Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You have absolutely no business relationship with Google with regards to your device and yet you think it's their problem? Branding tells you what software it's running -- that's all -- it doesn't imply anything more.



So you ignored my point about Windows OEM. Would you like to address that or are you going to concede it?


I didn't see your point (you edited it in)

Yes, I am prepared to argue that you have no direct business relationship with Microsoft when you purchase a PC. In fact, if you read your license agreement you will see that -- the first line in fact reads: "These license terms are an agreement between you and the computer manufacturer that distributes the software with the computer". According to the license the manufacturer accepts all responsibility for defects in Windows (including updates) for the warranty period.

If you choose to install a version of Windows purchased directly from Microsoft, that's under completely different terms.


This is not the question I asked. I asked you if you thought it would be wrong to consider Microsoft responsible for Windows failing to update on a recently acquired laptop.

I am slightly curious as to your personal opinion, but in the main it simply doesn't matter what an individual hacker knowledgable about the business aspects of the ecosystem thinks. I'd be willing to stake up to a hundred dollars that if you find five random Windows users on the street and ask them "If Windows stopped updating on your machine, would you consider Microsoft responsible for that?" five of them would say yes (assuming they know that Windows updates at all :P). Whether you technically have a business relationship with Microsoft is totally uninteresting to most consumers, as is also true in this case with Google. What matters is the expectations created by marketing, branding, and UI. That's really all I have to say about this subject.

Yes, I did edit it in, but I thought I had done it so quickly that you would not have seen the original comment. My apologies.


> be wrong to consider Microsoft responsible for Windows failing to update on a recently acquired laptop.

Is it wrong that Microsoft doesn't provide free versions of Windows 8 to everyone who bought a Windows 7 PC? Because that's what you're comparing it to. Obviously nobody on the street would think that's reasonable.

> If Windows stopped updating on your machine, would you consider Microsoft responsible for that?

Microsoft has no moral obligation to provide updates and updates are really a relatively new invention. They do, in fact, stop providing updates to their software all the time.

> What matters is the expectations created by marketing, branding, and UI.

So what really matters is a bunch of subjective crap? Honestly? No where does Google say they'll update your device. Not in the marketing, not the branding, not even really in the UI.


> Is it wrong that Microsoft doesn't provide free versions . . .

More like, "Would it be wrong if Windows 8 would not install on a computer I bought this year?"

> So what really matters is a bunch of subjective crap?

Yes. I'm human. "Subjective crap" and the expectations created by it matter to me, as they do to most of us.


> Would it be wrong if Windows 8 would not run on a computer I bought this year.

So now you think Microsoft is morally obligated to design their software so that it runs on older hardware? Your expectations are clearly pretty extreme.

The interesting point here is that Google's software does work on the hardware we're talking about. So is Google or Microsoft obligated to give you software for free? Obviously they are not. But even more interesting, Google's software is already free and available! So the question then becomes are the manufacturers obligated to modify it to run on your hardware and give it to you? Well are they? If they are, take it up with them. I'm not sure what Google has to do with it.


> Your expectations are clearly pretty extreme.

They are the expectations of typical users of Windows and Android software. I am not sure what you mean by extreme but whatever it is, it's not what I typically think of when I hear the word.


> Would it be wrong if Windows 8 would not install on a computer I bought this year?

Why would it be? I'd like to know the thinking behind this. Are all software makers similarly constrained? Is Valve obligated to make games that run on computers I bought this year? In fact, are they obligated to make games that run on my crappy netbook too?

Is Microsoft obligated to give you Windows 8 for free? Install it for you? Provide all the drivers? Exactly how much free shit do you want?




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: