Microsoft Locks Out Linux On ARM Systems Shipping Windows 8

[JD50]

Android is BASED ON Linux. And there isn't even a decent build of Android that can work on x86 CPUs. Linux has nothing to offer the tablet market unless it's Android.

You're out of your element Donnie.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

I feel, if people want android on their shiny new Win 8 tablet, then android better step up to the plate. Win 8's advantage is FULL FLASH compatibility, Full Office Integration, You can play desktop games, you can multitask like on a REAL desktop, download, ftp, attach multiple files with ease... hell android better be ready to step up to the plate, and offer what desktop OS can offer the user.

Other wise, don't stick android on there, put Chrome OS instead if you're such a fan of google. Desktop apps and mobile apps are in leagues of their own. And when windows 8 come out, I expect desktop apps will just add the touch feature!

Actually the Metro version of IE that will be used on ARM tablets won't support flash and it won't be able to play any existing games either since they require x86.

 

[Red Storm]

Actually the Metro version of IE that will be used on ARM tablets won't support flash and it won't be able to play any existing games either since they require x86.

Yep. I see no reason to get a Windows ARM tablet.

 

[dagamer34]

Actually the Metro version of IE that will be used on ARM tablets won't support flash and it won't be able to play any existing games either since they require x86.

Metro version of IE won't support Flash regardless of whether it's x86 or ARM. Plugins are doomed.

 

[Jodell88]

I can't wait to put Plasma Active on it!

 

[finbarqs]

But, they can still get chrome, firefox, safari... etc.

 

[Dominato3r]

On TWiT's Windows netcast they said a locked boot loader is not 'forced'. The locked boot loader is a requirement for windows certification... which is pretty much a sticker. So this lands on the manufacturers more than Microsoft.

 

[taltamir]

"Microsoft does not mandate or control the settings on PC firmware that control or enable secured boot from any operating system other than Windows."

And so it doesn't -- as long as we're talking about x86 hardware. The document in question states: "On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable the Secure Boot via firmware setup." It then goes on to say (on Page 116): "Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems."

It is interesting that the lockout applies ONLY to ARM systems... aka smartphones, tablets, and ultrabooks.
On x86 systems you must be able to disable secure boot and allow competing OS like linux.

There cannot possibly be a non illegal justification to making such a restriction. Especially when its not even done via a technical method crafted by MS (aka, must use X provided by MS where X was designed to only support windows) but by MS outright stating "Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems".

 

[Deeko]

Conversely, how would it be illegal? Anti-trust? They probably have 0.01% of the tablet market right now, 0% ARM, they hardly have a monopoly.

 

[taltamir]

Conversely, how would it be illegal? Anti-trust? They probably have 0.01% of the tablet market right now, 0% ARM, they hardly have a monopoly.

Anti competative laws do NOT care at all what your market share is.
Only that you illegally attempt to block competition.

Actually getting persecuted requires that you be rich enough for them to go after you. nVidia, apple and many others have gone untouched (for more severe offenses) by persecutors who went after intel and MS because intel and MS had more money to take in punative damages... for example the billion euro fine intel got... that was just from europe, they were fined by IIRC 7 seperate countries for that one offense each one taking their slice of the pie (the pie being intel's wealth); AMD the supposed victim did not see a single cent/yen/euro-cent (whatever its called) from that though, it all went to the coffers of the respective countries.

 

[Deeko]

Anti competative laws do NOT require that you be a monopoly. Only that you illegally attempt to block competition.

Apple doesn't allow you to install alternate operating systems on the iPad. Many Android devices have locked bootloaders to prevent you from installing custom software. This is not an uncommon practice. And I'd like you to find a legal precedent where a company was successfully sued for anti competative behavior in a market in which they have under 0.1% share.

edit: in response to your edit, regarding the "browser ballot", Microsoft was not sued for including a browser with an operating system - every operating system comes with a browser. They were sued for using their Windows monopoly to reduce competition in the browser market. These are two very different things.

 

[taltamir]

Apple doesn't allow you to install alternate operating systems on the iPad. Many Android devices have locked bootloaders to prevent you from installing custom software. This is not an uncommon practice. And I'd like you to find a legal precedent where a company was successfully sued for anti competative behavior in a market in which they have under 0.1% share.

see my edit to my last post.
Apple is a clear violator of anti competitive laws, in fact they are far far worse then intel and MS ever were... but apple is a relatively poorer company and as such escapes persecution.
Also apple's biggest competitor is MS and MS will not complain on that, they cannot afford to harm apple. Bill Gates actually bailed out apple in the past to ensure that he has a competitor to avoid being split up (by the anti trust laws that DO care if you are a monopoly).

 

[Skel]

Anti competative laws do NOT care at all what your market share is.
Only that you illegally attempt to block competition.

Actually getting persecuted requires that you be rich enough for them to go after you. nVidia, apple and many others have gone untouched (for more severe offenses) by persecutors who went after intel and MS because intel and MS had more money to take in punative damages... for example the billion euro fine intel got... that was just from europe, they were fined by IIRC 7 seperate countries for that one offense each one taking their slice of the pie (the pie being intel's wealth); AMD the supposed victim did not see a single cent/yen/euro-cent (whatever its called) from that though, it all went to the coffers of the respective countries.

Locking down a bootloader on hardware designed for your software is far from illegally blocking competition.

I don’t think you understand what happened then… MS used it’s monopoly to lean on vendors to not sell competing products. Like in the case of IBM where it slowed allowing them licenses for windows 95 until they removed Lotus Suite ( a competitor to MSOffice at the time) from their standard desktop computers. There isn’t a law saying that for everything you design be it hardware or software that you must allow your competitors to use it as they want. Unlocking and repurposing stuff like tablets and such are aftermarket stuff, and rarely supported by the original manufacture. Otherwise it wouldn’t void the warrenty.

 

[taltamir]

Locking down a bootloader on hardware designed for your software is far from illegally blocking competition.

its pretty clear cut.

"On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable the Secure Boot via firmware setup." It then goes on to say (on Page 116): "Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems."

As for your other point.

I don’t think you understand what happened then…

Sure I do.

There isn’t a law saying that for everything you design be it hardware or software that you must allow your competitors to use it as they want.

The intel 1 billion dollar fine was where intel gave mere discounts to those who blocked support to their competitors.
This case MS is saying that anyone who wants to do business with them MUST have hardware blocking compatibility with their competitors.

Locking stuff against customer modification is standard practice and perfectly legal (although it shouldn't be). Artificially blocking compatible competitor's products is not. Although some companies have gotten away with it in the past, others have not.

 

[Deeko]

If they refused to do business with, or wouldn't give discounts to, companies that also made Android tablets, you'd have more of a point, but its simply not "illegally blocking the competition" to have requirements for use of your products. Its just not.

 

[Skel]

its pretty clear cut.


As for your other point.

Sure I do.


The intel 1 billion dollar fine was where intel gave mere discounts to those who blocked support to their competitors.
This case MS is saying that anyone who wants to do business with them MUST have hardware blocking compatibility with their competitors.

Locking stuff against customer modification is standard practice and perfectly legal (although it shouldn't be). Artificially blocking compatible competitor's products is not. Although some companies have gotten away with it in the past, others have not.

Ok what law are the breaking exactly?

What other companies have been punished for breaking that law?