Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Jul 2012 21:12 UTC
Permalink for comment 527390
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-06
Not at all. UEFI doesn't prevent OEMs from installing any other operating system. The OEM gets to decide what gets installed on a device (Linux, Windows, etc); and, by extension, the consumer gets to decide which device they want. The consumer is under no pressure to choose any particular device.
You have a strange definition of "pressure". Offering OEMs a financial incentive to install Windows everywhere isn't banned by the consent decree. What is banned is (1) charging per-processor royalties even if the OEM doesn't install Windows, and (2) charging the OEM more than other OEMs if they don't install Windows (punitive terms). But Microsoft isn't doing either one of those things. OEMs are under no pressure to accept Microsoft's financial incentives; in fact, they're free to accept counter-proposals from any other OS vendor (Red Hat, Google, etc). That is the very essence of competition and, while Microsoft's size certainly gives them an advantage in offering lucrative financial terms, the court doesn't guarantee that competitors will be able to match all others. And nobody is asserting that Microsoft is "dumping" its software in the market at below-cost. So, quite frankly, you're wrong.
Edited 2012-07-19 21:22 UTC