Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Oct 2012 12:14 UTC
Windows After yesterday's TV advertisement, Microsoft finally unveiled the pricing for its Surface tablet - the ARM Windows RT version that is. The cheapest Surface - 32GB without touch cover - will set you back $499. They're aiming straight for iPad pricing here, ignoring the popular cheaper Android offerings. Update: only available in Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom and the United States. As usual.
Thread beginning with comment 538949
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

You don't understand Microsoft's monopoly. You don't understand the scam they sell to the public with the help of their oem partners. The pre-build desktops that you see in retail stores (HP, Toshiba, etc) are practically crippleware because the hardware only responds to Windows,


That is the hardware vendor fault not Windows, My dell Laptop works fine with every OS I can throw at it ... this isn't Microsoft's fault it is the hardware vendor.

what's worse is some cases it only responds to that licensed version of Windows. Meaning that if you reformat your HP/Dell/Sony desktop it will be already be crippled.


Absolute fucking rubbish.

Microsoft is a monopoly not because of their market-share or through the oem deals. Microsoft is a monopoly because of the copyright laws in software.


The same copyright laws that protect open source software. If there wasn't any copyright law, Oracle or IBM would be selling their own proprietary version of linux.

The copyright laws in software prevents any modification and redistribution of Windows. For example mac os x is made up of parts of bsd. Let's say a linux vendor decides to mix the nt kernel with linux, they would be in violation of a copyright law. If I were to fork windows and make it open source I would go to jail. In the foss world you see forks all the time of linux and bsd. Why can't a software vendor fork windows or use parts of windows, especially since it's practically used everywhere?


Because Microsoft like Apple have released it with a particular software license that forbids you from forking it. As the maker of their software it is their right to release it under any license they choose to.

So it is the copyright and patent laws that allow microsoft to standardize the desktop market in their favor. Because they have the market-share that attracts developers and hardware manufacturers (this is known as the network effect) the consumers only have one choice if they want to get video game compatibility or if they want to get a certain hardware working, because the other operating systems don't have that support. This is called vendor-lock in because consumers have to use windows in order to get something done.


Android and iOS also have this effect. This is how markets work. It is ridiculous to argue that this is some how wrong.

If the copyright laws did not exist in software, or if it was legal to modify and redistribute windows, this **** wouldn't happen. But copyright and patent laws do exist. I mean it is a crime to copy "the look and feel" of apple products. We all know that apple's litigation history is infamous. Can you imagine what would happen if some competitor use parts parts of the windows source code?


If copyright law didn't exist there would be no open source software either and there would be no choice.

Reply Parent Score: 3

skpg Member since:
2012-09-21

That is the hardware vendor fault not Windows, My dell Laptop works fine with every OS I can throw at it ... this isn't Microsoft's fault it is the hardware vendor.

Hardware vendors have been doing this for decades. It's practically a scam. If I spend $700 on television it better be working 100%, but if I spend $700 on a PC desktop there is a high probability of it being crippled. That's what a monopoly is they sell shoddy products at inflated prices. Microsoft and their OEM partners sell a scam product. What's worse is that you need a serial key to use windows so it makes a hassle to reinstall windows.

Because Microsoft like Apple have released it with a particular software license that forbids you from forking it. As the maker of their software it is their right to release it under any license they choose to.

A license is permission. It only arises when you have the right to stop someone, and then you grant permission. But the right to stop flows from copyright. Licenses would largely evaporate without copyright law to prop it up. ie people could ignore any “license terms” a software designer tried to impose.

Absolute f--king rubbish..

Oh that's true, because the drivers in a pre-built computer can sometimes only respond to a certain operating system. Not all of them, but some do (HP computers) trust me I know this from experience.

The same copyright laws that protect open source software. If there wasn't any copyright law, Oracle or IBM would be selling their own proprietary version of linux.

BSD licenses is fine with either open source or proprietary. The problem is because software is covered by both patent and copyright restrictions then it becomes a legal nightmare. The one thing that open source software does prove is that copyrights are not necessary for software innovation and in fact that they are counter productive in many ways.

The most obvious example of this is that the internet is built on open source software. There is NO WAY that the internet would function to day if it was not due to open source software. If companies choose to retain full copyright restrictions then there is no way in hell that the internet and world wide web could function as cheaply and as efficiently as it does now.

If copyright law didn't exist there would be no open source software either and there would be no choice..

If copyright law didn't exist free software would be much more popular. If a software developer doesn't want to release their source code, then they don't have to it. They release the files in binary format, nothing wrong with that. But there would be be an incentive for developers to release their source code. Closed source software wouldn't go away and that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Edited 2012-10-18 21:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It's practically a scam. If I spend $700 on television it better be working 100%, but if I spend $700 on a PC desktop there is a high probability of it being crippled. That's what a monopoly is they sell shoddy products at inflated prices. Microsoft and their OEM partners sell a scam product.

Your TV doesn't really work in most countries, on most broadcast systems and/or local standard of mains power... (that's what the equivalent of an OS & drivers & apps would be, for a TV)

BTW, the Internet runs on Cisco and Juniper switches, on their closed OS. And GPL is a copyright license, it wouldn't work without it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

I guess you must be living on the planet Zog where Italian Steel (as used in your bike frame) is top quality instead of the same rubbish that goes into Fiat cars.

Reply Parent Score: 1