Microsoft Said To Limit Device Makers' Partners

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) has asked chipmakers that want to use the next version of Windows for tablets to work with no more than one computer manufacturer." The article also said, "Seeking to limit variations may help Microsoft speed the delivery of new Windows tablets by keeping tighter control over partners and accelerating development and testing. Though the program isn't mandatory, the restrictions may impede chip- and computer makers from building a variety of Windows-based models to vie with Apple Inc. (AAPL)'s iPad... In past versions of Windows software, chipmakers could work with multiple computer manufacturers. "

Comments

In other words

[countertrolling]

Microsoft wants to be more like Apple. Eh...

Re:In other words

[SanityInAnarchy]

Oddly, this is also Microsoft deliberately giving up what was originally their biggest selling point against Apple -- the PC won because you could buy cheap clones from any number of manufacturers, and they'd all run DOS and Windows, whereas anything from Apple would have exactly one choice of hardware manufacturer and OS provider: Apple.

Re:In other words

[gstoddart]

Microsoft wants to be more like Apple. Eh...

Popular, profitable, and with an ever growing market capitalization? What company wouldn't?

For years Apple was playing catch-up to Microsoft. Nowadays, Microsoft doesn't seem to be able to envision and bring to market new products people want. It seems like the last bunch of years, Microsoft has really lost whatever advantages they had, and have been trying to get "me too" products to market after everyone else already has had them for quite some time.

Getting away from needing to support every possible bit of hardware in random combinations might actually let Microsoft start to build interesting things again. Sure, they've got servers and operating systems mostly covered ... but in terms of consumer devices, Apple has been kicking their ass for years now.

Like or hate Apple, you really can't deny their sales numbers and profits.

Re:In other words

[countertrolling]

Yeah, the market has completely flipped on that aspect. Style and marketing are what dominate now, and Microsoft will always be behind on fashion. They can never be 'cool', and this effort won't help them one bit. They should stick with cheap and encourage more bootlegging of their OS (piracy, I believe, is what the kids call it today), like the old days.

Re:In other words

[ProppaT]

No, they just don't want manufacturer's putting out crap products like with what is happening with Android. Microsoft needs to be able to establish their tablet OS as a premium product in order to compete against iOS, WebOS, Honeycomb, and Blackberry. Google doesn't care if their product is premium or not, just as long as people use it. They make their money on advertisement, not off of the OS directly. Microsoft is in a different position entirely. If they can ensure all the Windows tablet products are quality AND still give consumers a choice, they'll be able to compete directly against the Android tablet market and all the other options at the same time.

Re:In other words

[gstoddart]

the PC won because you could buy cheap clones from any number of manufacturers, and they'd all run DOS and Windows, whereas anything from Apple would have exactly one choice of hardware manufacturer and OS provider: Apple.

That had more to do with IBM using an architecture they opened up than Microsoft in a lot of ways ... the way the arrangement was set up, Microsoft was selling a copy with every piece of hardware up until about 2000 or whenever it was, because it was required to be sold with the PC. (And, since everyone else was using it, that's what people needed.)

Some might argue that Microsoft got where they are today because everyone who bought a PC also was forced to buy MS-DOS -- it wasn't necessarily a superior product at the time. In fact, there were better things that ran on the same hardware at the time. It took a court ruling to say that Microsoft wasn't legally entitled to a sale every time someone bought a PC -- but many of us remember buying a PC for Linux and knowing that Microsoft was getting paid anyway.

For years, the biggest selling point for Microsoft was that an Apple computer cost more than a white-box clone of an IBM PC, and that business primarily used IBM compatible.

Microsoft have never been advocates of open platforms ... they just grew to prominence because of one. If Microsoft could have locked everything down earlier, they would have.

Re:In other words

[countertrolling]

They attained their position in the market through 'unauthorized' distribution channels. Trying to eliminate that is what's costing them. They should have stuck with what works.

Re:In other words

[jellomizer]

No I would disagree. Android has a larger user base then Apple does because it is a "universal" OS for smart phones and mobile devices. Apple has a strong holding in part of the marking and stile but mostly due to the fact it has the most apps. Back in the Dos days When my family went to get their first computer they looked at Apple, Amiga, Commodore, and IBM/IBM Compatibles. They liked the Amiga, the Apple is what I used in school, the Commodore was OK too... But they went with an IBM Compatible... Not because of the hardware openness but because when you looked at the store you see 1 shelf of Apple, Amiga, and Commodore programs and 3 or 4 isles of IBM/Compatible software.

Re:In other words

[CohibaVancouver]

this effort won't help them one bit

Sure it will - One of the reasons Apple has done so well is it owns the entire environment on an iDevice - From OS to hardware. Hell, they even own the mechanism to get apps on the device. By limiting what they have to support, MS has an opportunity to follow Apple's model. If you, as a consumer, don't like these models, then buy an Android tablet.

Re:In other words

[jedidiah]

Apple is popular now in one segment of the market. Meanwhile, they are still a relative failure in their legacy products. Microsoft might want to consider that Apple might not be a darling for forever or not even a terrribly long time. Apple is already starting to see an erosion of their market share where brands aren't terribly important and turnover is quick.

Frankly, Microsoft isn't very good at being an Apple and probably never will. It's just not how the company operates.

Pretending to be another Apple will probably end badly for Microsoft.

Re:In other words

[gstoddart]

Yeah, the market has completely flipped on that aspect. Style and marketing are what dominate now, and Microsoft will always be behind on fashion.

Depending on how long you've been around, what you call "style and marketing", some people call "usability and good design".

I remember DOS from the mid 80s, and have used the earliest versions of Windows, Linux, old Macs, and a bunch of different flavors of UNIX.

My personal perception is that my iPad and my iPod are easy to use, do exactly what I want them to, and don't suffer from some of the frustrations I've come to associate to Microsoft products over the years. (I like iTunes, and I've hated Windows Media Player for just as long.)

I've got Vista, XP, FreeBSD, and Linux machines at home. I'd still like to have a Mac.

IMO, there's substance behind Apple's style ... and sometimes, Microsoft's style lacks substance. At the end of the day, it's what people are happy with -- and I have enough painful memories of Microsoft stuff to still be leery of them.

Hell, my retail copy of Vista Home Ultimate still makes me run into something where Microsoft deliberately crippled it so that I'd buy the more expensive version -- so, it is less capable for networking, and the built in back up manager lets me have exactly one scheduled backup set. There's no reason for this, other than Microsoft trying to carve up the market and get as much money from me as they can -- especially since all that was in there, but they took the time to cripple it.

Microsoft's operating systems have gotten vastly better over the years ... but that doesn't mean I don't occasionally run into something and wonder WTF they were thinking.

They've tried to mirror Apple's ease of use with frustrating wizards and dialog boxes that don't always help. Anything but the most basic error, and their wizards fall apart (because, really, I know my network cable is plugged in ... if that's the best help you have, it's useless). Once you exceed the most basic stuff, their attempts to make an easy user experience degrade to "something bad happened, contact your admin".

