[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.