because they won't be able to differentiate and will have to compete in price. Microsoft, of course, is the only one who will benefit from this because they'll be the only source of software (and upgrades) for those devices. In the 80's, PC makers were dumb enough to commoditize the hardware while Microsoft reaped the benefits of fierce competition. I wonder if tablet makers will be stupid enough to make that same mistake.
      - recoiledsnake 14y ago
        >I think iPad owners should be able to run whatever they want, but that's Apple hardware running Apple software, much like my Sony TV is Sony hardware running Sony spin of Linux How does this distinction matter to the user of the iPad? They buy a tablet, they're able to run only what it came with. How is it better for them because Apple sells the hardware too? >That's why I don't own an iPad. Then don't buy a Windows RT tablet. It's not like they forced the OEMs to cancel their Android tablets. LG and HTC did that themselves without even making Windows RT tablets. >UEFI secure-boot is Microsoft pressuring other companies, companies that have no reason to restrict their users (thus reducing the perceived value of their devices) into making their devices tied to Microsoft software. That'll result in thin margins for hardware makers because they won't be able to differentiate and will have to compete in price Is dual booting phones and tablets such a big differentiator that people will pay a premium for them? Why do many Android tablets and phones come with locked bootloaders? Why doesn't Apple unlock the bootloader and sell more or sell for a higher price then? Hint: 99% of users don't care >In the 80's, PC makers were dumb enough to commoditize the hardware while Microsoft reaped the benefits of fierce competition. I wonder if tablet makers will be stupid enough to make that same mistake This really shows off your inexperience and lack of knowledge. It's the other way around, Dell and Compaq wouldn't exist today if not for MS licensing them MS-DOS when they didn't have to. Because of MS, Dell became a fortune 500 company in just 6 years. Go read about how they started. >I wonder if tablet makers will be stupid enough to make that same mistake. You mean they just continue to sell only Android tablets(which seem to be low margin by the way, so blame Google?)) and it's not really making them any good money. LG and HTC already dropped out. Also you're ignoring how users reaped the benefits of commodotization of the hardware leading to the PC and internet revolution and are focusing on just MS' profits.
        rbanffy 14y ago
        > They buy a tablet Actually, they buy an iPad. Much like you buy a Mac (which is just an exceedingly well designed and built x86 PC). Yet, people don't go to Apple stores to buy a PC - they go there to buy a Mac. > Is dual booting phones and tablets such a big differentiator that people will pay a premium for them? Thanks to licensing, it's more likely users will pay a premium for a tablet that doesn't dual boot, that cannot be upgraded and that cannot be repurposed to run anything other than older Microsoft software. > Hint: 99% of users don't care And, as we all know, millions of Lemmings cannot be wrong. > This really shows off your inexperience and lack of knowledge. I will regard that as an insult and not answer. > Dell and Compaq wouldn't exist today Like Commodore, Atari and Apple never existed, because, of course, because computers started to become useful with the advent of MS-DOS. In fact, the x86 PC (and Microsoft) would not exist in its present form if it weren't for Dell and Compaq and a host of other makers who built commodity hardware. Without this huge market, Microsoft would have to address a myriad of platforms and be unable to concentrate on a single one. Before it became clear the x86 PC would be the mainstream of home computing, they even backed the MSX consortium which was all about compatible (read "commodity") hardware running Microsoft software. It's possible to differentiate around Android. It's not possible to do the same with Windows. It's simple as that. If you could grasp the concept, you would have by now.