Re:In other words

[jedidiah]

Microsoft has never been a "premium" brand and now is no time to try and start.

Re:In other words

[geoffrobinson]

Yeah, but one has the ability to increase stockholder value. Hiyoooo! Thank you I'll be here all week!

Re:In other words

[aristotle-dude]

No I would disagree. Android has a larger user base then Apple does because it is a "universal" OS for smart phones and mobile devices.

Wait, you are actually serious? Android is still largely a smart phone OS whereas iOS (previously know as iPhone OS) started out on the original iPhone but quickly came out on the iPod Touch and then the iPad last year. Apple has a huge head start over Android on tablet sales and whether you look at install base or marketshare of iOS devices versus all android devices Apple still has a huge lead. You seem to have forgotten about iPod Touches and the huge lead Apple has with the iPad and iPad 2 when you made the bold statement suggesting that Android had a larger user base than Apple.

I would argue that Android is less "universal" because Google had kept Android marketplace off non-phone devices like android based music players and non-3G tablets in the past whereas the Appstore was on all iOS devices as soon as it was introduced.

Re:In other words

[Locutus]

and it's as if they've not tried this before and failed. Pissing off all those hardware vendors you've strong armed in the past and who have feared you and doing it at a time when they have other successful alternatives available makes perfect sense. Please, please keep Steve Ballmer around for another 5 years.

LoB

Re:In other words

[h4rr4r]

They make their money on advertisement, not off of the OS directly. Microsoft is in a different position entirely

Who told you that?
They make money by charging for the google apps, Market, etc. They also take a cut from the android market. They make money for the OS as most OEMs use it.

Re:In other words

[countertrolling]

Hmm, I always thought it was pricing that put the IBM compatibles on top... But then, what do I know? I went with a Mac IIx because that's what the art department used

I really don't know the specifics, but sometimes a smaller user base can produce a greater flow of revenue for a particular company. While Google's strategy might generate more cash flow overall, they get a smaller percentage, and their business model is built on advertising, which could prove to be more stable on the long run than Apple's fickle market segment.. In the future, we might find out who buys out whom. Personally, I think Google will indeed come out on top, and Apple will become like their 'gold card' appliance for the emo segment of their market :-)

Microsoft's attempts to lock their stuff down with cost them big time. They will have move to the opposite direction if branding is really important, otherwise the only way to make money with them is shorting their stock until they end up as as small as SCO and patent/copyright trolling becomes their primary business model.

Re:In other words

[postbigbang]

The other side of the coin says that Google is getting a bad rep (whether or not deserved) by not exerting the same control that Apple does over its hardware AND software base.

Microsoft is WAY behind the market, and needs to catchup. Using that good old Jobs zen approach of cutting away the distractions might help them catch up. This of course, means that all of the other leaden madness that ties them down is somehow assuaged. But comparing them to SCO is a non-starter. Microsoft probably helped finance SCO just to be a PITA to the FOSS movement. But SCO's market cap wasn't even statistically relevant to Microsoft's. Like them or hate them, Microsoft has unbelievably high cash resources (even after buying Skype) to digest or kill what it wants.

BTW, "emo" is only a fraction of what motivates people to buy Apple stuff.

Re:In other words

[vegiVamp]

Didn't good old IBM also let OS/2 die because their shares in Microsoft were worth more? Maybe monkeyboy has gotten himself some Apple stock.

Re:In other words

[jellomizer]

Price isn't always the key element, it is value. If you are paying the difference between $1500 vs. $2000 for a computer. The question is what makes that $2000 worth $500 more, and is it worth it, for you. Lets say the IBM PC vs. Amiga. the Amiga at the time was an awesome product compared to the IBM if it had the larger software base the IBM and PC probably wouldn't have made it.

Re:In other words

[DaveOrZach]

I think Android has a large install base because Android phones are cheaper. AT&T has 4 Android phones under $20, T-Mobile has 4 free phones, and Sprint has 2 free phones (all with 2 yr contract.) My mom, dad, and aunt don't care if you root or jailbreak your phone. They want a cheap phone that can email, browse the web, and show off picture of the grandkids. Their is a lot more non-geek user than geek users; they don't care about the underlying technology, they just want a cheap phone.

Re:In other words

[iluvcapra]

Google also imposes limits on the kinds of partners hardware manufacturers can have. This is completely normal.

Re:In other words

[rickb928]

Well, the biggest problem Windows has EVER had is the unmanageable driver base. Every device manufacturer has their own take on chipsets and BIOS details, they mix in different firmware versions of disk, network, and various comm I/O, and it results in a system that has multiple drivers of varying quality with the potential for interaction and bad behavior. Apple sidesteps this with a controlled hardware environment, but Microsoft is stuck with a multiplicity of vendors, and some really suck. Even Intel delivers bad drivers, so that their chipsets flake out in interesting ways, and you wait for fixes that end up never coming, and you blame Windows, Intel, and everyone. And it just sucks.

Yet Android, cause it's O P E N, gets a pass because it also must live in a terrible hardware landscape, but it's O P E N. We complain about the Android 'fragmentation', and how so many devices are being introduced with Froyo and not Gingerbread, but with the fragmented hardware they have to work with, phone makers end up sticking with a well-understood release until they get their arms around the next one and then they either offer an OTA upgrade, or as often as not, they don't bother 'cause the phone is too old. Look, you generally get hitched to a carrier for 24 months, and then you renew. Time to upgrade. If your phone is 18 months old, don't expect the maker to expend too much effort unless you think they deliberately want you to avoid buying a new one. And the makers are getting such a subsidy from the carriers that they have every reason to crank out new models constantly and heat up the market for the next insanely great phone.

So Android is in the same boat as Windows (and Linux), supporting a multiplicty of hardware options, though Android handles it well at the manufacturer level, while Windows still struggles with drivers and all the nastiness under the hood that shows up as blue screens and reboots. Windows is making progress isolating the core from some drivers, but ultimately they can't do it all unless Windows gets virtual. Which moves the driver wars to the kernel and a hypervisor/etc. Still a fight. And if you want graphic performance for gaming, well, you get to touch the display hardware even more intimately, and the fight is back on.

It's always been ugly. Goes with the territory.

Re:In other words

[MROD]

That had more to do with IBM using an architecture they opened up than Microsoft in a lot of ways ...

Indeed this is very true.

In the mid-80s there were a number of machines on the market which ran MSDOS but were not strictly PC compatible, for example the ACT Apricot F1, but these all fell by the wayside as not all software played by the rules and expected either a specific memory layout or specific type of graphics card (e.g. MDA, Hercules or CGA) to work. This was true of Lotus 1-2-3 and early versions of MS Word, where you needed specially modified versions to run on the Apricot.

Re:In other words

[UnknowingFool]

Depends on how you measure failure. Apple's marketshare in computers is small but growing; they makes lots of profit on that share though. I would also argue they don't have the largest marketshare in smart phones or cell phones either. But then again they make more profit than any other cell phone maker or so I've read. Just yesterday Nokia warned of unprofitably this quarter and possibly this year.

