Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Jul 2012 21:12 UTC
Windows The moment Microsoft announced it would lock other browsers out of being installed on Windows RT, we all knew regulatory bodies the world over were wringing their hands. Today, this has been confirmed: in the wake of an investigation into Microsoft not complying with the existing antitrust rulings regarding browser choice, the EU has also announced it's investigating Windows 8 x86 and Windows 8 RT (ARM).
Thread beginning with comment 527431
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Comment by Drumhellar
by tomcat on Fri 20th Jul 2012 04:10 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Drumhellar"
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

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.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[10]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Alfman on Fri 20th Jul 2012 05:29 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by Drumhellar"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

tomcat,

"Read for comprehension. I said 'UEFI doesn't prevent OEMs from installing any other operating system'"

I heard you the first time, it's still microsoft ordering OEMs to ban other operating systems on ARM devices that include windows. This is well documented.

For an OEM wanting to ship both windows and linux, they're now forced to ship separate skus, which doubles many of costs that go into a single sku of the product. Consider: Different packaging. The need to stock additional inventory for each model. Creating customer confusion over having multiple physically identical models. Double the risk of unsold inventory if one of the models doesn't sell. Even the retailer needs to allocate additional floor space. These are all major disincentives to offering a separate non-windows version, you can't just write these off as insignificant. An OEM might be happy to serve a 2% linux market share if one product could be sold to both windows and linux buyers. However many OEMS and retailers will understandably baulk at creating a separate product for only 2% of the market.

You might argue that these aren't microsoft's problem, however due to UEFI restrictions, it is their *fault*.

I know you are a microsoft apologist, and you think it is their right to dictate hardware restrictions when OEMs want to bundle windows. Perhaps that is true, but we must stop pretending that it has no influence on choices of OEMs and consumers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: Comment by Drumhellar
by tomcat on Fri 20th Jul 2012 21:41 in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by Drumhellar"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I heard you the first time, it's still microsoft ordering OEMs to ban other operating systems on ARM devices that include windows. This is well documented.


Not at all. Microsoft is simply telling OEMs that they need to implement UEFI if they want to install Windows on ARM. Ultimately, it's the OEM's decision. They're under no obligation to do what Microsoft wants. And that's the point: Microsoft can't use its dominance with x86 to compel OEMs to do anything here.

For an OEM wanting to ship both windows and linux, they're now forced to ship separate skus, which doubles many of costs that go into a single sku of the product.


Do you have any evidence that an OEM wants to do that?

Consider: Different packaging. The need to stock additional inventory for each model. Creating customer confusion over having multiple physically identical models. Double the risk of unsold inventory if one of the models doesn't sell. Even the retailer needs to allocate additional floor space.


These are all bogus assertions. OEMs have countless phone models, all running different operating systems. None of them run two operating systems.

You might argue that these aren't microsoft's problem, however due to UEFI restrictions, it is their *fault*.


Sure, but it isn't an antitrust issue. Which was the whole point of this discussion.

I know you are a microsoft apologist...


No, I'm an advocate of not pretending that everything has to cater to the lame whims of open sores proponents.

... and you think it is their right to dictate hardware restrictions when OEMs want to bundle windows. Perhaps that is true, but we must stop pretending that it has no influence on choices of OEMs and consumers.


Again, provide any evidence that OEMs and consumers want multiple operating systems on their mobile devices. That's a bullshit assertion.

Reply Parent Score: 3