It is Microsoft that is pushing this.

by giZm0 14y ago

It is Microsoft that is pushing this.

recoiledsnake 14y ago

I am referring to the criticism about ARM devices that Windows RT runs on, not about the x86 version.

rbanffy 14y ago
And users of ARM devices shouldn't have the freedom to choose which software they run unless it's one approved by the manufacturer and the companies it serves, right?
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  Did you even read my OP? I never said anything like that. They're calling out the platform which has no marketshare and making zero mention of the iPad which has around 60 million tablets sold. FYI that's an ARM device. So you mean they think iPad users shouldn't have the freedom of choosing which software they run but Windows RT users need to? Right?
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    I think iPad owners should be able to run whatever they want, but that's Apple hardware running Apple software, much like my Sony TV is Sony hardware running Sony spin of Linux. That's why I don't own an iPad. UEFI secure-boot is Microsoft pressuring other companies, companies that have no reason to restrict their users (thus reducing the perceived value of their devices) into making their devices tied to Microsoft software. That'll result in thin margins for hardware makers because they won't be able to differentiate and will have to compete in price. Microsoft, of course, is the only one who will benefit from this because they'll be the only source of software (and upgrades) for those devices. In the 80's, PC makers were dumb enough to commoditize the hardware while Microsoft reaped the benefits of fierce competition. I wonder if tablet makers will be stupid enough to make that same mistake.
    - recoiledsnake 14y ago
      >I think iPad owners should be able to run whatever they want, but that's Apple hardware running Apple software, much like my Sony TV is Sony hardware running Sony spin of Linux How does this distinction matter to the user of the iPad? They buy a tablet, they're able to run only what it came with. How is it better for them because Apple sells the hardware too? >That's why I don't own an iPad. Then don't buy a Windows RT tablet. It's not like they forced the OEMs to cancel their Android tablets. LG and HTC did that themselves without even making Windows RT tablets. >UEFI secure-boot is Microsoft pressuring other companies, companies that have no reason to restrict their users (thus reducing the perceived value of their devices) into making their devices tied to Microsoft software. That'll result in thin margins for hardware makers because they won't be able to differentiate and will have to compete in price Is dual booting phones and tablets such a big differentiator that people will pay a premium for them? Why do many Android tablets and phones come with locked bootloaders? Why doesn't Apple unlock the bootloader and sell more or sell for a higher price then? Hint: 99% of users don't care >In the 80's, PC makers were dumb enough to commoditize the hardware while Microsoft reaped the benefits of fierce competition. I wonder if tablet makers will be stupid enough to make that same mistake This really shows off your inexperience and lack of knowledge. It's the other way around, Dell and Compaq wouldn't exist today if not for MS licensing them MS-DOS when they didn't have to. Because of MS, Dell became a fortune 500 company in just 6 years. Go read about how they started. >I wonder if tablet makers will be stupid enough to make that same mistake. You mean they just continue to sell only Android tablets(which seem to be low margin by the way, so blame Google?)) and it's not really making them any good money. LG and HTC already dropped out. Also you're ignoring how users reaped the benefits of commodotization of the hardware leading to the PC and internet revolution and are focusing on just MS' profits.
      - rbanffy 14y ago
        > They buy a tablet Actually, they buy an iPad. Much like you buy a Mac (which is just an exceedingly well designed and built x86 PC). Yet, people don't go to Apple stores to buy a PC - they go there to buy a Mac. > Is dual booting phones and tablets such a big differentiator that people will pay a premium for them? Thanks to licensing, it's more likely users will pay a premium for a tablet that doesn't dual boot, that cannot be upgraded and that cannot be repurposed to run anything other than older Microsoft software. > Hint: 99% of users don't care And, as we all know, millions of Lemmings cannot be wrong. > This really shows off your inexperience and lack of knowledge. I will regard that as an insult and not answer. > Dell and Compaq wouldn't exist today Like Commodore, Atari and Apple never existed, because, of course, because computers started to become useful with the advent of MS-DOS. In fact, the x86 PC (and Microsoft) would not exist in its present form if it weren't for Dell and Compaq and a host of other makers who built commodity hardware. Without this huge market, Microsoft would have to address a myriad of platforms and be unable to concentrate on a single one. Before it became clear the x86 PC would be the mainstream of home computing, they even backed the MSX consortium which was all about compatible (read "commodity") hardware running Microsoft software. It's possible to differentiate around Android. It's not possible to do the same with Windows. It's simple as that. If you could grasp the concept, you would have by now.