Re:In other words

[peragrin]

Except that while android has a larger user base they are all hippie Communists who don't buy software.

Seriously though android has more users, but apple app store out sells android marketplace something like 3-1

Re:In other words

[peragrin]

I agree with everything you said except about itunes. Itunes used to be a decent media player.

Now it is more a poor file manager than a decent media player.

I really wish Apple would divorce Itunes media player, Itunes store, and iDevice sync from each other.

Re:In other words

[rjstanford]

Nah, OS/2 died because of its stellar Windows compatibility.

Once it could run almost every Windows app, It had two main advantages over Windows itself - it was more stable, and it could also run OS/2 apps. The thing is, at that point there was also zero incentive for an app developer to build a separate OS/2 version of their software and voluntarily limit their market.

This meant that the supply of good OS/2 software dwindled. Soon, most software was written for Windows. This meant that the practical differences between OS/2 and Windows were that OS/2 was more stable, and also that it was more expensive.

When tasked with cutting expenses, it became very hard to justify buying OS/2 for corporate use when Windows was "stable enough" and ran "all the same software." Thus OS/2's death knell was sounded. This is also why, IMO, OSX will never run Windows apps natively - Parallels is enough of a threat there.

FWIW I still have my old conference button: "OS/2 for PS/2 - Half an operating system for half a computer." Somewhere...

Re:In other words

[gstoddart]

I really wish Apple would divorce Itunes media player, Itunes store, and iDevice sync from each other.

Again, it's all about perception and what you want out of it.

To me, iTunes is what I use to manage my media, and is a convenient way to manage my iPod and my iPad -- it all works the same, and it's all in one place. I've also been using it for around 10 years now.

When I bought my iPad, I'd owned iPods for a long time ... plug it in, select which movies and music to sync, ready to go in 20 minutes. Nothing new to install, just another device. I can manage as many devices from iTunes as I want to.

Just out of curiosity, what do you perceive has changed or is deficient? To me, the interface has mostly remained the same for as long as I've been using it. I actually like the fact that it's all integrated ... but maybe because that's the way I expected it to be. Right now I've got four iPods and an iPad, all sync'd to the same library ... adding a new one takes precisely zero work.

Re:In other words

[fwarren]

I would argue that Apple does not design by committee. Steve Job rules by fiat. It does not matter how many companies manufacture Apple products. All Apple products produced are exactly as Steve jobs has envisioned them to be. Thus far, Steve has done a very good job at either designing a product people want or creating a market for Apple products.

Microsoft deigns by committee. Even with one hardware vendor, what Microsoft has produced is 2 to 3 years behind Apple. Which hardly makes for compelling devices. I will admit that to many hardware manufacturers making to many changes only lowers the quality of Microsoft's offering.

The bigger problem as I see it is what they will have to offer. Windows 8 on regular PC's able to run office and legacy software. Windows 8 on x86 tables with terrible battery life that can run office and legacy software. Then they will have Windows 8 on ARM tablets that have excellent battery life and can run Office, but almost no other legacy software. End users, will be end users and some will be confused when they buy a laptop and cant load the windows software they have already purchased on the unit.

"Tighter" hardware integration will not help with this problem.

Re:In other words

[thetoadwarrior]

That works for desktops but it sucks for phones. That is why Apple won't be going away and why MS wants to be more like them and don't be surprised if some sort of restrictions start showing up on Android.

Re:In other words

[Daniel Phillips]

I think Android has a large install base because Android phones are cheaper.

That is just one of several important factors. To name a few roughly in order of importance:

1) Network provider has complete control of the software

2) Google branding

3) Extremely reliable

4) Software licencing is free (your point)

5) Competition between suppliers drives features up and prices down (your point again)

6) Low barriers to developers and app providers

7) Designed by traditional handset manufacturers who understand radios

Re:In other words

[Anne Thwacks]

OS/2 died because IMB's advertising (In Europe, anyway) was so cr*p that it actually hindered sales. Your button illustrates that the name was an obstacle that was unlikely to overcome even by good marketing. (Yes, I had one of those buttons too, but also ran an OS/2 support BBS (on OS/2)

Re:In other words

[Anne Thwacks]

I think he meant that MS makes its money by selling advertising space to the providers of shovel-ware you get with a new install. (and maybe kickbacks from antivirus software peddlers).

Re:In other words

[DaveOrZach]

Check Google's investor relations site, http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html. They make a majority of their revenue off ads ($28.2B in 2010.) They only made $1B in other revenues in 2010. Google really doesn't care what OS/browser you use; they just want to make sure you use their search engine and ad platform. What better way to control the user search and ad platform preference than control the OS.

Re:In other words

[Lonewolf666]

Either way, Microsoft won't have it easy in the tablet market.
If they want to go the exclusive route, they'll compete with Apple who are arguably better at making stylish things.
If they do it PC style, they will have to play catch up to Android, which already runs on any number of cheap devices.

Re:In other words

[recoiledsnake]

Hell, my retail copy of Vista Home Ultimate still makes me run into something where Microsoft deliberately crippled it so that I'd buy the more expensive version -- so, it is less capable for networking, and the built in back up manager lets me have exactly one scheduled backup set. There's no reason for this, other than Microsoft trying to carve up the market and get as much money from me as they can -- especially since all that was in there, but they took the time to cripple it.

You mean how Apple charges for the Server versions based on the number of users served? Microsoft does segmenting because their product is the OS. Apple doesn't because their real money is on hardware margins, the OS is just icing on cake. Not to mention XCode 4 is not not free, when it used to be, and Apple charging or trying to charge 30% of not just apps but even 3rd party subscriptions like Netflix and ebooks on Kinel on iOS and you can see the Apple is much more greedier. There is no reason to ban Sony and other third party ebook readers from the App store except to grab as much money from the users and publishers.

Re:In other words

[JBMcB]

You mean how Apple charges for the Server versions based on the number of users served?

So does MS.

Microsoft does segmenting because their product is the OS.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't suck.

Not to mention XCode 4 is not not free, when it used to be,

Visual Studio isn't free, either. Well, you could try and use one of the crippled "Express" versions, which are good for learning and not much else.

There is no reason to ban Sony and other third party ebook readers from the App store

The Sony ban was because of the restriction that outside-app purchases must also be available inside the app. Sony wasn't doing that so they got banned. Kindle is still on there. So is the Nook and the Borders app.

Re:In other words

[danomac]

Android is still largely a smart phone OS whereas iOS (previously know as iPhone OS) started out on the original iPhone but quickly came out on the iPod Touch and then the iPad last year.

Sorry, but the Touch is just a phone-type device without phone capability and the iPad is an oversize phone and has similar limitations. I almost spit out coffee while laughing when I read that comment.

Re:In other words

[aristotle-dude]

Android is still largely a smart phone OS whereas iOS (previously know as iPhone OS) started out on the original iPhone but quickly came out on the iPod Touch and then the iPad last year.

Sorry, but the Touch is just a phone-type device without phone capability and the iPad is an oversize phone and has similar limitations. I almost spit out coffee while laughing when I read that comment.

