To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"UEFI doesn't prevent OEMs from installing any other operating system."
Actually, that's precisely what it does when combined with microsoft's requirement that OEM ARM hardware must not boot anything but microsoft's own OS. I don't presume you care about any of this, but you should at least understand it. OEMS should be allowed to sell ARM devices that are advertised as both windows 8 and linux compatible but microsoft doesn't permit it.
"You have a strange definition of 'pressure'. Offering OEMs a financial incentive to install Windows everywhere isn't banned by the consent decree."
Call it what you will, but it is still a valid rebuttal to your assertion that microsoft's desktop monopoly in no way gives them leverage on new ARM devices.
Edited 2012-07-20 00:59 UTC
Read for comprehension. I said "UEFI doesn't prevent OEMs from installing any other operating system". You buy an ARM machine as a packaged unit. Complete with OS and device. You don't reinstall the OS. As other posters have suggested, if you want an ARM device with Linux on it, buy a Linux-based ARM device.





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