[vena]

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.

[sounds]

@dangrossman

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.

[cooldeal]

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.

[tikhonj]

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.

[dangrossman]

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.

[nl]

Since Win32 programs won't even run on ARM tablets

Actually, they will if they are recompiled to target WindowsARM: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8254846/does-windows-8-ar...

Also, .NET applications will run on ARM.

[dangrossman]

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.