What is your point? Do you have one or are you just trolling? The fact is that the iPad has a larger marketshare and it has a specific build of iOS with specific user controls for the tablet form factor much like how Honeycomb is a special build of Android with some tablet specific user controls. Can you dispute these statements or are we just going to see more hyperbole? When you combine iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 and iPad marketshare or install base (take your pick), Android is way behind by either metric. You can write an app that targets iPad only, iPad and iPhone/iPod Touch or iPhone/iPod Touch and still have it work on iPads with upscaling. Again, if you look at either phone form factor only or tablet specific/universal apps iOS is also way ahead of Android.

Let us know when you stop spiting out coffee and can come out with a coherent rebuttal.

Re:Yoshinoya

[nharmon]

So a cheap tablet PC running Windows is like eating at Yoshinoya on coupon day?

How is this not anti-trust?

[walterbyrd]

This reminds me of standard oil making deals with railroads, to not carry oil for companies that competed with standard oil, or to charge those other companies much more.

As I understand it, these actions by the old robber barons brought about the Clayton Act, and the Sherman Act.

So why are the new robber barons allowed to get away with such abusive, anti-competitive actions?

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[alen]

except the oil was mostly the same. in this case manufacturers building cheapo products will damage microsoft's brand perception which is what they want to avoid

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[betterunixthanunix]

You may have missed the news: Microsoft was found guilty, and the antitrust oversight last for a few years. Now it is over, and Microsoft can go back to their same old tricks. It is a lot harder for people to claim that Microsoft is abusing their monopoly position when Apple is competing so effectively against Microsoft.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[Hatta]

Because our government is at least as corrupt today as it was in the late 19th century.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[BradleyUffner]

This reminds me of standard oil making deals with railroads, to not carry oil for companies that competed with standard oil, or to charge those other companies much more.

As I understand it, these actions by the old robber barons brought about the Clayton Act, and the Sherman Act.

So why are the new robber barons allowed to get away with such abusive, anti-competitive actions?

Because Asking is not the same as Demanding.
And because Microsoft does not have a monopoly on phone Operating Systems.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[ProppaT]

If Microsoft was the only company providing a tablet OS, then I might agree with you. If manufacturer's don't like the stipulations of using the Windows tablet OS, they can make an Android tablet. There's nothing anti-trust about it. If Microsoft decided they wouldn't sell their OS to X company (that does not have a competing OS) even though they agreed to all the hardware stipulations, then THAT would be anti-trust because they're only allowing certain companies to make a tablet.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[Bogtha]

This reminds me of standard oil making deals with railroads, to not carry oil for companies that competed with standard oil

Really? It reminds me of Microsoft making deals with OEMs, to not install operating systems from companies that competed with Microsoft. They've already been caught doing this with Hitachi and Compaq to kill BeOS.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[MightyMartian]

Except this time it is a pretty minor player in that particular marketplace. It can't push manufacturers too hard on this one or they'll just say "fuck you Redmond" and throw Android on their tablets.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[diegocg]

Microsoft is the small fish here.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[Xacid]

Even though Apple is even MORE restrictive with the manufacturing of their devices?

I don't know the detailed legalities of the whole thing but I think this is a very, very smart move on Microsoft's part from a business standpoint. Take a look at the Android hardware market right now vs. iOS. If you're looking for an iphone you know EXACTLY what you're getting. With android there's a huge variety - but the differences are fairly minor in most cases so deciding between all the choices is nearly moot.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[jo_ham]

Why? They make a product, and sell that product. Just like Nike makes products, and sells them. I don't think you understand the difference between a homogenous product chain and antitrust/anticompetitive practices, which I assume you're driving at with this fact-free statement.

It's not illegal to choose what you sell in your store (apart from for discriminatory reasons), and not illegal to have a monopoly. Apple is no different to any other single brand manufacturer with a retail and online presence - do you think Nike should be sued for not selling Addidas products in their stores? Do you think they should be forced to carry a competitor's product? Extending it, do you think that any retailer should be forced to sell something against their will?

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Now it is over, and Microsoft can go back to their same old tricks.

I must have missed the time when Microsoft stopped using their old tricks.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[pohl]

Under which section(s) of the Sherman act?

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[poetmatt]

basically, this is a lack of an answer. It's not any different, it's just that it has to get to the courts to get settled.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[AnalogDiehard]

So why are the new robber barons allowed to get away with such abusive, anti-competitive actions?

Because the Clinton-era DoJ wardogs who brought the antitrust action against MS were removed when the Bush Administration took office and the new DoJ settled the case for peanuts. Today's DoJ under Obama seem to be focused on protecting Hollywood's copyrights and are turning a blind eye to antitrust.

Antitrust enforcement actions depend largely on the administration in the White House. When Teddy Roosevelt was in office his DoJ wardogs enforced the Sherman Act with a vengeance.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[scamper_22]

Railroads are a natural monopoly. If railroads refuse to carry your product, you had no other option. Despite people's fantasies, Microsoft doesn't have this kind of power and never did. You could always use competitive products. This is not to say they didn't make compatibility difficult, but it is incomparable to striking deals with network industries like railroads.

It would be like MS striking a deal with ATT to only connect to MS computers. That my good man would be a comparable analogy. And yes MS did do this... in South Korea by striking a deal with the government to force all financial transactions to go through internet explorer. Of course that is the government causing the problem (a real monopoly) in cahoots with Microsoft.

And if you read things like the Sherman Act you know that exclusive dealings are not illegal on their own. You must prove substantial economic harm first. The reason is blatantly obvious. Because exclusive deals and tying arrangements are common practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act

When you understand the difference between a monopoly and a competitive industry, you will understand the Clayton Act better.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

How does Microsoft limiting the number of chip manufacturers that will be officially supported on their next version of Tablet OS violate antitrust? All I see is Microsoft limiting their next Tablet OS to a select combination of chip manufacturer + OEM. There is no law that requires an OS to support all available hardware.

It would be antitrust if the deal also forbid the chip manufacturer or OEM from making products for another OS like Android. I didn't see any such language in the article.

Isn't this better than just having Microsoft as the sole manufacturer of the tablet that carries their next Tablet OS?

The 90's called and wants its Microsoft is a monopoly meme back.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[UnknowingFool]

Um the difference is that Apple contracts companies to make Apple devices and as such they can dictate what these companies can do. MS does not. It merely licenses their OS to other companies.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You may have missed the news: Microsoft was found guilty, and the antitrust oversight last for a few years.

It looks like you may have missed the news that the ruling was overturned by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Afterwards the DOJ announced they were going to seek a lesser antitrust penalty. On November 2, 2001 the DOJ settled with Microsoft which required that Microsoft publish its API. This weak settlement was probably due to the DOJ was under a new administration (Clinton was no longer in office) and Microsoft was in need to shorten a costly court case that started in 1998.

Also you overlooked a key part of the court case. This case was mainly about Microsoft bundling their Internet Explorer with Windows which gave it unfair competitive advantage over Netscape and Opera. In addition, Microsoft was using a secret API that allowed Internet Explorer perform better than any third party browser.

