Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in the tablet or phone markets. Heck, it's barely a market participant. If Apple doesn't have to let people install Windows on an iPad, then the same should apply to Microsoft. This time, there's no "but there's a monopoly and the rules are different for monopolies" excuse.
I think the point here is that Microsoft is requiring additional restrictions that Android does not - when they both use the same handset hardware.
Why should we give Microsoft a pass? Because they're the underdog? No. Android is not 100% open (e.g. binary-only kernel modules for proprietary hardware, Google not releasing honeycomb, ...) But that's no excuse for Microsoft to use cryptography against the customer.
Microsoft must face the ill-will it generated this way, including the ill-will toward its attempts to mandate UEFI Secure Boot on the PC. This move on the ARM platform will be used (by me and others) to demonstrate that the UEFI Secure Boot requirement on the PC cannot be accepted.
so what, that does not change the reality of the situation for the people that buy the devices.
EDIT: I am a device user, not a hardware OEM, like im certain most of the posters here are, to users of the device it really does not matter at all WHO is forcing the lockdown, the fact that it happens is the issue. Not sure why that very obvious point garners downvotes.
It very much changes the issue. That is not an OS developer requiring third-party hardware OEMs prevent loading another OS as part of their licensing agreement.
This is fairly specific anti-competitive behaviour, it's not an issue of locking devices in general.
you've just made exactly the point vena was making: "it only prevents the end users from doing things." Using OEM requirements for Windows-certified ARM devices is very similar to the bundling requirements Microsoft was convicted of in US v Microsoft.
Also, what you're suggesting with "The OEM can have two versions of every tablet/phone" places the costs on the OEM, where margins are razor thin. Be fair - put the burden on Microsoft to stop creating artificial barriers to entry.
In addition, Microsoft responded in US v Microsoft (1998) to the requirement to unbundle IE by offering to "offer manufacturers a choice: one version of Windows that was obsolete, or another that did not work properly." Now is it fair to offer OEMs this same choice -- ship with Windows 7 or deliberately break the device so it cannot boot properly? I don't believe that's fair.
How about you try iOS where you can't even install a competing browser, forget about one being bundled. Why is that legal?
Because Windows was deemed a monopoly in the late 1990s. Since Win32 programs won't even run on ARM tablets, I fail to see how what you point out is relevant at all.
>Also, what you're suggesting with "The OEM can have two versions of every tablet/phone" places the costs on the OEM, where margins are razor thin. Be fair - put the burden on Microsoft to stop creating artificial barriers to entry.
There are a zillion tablets out that run Android and some of them can run Ubuntu too. What artificial barriers to entry are you talking about? OEMs needn't even pay a licensing fee unlike with Windows, thus they can be cheaper. Microsoft is already burdened by that.
Just because Apple is more evil than Microsoft does not me we should give Microsoft a free pass. This is exactly the sort of detrimental behavior everybody except Apple/Microsoft would be better off without.
There are two different "we"s here. There's "we" as in constituents of a government this article wants to regulate this activity, then there's "we" as in potential consumers of these products. I'm merely arguing that, unlike this blog/article/whatever, we should not be pushing government to deny Microsoft's right to enter into agreements with manufacturers to make secure boot a requirement for certain Windows-certified devices. The other "we" can make moral judgements of the practice, I have no problem with that.
This doesn't prevent the OEMs from doing anything, it only prevents the end users from doing things. The OEM can have two versions of every tablet/phone they make, one that's Windows-certified with UEFI and another identical one that's not Windows-certified that they can offer with Android, Linux, or whatever. All this agreement says is that you can't sell Windows on a device that can be flashed with a different OS afterwards.
So this creates devices sold with Microsoft software that can only run Microsoft software. It does not stop anyone from selling devices with other operating systems, even the same manufacturers with identical hardware. Should Microsoft not be allowed to offer these computers? If consumers don't like it they can vote with their dollars and buy the Android/Ubuntu/WebOS tablet -- they just can't buy the Windows one then delete Windows and install Ubuntu.
But it's still not a monopoly. If you want your ultrabook to run Linux, buy an x86 where you can disable secure mode. If you want an ARM, then Microsoft deserves the same treatment as the others. If Apple can lock its iPad, the same applies to Microsoft.
Sorry, that war was fought and lost won with the iPhone and iPad.
If anything, Microsoft is better in the sense that it offers more share of the app cost to the developers and also doesn't charge tithes like Apple does on content.
This is part of why I bought an HP Touchpad when it wasn't on the fire sale, and a Palm Pre+ before that. The Palm folks (even at HP now) not only don't care that you're hacking their device, they actually actively encourage it. They've gone out of their way to provide an "oh shit" button for when you've completely frazzled the bootloader and nothing else works. The Touchpad runs webOS, Android, and Ubuntu, and HP/Palm doesn't give a shit.
Now that their OS is open source, too, I'd love to see the rise of HP/Palm in the hacker community. They're not just accepting of hackers, they actively encourage it in all aspects.
"If anything, Microsoft is better in the sense that it offers more share of the app cost to the developers and also doesn't charge tithes like Apple does on content."
These are just value propositions from an also ran.
Apple takes a cut on sales because that's what store's do. If I sell cereal to a supermarket and you walk in and buy a box, the store does not give me all of that money. Why? Because the store worked hard to get that customer to walk in. Similarly Apple worked hard to make ITMS and App Store work, bringing millions of customers to the apps and music. And no one calls the supermarket's cut a tithe either.
Why support MS because they came later, copied the successful innovation and undercut it by a few %? Supporting the company doing the innovating seems like a better path to incentivizing other companies to innovate new products and markets instead of just copying what's successful.
>Apple takes a cut on sales because that's what store's do. If I sell cereal to a supermarket and you walk in and buy a box, the store does not give me all of that money. Why? Because the store worked hard to get that customer to walk in. Similarly Apple worked hard to make ITMS and App Store work, bringing millions of customers to the apps and music. And no one calls the supermarket's cut a tithe either.
The tithe reference is to the content, not the cut of the cost of an app, which Apple neither hosts nor delivers, but takes a 30% cut of.
Also, why can't your argument extend to ISPs? They have done all the hard work getting the customer, why shouldn't they be able to charge YouTube for allowing them to show ads to their customers?
Apple manufacturers both the hardware and the software and then sell it, there is no 3rd party involved in this transaction.
Microsoft builds the OS and licenses it to a manufacture, they build the device and sell it. At least 3 parties involved.
Microsoft's requirements need to be met to be able to license Windows 8 for tablets. Microsoft is forcing manufacturers to lock down their devices or else they aren't allowed to use Windows 8.
Google licenses the Android source code/platform/name whatever, and a manufacturer builds the devices. The manufacturer chooses to lock down the boot loader.
Google doesn't make any requirements on the manufacturers to lock their devices down.
That is where the difference lies. Microsoft is being bad here because they are forcing something on its manufacturers that its manufacturers may not have wanted to implement.
I don't see why Apple should have to let people install Windows on an iPad, or for that matter even make it easy for people to do so if they pleased. I don't see why manufacturers should have to let people flash whatever firmware they want to their device. But I do see why Microsoft shouldn't be telling manufacturers that the manufacturers customers can't flash their device if they so pleased.
So it's bad for Microsoft to force rules onto the manufacturers, but not for the manufacturers to force rules onto the consumers? How come?
In my opinion, both are bad. No, the manufacturers shouldn't have to make it easy (or make any effort at all) to help consumers install other OSs, but locking up the devices on purpose is no better than what MS is doing.
> Google doesn't make any requirements on the manufacturers to lock their devices down.
But they do. Google has many requirements and if you don't meet them, you won't be licensed the Google apps. That's the same thing Microsoft is doing here. You can choose to make a tablet that doesn't meet their requirements, you just can't sell it with Windows if you do so.
Microsoft isn't preventing anyone from making products or selling tablets running other operating systems... just that the ones they sell with Windows can't be re-flashed.
There is no requirement from Google to build a device that the customer can't change at will after they purchase it. The manufacturers themselves have locked the boot-loaders not at the will of Google.
Add to that the fact that Google releases the Android source code. Manufacturers do produce Android derivatives (e.g. Kindle Fire) by removing the Google branding. And HTC just relented by unlocking their bootloaders, providing at least one data point that customers do want the ability to load their own OS.
Must we relearn the lessons from the PC all over again?
Actually there is, sort of. The new Asus Transformer Prime comes with an encrypted signed boot loader. They will give you a tool to allow it to boot unsigned code, but according to Asus, this will cause you to lose the ability to view Google Videos (as per Google requirements).
They don't expect manufacturers to lock down the devices.
Their flagship devices, which are supposed to set the bar for other Android phones, are deliberately not locked down to set an example.
"They don't expect manufacturers to lock down the devices."
He's not saying they do. No one is saying they do. That is the very definition of a straw man argument.
Dan Grossman is saying Google has a host of other compliance requirements. Why does Microsoft compliance requirement X cross some terrible line that Google and Apple requirements W, Y and Z don't?
This requirement negatively affects a rounding error of consumers that will probably be able to circumvent the restriction anyway.
Googles forcing G+ & Gmail apps onto a vast majority of users that don't use those platforms is arguably a bigger consumer problem. But nobody cares and rightfully so. The impact is minimal in both cases.
Beyond the negative effect there's a tangible security gain here that is probably a bigger deal for many more customers then are inconvenienced by the locked bootloader.
"anti open-source"
Microsoft is not the EFF and has no mandate to be pro-open source. Google's failure to release the Android development branch, roadmap, the honeycomb delay and their compatibility tests aren't anti-open source?
Awesome, I'm glad we're on the new HN where we downvote things we disagree with. Google doesn't have a compliance requirement of "prevent users from running another OS". MS does. That pretty clearly crosses a line that none of the Google requirements do.
"Google doesn't have a compliance requirement of "prevent users from running another OS". MS does. That pretty clearly crosses a line that none of the Google requirements do."
The fact that things are different is not in and of itself a real argument. All you're doing is restating what Microsoft's requirement is and attaching your conclusion ("this crosses the line") but you haven't actually shown this.
"none of the Google requirements do"
Can't use another OS: Sky's falling!
Can't use another location service: Who cares right?
A number of Google requirements are secret so how can we confidently say none of them cross the line?
The argument is about how it is illegal, and the SFLC complaining to governments to fix this. If they force MS to license their software to any OEM, they should similarly force Apple to license Mac OS X to Psystar and also unlock the iPhone and iPad's bootloaders.
It's not about forcing companies to license their software; it's about forcing companies to allow unlocking of the bootloader, thus forcing them to compete on features rather than antifeatures (consumer lock-in).
Locked bootloaders on general purpose computing devices are bad news for consumers and for innovation in general. Just imagine how the PC landscape would have evolved without clones. I'd be more than happy to see government intervention in cases like these.
