Isn't all this fuzz just Microsoft's history hunting hem?
I mean, where's the Ars Technica article about how it's not possible to install Android on an iPhone? So unfair!
Nearly all phones and tablets (typically the devices with ARM cpus, which must be Microsoft's reasoning too) only run the OS they came with. Surely phones and tablets with Windows on them aren't the exception.
The biggest problem is that Microsoft is extending the lockdown from basic tablets and phones into other ARM-based systems, like laptops, where there is generally an expectation of being able to install a different OS.
We should just accept having our devices locked down and no longer having control over what software they run, just because some big companies are already doing it to us? Since Apple and various Android manufacturers do it, we should just give up on general-purpose computing and enter the world of ubiquitous code signing controls and curation?
I say no. MS is bad for doing this. So are Apple and the various Android manufacturers who do it.
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.
Just a thought with regard to ARM hardware. Don't most Win7 slates on the market have an ARM alternative that runs Android? If that's the case, that means that manufacturers are already providing two different versions of the slates on the market: amd64 and arm; and, that means that manufacturers are already making special modifications just to provide to both markets.
Given this information, why would it not be possible, even likely, for manufacturers to continue to do this with Win8 and Android? Have slightly different hardware and sell both. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you run a more hardcore linux on an android device? I believe I've seen an original G1 running ubuntu (not a hardcore linux, but moreso than android).
I think it's besides the point that there are alternatives. Locked down hardware should be universally frowned upon, no matter who is trying to control it - whether that's Microsoft, Apple, or anyone else. It's downright sickening to see this being accepted at all. There are no - I repeat, NO - valid reasons to lock down hardware. It's anti-competitive, it's malicious and most of all it's an affront to Freedom. I also find it quite sad that people (with RMS among them) predicted this years, if not decades ago, and people called them paranoid.
We need to fight this. Do not buy locked down hardware. Boycott businesses and corporations pushing this. Tell the hardware suppliers that you will not take this. Use free operating systems and hardware whenever and where-ever at all possible. Pursue other people to do the same.
Finally, disregard laws which forbid you to circumvent, render ineffective or deactivate these kinds of restrictions. Spread ways to do this if you can, anonymously. Once information is out there, it cannot be subdued again.
It's really disappointing to see the same people commenting here with the same responses as on the original discussion (with the ARM revelation), with the same holes in their logic, just reiterating it, sure that if they repeat themselves they will sound more right.
Sigh. So why doesn't the Linux community just man-up, and start backing Linux-oriented hardware manufacturers? This pansy whiny attitude from the Linux community got tiresome 10 years ago. Today, it's just absurd.
Please just quit whining, and quit trying to "make Microsoft our bitch", and start supporting hardware companies that are already on your side, and completely ignore Microsoft and hardware companies that bow to them.
> So why doesn't the Linux community just man-up, and start backing Linux-oriented hardware manufacturers?
We do. The problem is this increases their sales by 1% in notebooks and desktops. There just isn't that many people who want to run Linux on their computers.
Microsoft will cleverly induce hardware makers to build those single-purpose locked down tablets to force some market share for a solution they know can't compete on a level playfield. And they'll do so by threatening to increase the exto^H^H^H^Hlicensing fees on patents Android "violates". Watch for those increases after they acquire what's left of Nokia.
There just isn't that many people who want to run Linux on their computers.
Yes there is. I know lots of people who run Linux on their desktop. And I bet there's probably even more people that would be interested in a Linux tablet. The argument that Linux is this totally obscure precious little snowflake just doesn't work anymore.
For varying definitions of "totally", "obscure" and "sucking". In my opinion, Mac and Windows "suck" compared to my Linux desktop, but I'm not going to assert that as fact.
1-2% of a global desktop computing market is small in percentage, but ENORMOUS in total numbers. We're talking about many, many millions of users. And that's just desktop. The potential size of a Linux tablet market is really quite big.
But none of that matters if Linux enthusiasts only want to buy a Windows tablet, and reformat it with a free version of Linux that barely works on that hardware.
There are a ton of craptablets based on Rockchip SoCs. Even so, a craptablet running "real Linux" would probably cost more than the equivalent Android version.
The demoscene people do some really amazing work with some very basic hardware, so why can't that kind of talent be applied to making a really ripping Linux tablet?
If they try and fail, they'll have no one to blame but themselves; if they don't try then they can keep shifting the blame. I suspect that Shuttleworth is aware of Kay's wisdom about building your own hardware, but the market is probably not there.