The part of the ruling that dealt with monopolistic behavior with OEMs was overturned in the appeal due to the plaintiffs not being able to make a credible case.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[mysidia]

This reminds me of standard oil making deals with railroads, to not carry oil for companies that competed with standard oil, or to charge those other companies much more. As I understand it, these actions by the old robber barons brought about the Clayton Act, and the Sherman Act.

Maybe not... this would be more like if standard oil requested railroad companies to choose just one railroad container partner, rather than picking 5 different manufacturers to manufacture the railroad cargo pods used to carry standard oil.

They would still be free to partner with other cargo pods when shipping oil other than standard oil's.

I don't think Microsoft is asking the chip makers to only partner with one PC maker for all their work; only for Windows device manufacturer are they limited.

And Microsoft's not choosing the partner; just asking them to only have one; to simplify matters. Anti-trust would be Microsoft picking the partner, in order to give that 'partner' an advantage, or adding restrictions to unfairly quash competition against Microsoft's windows product.

Nothing requires Microsoft to license their Windows OS to every device manufacturer that wants it; just like a doodad designer doesn't have to license their work to every machine manufacturer that wants to use the doodad. If MS so chooses, they can have computer manufacturers compete, and award the contract to the company that provides the best deal to MS (e.g. largest license revenue for MS).

Antitrust would be MS saying they will license doodads to everyone, but you have to agree to manufacture only products that use MS doodads, and only computer products whose OS is Windows.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[mysidia]

It's not illegal to choose what you sell in your store (apart from for discriminatory reasons), and not illegal to have a monopoly.

It's not even that.... this is like Nike asking their shoelace maker(s) to pick one nylon/string manufacturer to make all their shoelaces out of, so that the shoelaces of every Nike shoe will be the same.

Of course Nike has the right to standardize their product. Just like Microsoft has the right to standardize their product. If their product is a Windows mobile device; they have a right to control the specifications of the end result.

It's not antitrust for Nike to insist their shoelace maker pick one string manufacturer meeting certain specifications, they can be expected to pick the one that provides at lowest cost, a product that meets all their requirements. MS can do the same.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[TemporalBeing]

except the oil was mostly the same. in this case manufacturers building cheapo products will damage microsoft's brand perception which is what they want to avoid

How could it get any worse? Microsoft has never had very good branch perception beyond the board room.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[JustSomeProgrammer]

The difference being that Microsoft had a monopoly on Operating systems then as determined by the courts and now in the tablet space they're a bit player hoping to gain some kind of stability.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[Jerry]

See Trips for Judges:
"Corporate special interests are wining and dining judges at fancy resorts under the pretext of "educating" them about complicated legal issues. Nothing for FREE, a July 2000 report by Community Rights Counsel (CRC), showed that these junkets appear to be working as their sponsors intend, encouraging rulings that strike down environmental protections and line the pockets of junket sponsors."

And that info is over five years old. Corporate greed has made great gains since then. Now they don't have to bribe judges, although they still do that, because they have been given Carte Blanche by the US Supreme Court to "donate" to any politician in any amount WITHOUT accountability to the people, who supposedly own this government.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[thetoadwarrior]

There is no question over the legality of it. Aside form dekstops pretty much everything else is standardised. You either get hundreds of pieces of hardware that work perfectly with the software (VCR / DVD) or you get one / two variations on the hardware with software that only works for it. It makes sense because either way the user gets a consistent user experience. The reason it doesn't for a desktop is because it's something that could let you build your own and upgrade it.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[Unequivocal]

Yeah not to mention the fact that Apple has already done them one better and said "there will be one hardware manufacturer for our iPad."

So MS is pretty broad minded even with this recent request in comparison. I don't think they could possibly run into trouble on this given that Apple is far, far more closed about its manufacturing and licensing.

I'm not saying one is worse than the other, but in terms of anti-trust, as P says, MS is pretty unassailable these days.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[Unequivocal]

I don't get the difference. If Microsoft were the de facto operating system, the fact that you could build a competing OS seems irrelevant. Making a new and better OS doesn't mean anyone will use, and specifically b/c MS can take certain actions to make sure it's not adopted. Like forcing Dell to commit to buying Windows for all their machines even if it's not installed, for example.

This is like saying anyone can build competing train engines, or buy land and lay new tracks. Sure it's competitive, but there's a network of services in play that make it very hard to unseat an incumbent. My understanding of anti-trust (admittedly limited) is to ensure that such an incumbent has limits on their behavior to ensure they don't unfairly abuse their position. I believe that is exactly what Clinton's DoJ attempted to accomplish and I think to some extent succeeded, at least in terms of changing MS's behavior (which may have changed voluntarily to avoid anti-trust action).

The fact that the technology sector's natural monopolies are generally short lived b/c the technology changes much faster than say railroads, makes it a special case in that sense, but I don't see a fundamental/economic difference between the kind of power MS held with desktop computers in the late 90's and the kind of power train networks held over businesses a hundred years ago.

Any thoughts on that?

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[Anne Thwacks]

damage microsoft's brand perception

I think the horse has bolted on that one.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[MightyMartian]

It isn't the 1990s any more. There were legitimate reasons to go after MS ten or fifteen years ago when it was indeed in a substantial monopoly position. But that's fading away more and more by the day, and Microsoft is increasingly looking like the odd man out.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[walterbyrd]

I think there is more to it than that. I think conspiring with other companies in order destroy the competion is a different matter.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[walterbyrd]

I'm sure standard oil only "asked." Sort of like an extortionist only asks for protection money.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[Unequivocal]

Couldn't agree more.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[FatLittleMonkey]

An example? MS-Security Essentials is not included in the Win7 install. Instead you have to download it. Moreso, you have to know to look for it. Even when the "You are not secure" warnings come up, they don't point to an MSE download page. Microsoft could have largely destroyed the AV market if they build their anti-virus directly into Windows 7. (Hell, they don't even have their email client in the default install.) How about an example of playing nice with a direct rival? I've mentioned before, they could have an ad-blocker built directly Internet Explorer (including older versions via an update), except websites which use MSN/Atlas-served ads. Seriously fuck with Google's revenue stream. They don't. You think a sense of decency and fair-play is stopping them?

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[BradleyUffner]

I'm sure standard oil only "asked." Sort of like an extortionist only asks for protection money.

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on phones, they are actually only a minor player. That doesn't give them any leverage to demand anything. If they try to make demands the the people making the phones will tell them to get lost, and they will switch to android or some other larger player.

Re:How is this not anti-trust?

[scamper_22]

That is why the acts are very reasonable... you must prove substantial economic harm.

The point was the exclusive deals are not on their own merits bad. They're very common place and reasonable business strategies.

However, they can be a problem if abused... and that is where the substantial economic harm part comes in... and that typically comes in when you have monopolies or just very large players.

