Actually, I remember back in 2009 when there was an outcry because Microsoft launched an update wich could stop users from installing Linux on their Xbox 360 [1].
So, your comment does not apply to Microsoft. They can make their own hardware, buy they will still be criticized, basically, just because they are Microsoft.
This is not a good argument: you cannot buy a tablet without operating system and install something later - you buy the package of tablet hardware with operating system.
How I see what Microsoft does now, they simply say to vendors: if you want to sell your hardware with our system, these are our requirements. Given that vendor can sell same tablet with, say, Android, what's the problem here? They won't be allowed to put Windows logo on the tablet, but I guess it's not a big deal.
Another thing that bothers me in this media noise about "Linux lockout": vendors are locking down their tablets and phones right now, without any Microsoft help - where's the public outcry?
vendors are locking down their tablets and phones right now, without any Microsoft help - where's the public outcry?
There's a difference between a hardware manufacturer voluntarily choosing to lock down its own hardware (which is bad), and an independent operating system vendor forcing hardware manufacturers to lock down their hardware (which is anticompetitive).
Besides, there's plenty of outcry about locked-down phones and tablets, which is why HTC announced that they are no longer locking the bootloader on their devices.
Look, Microsoft does not prohibit Samsung selling their Galaxy Tab with whatever Samsung wants to ship. They prohibit Samsung selling their Galaxy Tab with Windows 8 ARM pre-installed on it. This - tablet AND Windows 8 - is a ONE product, hence you cannot divide h/w vendor and OS vendor. This is as simple as that. Samsung is free to not to ship tablets with Windows 8 ARM - how is that anti-competitive?
ARM devices are not supposed to be fiddled with by customers in their current state, PCs are. This business model is a status quo right now, like it or not, and Microsoft plays by the rules. The game is different in PCs and Microsoft has a different position on lockdown there.
There are two critical differences between Microsoft's lockdown and the status quo of the ARM tablet market:
1. The status quo in the tablet market is for hardware manufacturers to decide whether to lock down their boot loader. Microsoft (who is not a hardware manufacturer) would force hardware manufacturers to lock the boot loader of any ARM devices running Windows 8.
2. Not all ARM devices are tablets and phones. ARM-based netbooks (i.e. miniature general-purpose PCs) have been available for a long time, and there's an expectation that you can install whatever OS you want on a general-purpose PC. Microsoft's ARM lockdown rules (as quoted on the previous HN discussion of the subject) would apply to devices that people expect to be able to customize.
1 - Yes, Microsoft will force vendor... if vendor wants to ship their device with Microsoft OS. That's how they structure their deal with vendor. I seriously fail to see the problem here: Windows 8 ARM doesn't even exist as a commercial product and all vendors are happily shipping Android devices left and right. So, come Windows 8 ARM tomorrow - what, Android will suddenly cease to exist? Does Microsoft provision prohibit vendor from shipping same/similar hardware without logo with other OS installed? This happens right now with phones: same hardware goes for both Android and Windows Phone, no questions asked.
In my opinion, this whole "logo requirements" thing is blown out of a proportion: there's no commercial product with Windows 8 ARM, almost all Android devices are locked down, yet Microsoft gets all the heat.
2 - Presence of a keyboard doesn't make toy device a lesser toy with same toy rules applied. Besides, my $20 says that the moment we see MacBook Air on ARM or Windows 8 ARM netbook, we'll see Google revitalizing their Chromebook story or shoveling Android onto netbook devices (ASUS Transformer anyone?) and vendors happily supporting them.
> The game is different in PCs and Microsoft has a different position on lockdown there.
This is because of the anti-trust action against them. Everyone remembers the Navigator part of the case, but there was also the case of them preventing Hitachi from releasing machines with BeOS installed as the default operating system. By the time Be was awarded damages, they had run out of cash and shut down.
So don't think it's because MS perceive the game as different; it's because they lost in the courts. And I would imagine that any of the vendors would do the same if they could, regardless of architecture.
It is already done and it was done by Apple and other vendors who lock down another, supposedly open, platform. Microsoft doesn't even have anything shipped yet.
The thing that worries me is that it seems likely that we'll see ARM-based laptops and maybe even desktops soon. I don't like the locked-down nature of mobile devices but I can tolerate it because I still have a laptop that lets me do whatever I want with it.