It is not just the that tech industry has short lived monopolies... it is that there are diverse players that keep each other in check. For example, if MS really pushed Dell too hard, Dell would invest in its own OS and software... as HP has done with webOS. This separation of software and hardware severely limited Microsoft's ability to to substantial harm IMHO.

However, I'm not against many of the anti-trust accusations against MS. I think the US legal system did the right thing by bringing it to the forefront MS forcing vendors to bundle products and what not.

And they didn't take too drastic action... which is good I think as the tech industry changes so quickly.

Sometimes the legal system actually does a pretty reasonable job.

Great business model

[klingens]

Limiting hardware and exercising very stringent control has worked for Microsoft so well with Windows Phone 7 and was obviously the reason their OSes didn't sell.

The reason DOS and later Windows took off was exactly that every Tom, Dick and Harry from the shadiest backroom company could slap together something to sell. Many of those things didn't sell, many of them were and maybe still are atrocious piece of kit. But they simply swamped the market, drove prices to rock bottom and made MSFT's software have 90%+ marketshare, made the current and former CEOs of Microsoft multibillionaires, etc. Additionally they drove Apple nearly to extinction since they just couldn't compete with true mass production.

But this time around everything is different. Learning from Apple means more profit and success!

Re:Great business model

[somersault]

Yep, this time it's Android enabling every Tom, Dick and Harry to build whatever the hell they want. Even the PSP's successor looks like it's going to be an Android device.

Re:Great business model

[MightyMartian]

The day of Microsoft's dominance is coming to a close. It will still probably dominate the business market for some time, but I can't see it ever being more than a fractional player in the tablet and smartphone markets. Apple and all the Android manufacturers have a massive lead.

Re:Great business model

[obarthelemy]

the market has changed. Back at the start of the Wintel PC era, PCs were either business tools one simply HAD to use, or hobbyist stuff one actually enjoyed tinkering/fighting with.

smartphones and tablets today are used by choice, by a much larger public, and not really tinkered with (hardware mods are pretty much impossible, and on the software side, I'm the only person I know to root my phone). plus, there's plenty spare power in these things to have nice interfaces.

I don't really like the term "dumbing down", but... people want a cool, easy, reliable device, even at the cost of features. The MS model of having second-rate interfaces, software glitches, and half-baked support for a lot of hardware instead of top-notch support for a handful of options doesn't work that well anymore. Honestly, when I see the smörgåsbord of android user interfaces (Sense...)... they rather get in the way.

I do think MS should fully bite the bullet, buy Nokia, and do their own phones and tablets the way they do their own xboxes (success) and zunes (failure). The current charade where it seems one WinPhone partner gets (will get) preferential treatment, and all must only manufacture the exact same phone with a different case color is disheartening for both partners and buyers. The Symbian -> WinPhone transition seems to be going so badly for Nokia, I'm wondering if that was not the plan from the start.

Re:Great business model

[iluvcapra]

Yep, this time it's Android enabling every Tom, Dick and Harry to build whatever the hell they want.

As long as Tom, Dick and Harry join the Open Handset Alliance and pay dues to same, sign nondisclosure agreements forbidding them from releasing new OSs before Google, and agree to not bundle their phones with apps and services that compete with Google's.

Re:Great business model

[JasterBobaMereel]

It's not as though Apple are limiting the hardware the iPad runs on ... oh sorry yes there is only 1 chipset and one manufacturer ...

It will soon be
    iPad - is a device - Hardware and software bundled, which model do you want
    Win8Pad - is a device - Hardware from a limited set of partners plus software, which model do you want
    Android, run anywhere ....

It looks like MS have spotted that Apple are doing quite well, are copying them, not realising that the market has moved on ...

Re:Great business model

[klingens]

There are tons of cheapo phones, tablets and the like which don't pay a dime to Google. They simply don't ship Google Maps and Mail, aren't allowed on the Android Marketplace. Just ask the likes of nook, Archos, and lots of manufacturers of awfully crappy tablets (500MHz Arm7 and 256MB with 2 hours battery life variety).

The only exception from the above so far is Honeycomb. All other Android versions were used a lot by OEMs for free.

Re:Great business model

[iluvcapra]

There are a lot of AOSP devices, and Google constructs the terms of the AOSP in such a way that AOSP devices are hamstrung and can never offer realistic competition with OHA devices. That's the idea.

Re:Great business model

[iluvcapra]

Verizon isn't a phone manufacturer. Google's been quite clear that they don't want to compete with other location service providers, and will use access to the closed-source google mobile apps and services as a club to keep manufacturers in line.

Re:Great business model

[somersault]

Doesn't change the fact that anyone can distribute Android devices without those apps if they want to. Looks at the Archos media players for devices with good quality hardware, but no Android Market, etc. If they had an Android 3 version, I probably would have chosen it over the Xoom.

Re:Great business model

[MightyMartian]

They've been playing the game every which way for fifteen years trying to become a pre-eminent web presence, and have been beaten at every turn. The hardware dominance of the PC which basically underpinned Microsoft's fortunes is dying. Between Google and the second browser wars on one side and the ARM processor on the other, Microsoft appears to have been flanked.

Re:Great business model

[iluvcapra]

If they had an Android 3 version, I probably would have chosen it over the Xoom.

That's the whole point, though. OHA members are allowed to test and customize new Android versions before they're officially released, and get input into new features, so they're first-to-market by at least six months with good, useable implementations.

Thus, you bought the Xoom. Google won, and the open development model lost.

The inmates are running the asylum

[MikeRT]

I can only imagine that their goal is to limit the variety of tablets on the market in a vain attempt to make their partners design a few high quality devices. At this point, what Microsoft should be worried about is making sure that .NET and their other tools work exceedingly well on those ARM processors so that developers won't end up pulling out their hair trying to maintain compatibility.

Re:The inmates are running the asylum

[ElmoGonzo]

Following that dictum would put Dell out of business.

Re:The inmates are running the asylum

[rickb928]

It took almost 2 years and major hardware evolution for Flash to run on Android. To put it another way, it took major evolution in display acceleration and a major compromise in battery life to get Flash on Android. I have a G1. I remember the promises that Flash would come in the Spring of 2009. Ha.

Apple still thumbs its nose at Adobe, ignoring Flash.

If Microsoft can port .NET to ARM, it will open more options for them, but why would ARM developers WANT .NET? I know why Windows devs want it, but WM7 is such a terrible OS that Microsoft seems to have to tie a pork chop around its neck to get anyone to use it. And no one really trusts Microsoft to not pull a CE and render it obsolete and un-upgradeable next year. My G1 is running Froyo now, courtesy of a rooted ROM, and all those CE phones were in the trash a while ago. Even Apple has preserved some of their older phones, though the performance hit is noticeable. My G1 creaks and groans too. Actually, that's not fair. Windows was out of the phone market from some time in 2007-2008 until 2010, and the Kin . Entirely uncompetitive. Almost a comic strip. THAT was a CE phone, and probably the last. .NET on phones is a solution no one asked the question for. Microsoft woudl be better off writing a mobile-focused JVM and adding an Android compatibility layer. That would cause trouble. But I think RIM is already ahead of them.

Same shit, different decade...

[taiwanjohn]

They've been doing this sort of thing with hardware vendors for quite a while. Nothing new here. Move along...

Re:Same shit, different decade...

[somersault]

They probably had to cut back during their anti-trust overwatch. Which ended a couple of weeks ago.

Re:Same shit, different decade...

[taiwanjohn]

I'd been wondering why M$ seemed somewhat less evil in recent years. That explains it. Oddly it reaffirms my faith in the universe to learn that. Thank you.

Clamping down

[Microlith]

It seems Microsoft is jealous of Apple's ability to get people to accept heavy restrictions on mobile devices, and is attempting to enforce the same thing by leveraging their monopoly on Windows.

Sadly, now is better than ever for vendors to give Microsoft the finger and go for other options yet we probably won't see it happen. Precisely because Microsoft is still, ten years later, a monopoly that can crush a vendor if they don't do what Microsoft says.

Re:Clamping down

[somersault]

Sadly, now is better than ever for vendors to give Microsoft the finger and go for other options yet we probably won't see it happen. Precisely because Microsoft is still, ten years later, a monopoly that can crush a vendor if they don't do what Microsoft says.

I think more likely that a vendor with laugh at Microsoft, spit in their face, and go with Android. Microsoft is a complete joke in the mobile segment.

I liked Windows Mobile for a while, I think they were the only non-Nokia smartphones even available for years (have never liked Nokias for some reason) - but when Android started gathering momentum, I switched and have not looked back.

Re:Clamping down

[drinkypoo]

I think more likely that a vendor with laugh at Microsoft, spit in their face, and go with Android. Microsoft is a complete joke in the mobile segment.

Microsoft will simply pay anyone they can't strongarm. You think Netflix thought Silverlight was technically superior?

Re:Clamping down

[kybred]

I think more likely that a vendor with laugh at Microsoft, spit in their face, and go with Android.

Maybe that's their plan.

Re:Clamping down

[somersault]

Possibly; I don't know anything about Silverlight. Flash is awful for rendering video, it's really designed for vector based stuff.. HTML5 and native YouTube apps perform better on my netbook and tablets. I expect Silverlight would have been planned from the outset to handle video, as well as the typical flashy Flash stuff.

I get your point though ;)

Re:Clamping down

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

No no, N900 fans are the underdog! Their attempts to convert the unfaithful are protected here.

Microsoft doing the right thing?

[erroneus]

I dunno, but I think they are trying to do the right thing anyway.

One of WinTel's biggest problems is its diversity. Developers do not follow the rules and worse, they make up their own rules. And with the diversity of hardware out there, the problem becomes even more complex. (No such thing as an IBM compatible any longer is there?)

As this new market is being entered, controlling the target playing field is to Microsoft's advantage enabling them to increase the quality of the user experience. (And actually, it will help Android too as undoubtedly people will want to put Android on their over-powered tablet devices and with less variation in hardware, there will be fewer obstacles to overcome.)

Re:Microsoft doing the right thing?

[Microlith]

If that's really the problem, then Microsoft should just pull an xbox and release a console-ized version of the OS on locked down laptop hardware and call it the "xbook" or someshit.

(And actually, it will help Android too as undoubtedly people will want to put Android on their over-powered tablet devices and with less variation in hardware, there will be fewer obstacles to overcome.)

The distrustful part of me suspects that there will be requirements that bar the ability to load other OSes on these devices, above and beyond the typical lack of video drivers and (in the case of windows-based machines) the complete lack of a compatible Linux kernel.

Re:Microsoft doing the right thing?

[VortexCortex]

Heh, to me, this just looks like More of the same from MS: Standards!? We don't need no stinking standards! We don't have to be compatible with anyone! Everyone should be compatible with us!

You know why it's so damn hard to just make standards compliant websites / webapps, MICROSOFT's penchant for bucking the standards.

Fortunately there is a standard for OSs -- Posix. Get on board MS, or kill your hosts like the cancer you are.

FYI: So long as you have a C compiler for the platform, you can tweak it to make your programs run (I even have programs that utilize 64bit math and they run on 16 bit processors thanks to my compiler -- It's an abstraction layer), well, so long as you have source code...

MS wants to push out as few software releases as possible to support the most devices.

However, the only way you can do that in today's diverse market is if you A) stifle innovation and enforce hardware vendor lock-in. B) Your binaries are byte-code for a VM, and you release a native VM for each hardware platform, or C) The code is open source in order to support any arbitrary hardware via recompilng.

The most effective/managable strategy is if both B and C are true, and A is false. See: Android. FLOSS base with a VM to run the apps...

No need to produce a binary for each hardware platform if the hardware vendors can do it themselves.

Take note of MS's stance on this issue -- It is the path that all sufficiently complex closed source / proprietary software inevitably takes.

Reminds me on x86 -.-

[disi]

Do I get this right? We are stuck with e.g. TI cortex for 10 years and companys will only increase the MHz. In 20 years we will see the first improvement in chipsets etc.

Is it a change with the times?

[jagier]

I understand why they want to do it. I think that limiting the vendor list to one is a sure death to the product. I think having one vendor will certainly streamline operations and allow for a more vertical integration of the product line but will the practice will severely limit the design innovation necessary to develop the next generation of products. The product that would be necessary to provide a replacement for income to its aging cash revenue producers namely the desktop and the office productivity products. I would expect they are looking at the success of iPhone the way it structured with its seamless vertical integration and content experience. Another model would be the game console and set tops. I am not certain this is a good strategy but it certainly signals that Microsoft is willing to reinvent itself to thrive in the new mobile market.

Re:Is it a change with the times?

[marcosdumay]

Yeah, the difference with Microsoft is that instead of simply making a verticaly integrated product line, they are imposing vertical integration on third parties, with each vertical path composed of several different parties. In short, they are trying to get the worst of vertical integration (that is NIH syndrome, and lack of flexibility) combined with the worst of independent producers (that is lack of economic and planning ingtegration, differing objectives at different levels) with added market failures (olgopsones) problems (inverting the economic power X barrier of entry rule, what makes chip makers extremely vunerable) and some anti-trust problems (governments everywhere will be whatching them).

Or, in a shorter yet version, I don't think it is a good plan.

Re:Is it a change with the times?

[drinkypoo]

BINGO!

Re:Might be interesting

[somersault]

While I do prefer to buy Android devices from well known companies so that I can be more sure of quality and software updates (so far Dell and Motorola), if Android weren't open then the same thing would happen with Android as with Apple devices: over-priced, over-controlled, under featured. I'm not going to buy a device where the software I can install is censored (even in cases where Android pulls apps from the official market, you can still get them direct from the author's websites). I'm also not going to buy a device that will not let me expand the storage. This is becoming less relevant as more and more content can be streamed directly, but we're not there yet.

Re:Yoshinoya

[Anonymous Coward]

Mc Donalds but with more McNasty in it.

Re:Might be interesting

[gman003]

Alienware? Seriously? Not only are those things bulky and ugly as hell, they're also terrible, terrible laptops. The high-powered ones have a battery life measured in seconds of full use. The low-powered ones are weak and incredibly overpriced.

There are plenty of good laptop manufacturers. I prefer Asus - a $1100 laptop has lasted me two years. I had one hard disk failure - I was able to back up all my data, send it in under warranty, and get it fixed, no questions asked. It looks pretty good, doesn't weigh too much, and balances a respectable amount of power (Core 2 Duo and GeForce 9600 - not top-of-the-line, but it still works fine even on newer games) with an OK battery life (~100 minutes, on a poorly-cared-for two-year-old battery).

Alienware is junk. On their high-end rigs, they charge a huge amount for what ends up being mediocre machines. On the low end, they do the same, but with less glowing LEDs everywhere. There's a reason most gamers view anyone using an Alienware as a poser - anyone with actual experience, even FPS-obsessed teenagers, can find or build better computers at a fraction of the cost.

MS should have Segmentation plan for x86/ARM

[guidryp]

With MS releasing WinArm into the wilds in may just be that they are creating some rules about where to use ARM (tablets) and where to use x86 (everything else) so it doesn't just confuse and alienate the consumer.

Bad for the manufacturers

[afidel]

When I worked at Cisco we had to have explicit signoff from an Executive VP to single source any component due to the risks involved. The supplier might have yield problems, they might have a plant get hit by an earthquake, they might discontinue the product, they might feel they can arbitrarily increase unit prices because they know we are single sourced, etc. To have a third party force that kind of risk on my company would really piss me off if I was an executive in charge of such a project.

Re:Bad for the manufacturers

[MightyMartian]

Fortunately manufacturers have Android, so they don't have to accept any of Microsoft's limitations. If there were ever a clearer canary in the mine for Microsoft, it will be the universal shrug from manufacturers over their "request".

Re:Bad for the manufacturers

[iluvcapra]

Manufacturers of Android phones are single-sourcing their OS, all of the Google mobile apps and services (which aren't OSS and must be licensed btw), the phone's location service, the phone's internet search -- Google forbids hardware vendors from using non-Google internet and location services. Why do you think Motorola has begun developing their own mobile OS as a backup?

Re:Bad for the manufacturers

[Lonewolf666]

There is one big difference:
With a single source hardware supplier, the flow of parts can stop at any time because the vendor has a technical problem in manufacturing.
With software, once the contract is signed and you have your copy (plus proper backups), you can keep distributing. The analogy only works in a scenario where you have to obtain a release code for every single copy. Imagine a PC OEM that has to activate every single Windows PC over the internet. Now the authentication server at Microsoft breaks. That would be a proper analogy for the single-source scenario in hardware, but I doubt such a stupid arrangement exists in the software world.

Re:Bad for the manufacturers

[iluvcapra]

With software, once the contract is signed and you have your copy (plus proper backups), you can keep distributing.

In the restricted case of the OS this isn't true, because Google need simply change the terms of the license for "Klondike Bar" or whatever. If you're an OEM not having the latest version of Android, with Google's cloud services, on Day 0 will end your business; having a really good last-years version simply doesn't cut it in the marketplace, for better or worse, and Google's services are obligatory to bring the phone's into parity with iOS devices.

Consumers don't buy the phones for the OS, they buy them for the services. And the services on an Android phone are the cloud's equivalent of Win32 -- closed source, closed implementation, and APIs that favor the publisher. You only have a "freedom phone" if you never use Google's location, search, stores, in-app purchasing, contacts and calendars, and defer all of these to a server under your control -- unfortunately Google can make it very difficult for a hardware vendor to sell such a device in volume.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The reason DOS took off?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The reason DOS and later Windows took off was exactly that every Tom, Dick and Harry from the shadiest backroom company could slap together something to sell", klingens

No the reason DOS took off was that Microsoft bought DOS from the Seattle Computer Products and licensed it to IBM for use in the IBM Personal Computer. It also helped the reputatiion of Microsoft having the IBM Logo on the box. Later on when third party companies discovered how to cleanroom the BIOS, they manufactured IBM compatibles at a fraction of the cost of the real thing. Microsoft was more than happy to license DOS to them. Years layer IBM is no longer in the Personal Computer business.

Anybody else confused by this?

[UnknowingFool]

Anybody read the story and is confused by this restriction? The reason I am confused is that normally the chipmakers are not the ones driving the integration of devices. The device manufacturers like Acer, Apple, Samsung, etc are the ones that pick and integrate the hardware and software. The chipmakers may work with the device makers but they ultimately are not in charge and possibly don't care. The chipmakers care mostly about selling as many chips as possible to as many device makers. Even Samsung sells chips to companies that compete with Samsung's devices. Anybody understand this better than I do?

Re:Anybody else confused by this?

[Nerdfest]

Microsoft has a lot more power over the chip makers than they do over the device manufacturers.

Re:Anybody else confused by this?

[UnknowingFool]

How? MS may have some power over Intel and AMD. TI, Samsung, Qualcomm, Sharp, Freescale etc. care very little about the OS that their customers pair with their chips. At most they might provide some technical assistance now and then but it is up to the device maker to work on integration.

Re:Anybody else confused by this?

[UnknowingFool]

It still doesn't answer the question. MS dictating what the device makers use is one thing. Telling the chipmakers what their customers can use is another. For example, TI doesn't really care that Sharp used their OMAP chips in an Android phone or a Windows Phone or even a Symbian phone. What matters to TI is that their chip meets Sharp's specifications for power, size, etc. TI can not dictate what Sharp uses as OS. Even if TI did, Sharp is going to just go with another chip maker that doesn't tell them what to do. Or even license ARM for themselves and have a foundry make their chips.

Re:Anybody else confused by this?

[UnknowingFool]

Not according to the article. It specifically says "chipmakers" and names them. It also separates them from device makers. Of course the author could be ittaly confused but that's what it says.

Chase the failure...

[Nethemas the Great]

"So it looks like Android with it's open and diverse platform is a rousing success with market penetration the envy of all. But we're the best, we're Microsoft and if that puny Apple can do it with a locked down, narrowly focused platform then we definitely will. Now about this crazy talk of me stepping down..."

I don't get it. What is Windows 8?

[dingen]

Every time Windows 8 is mentioned, it's about running it on ARM-powered tablets. Is Windows 8 a tablet-only operating system? Or is it also for use on desktop PC's? I don't get it.

If Windows 8 is also for desktop PC's, then Windows 7's lifetime was awfully short, as Windows 8 is due for release in 2012 as far as I know. It's very possible that by that time, Windows XP's market share is still larger than that of Windows 7 (as it is currently about 2:1 for XP vs W7, with XP's market share just above 50% and W7 around 25% and Vista remaining at about 10%). Is it really wise to release yet another desktop OS, when neither one of the two previously released systems really caught on yet?

And if Windows 8 isn't a replacement for Windows 7 on the desktop, and merely an operating system for tablets, then why is it called Windows 8? Doesn't that make it seem the desktop is lagging behind compared to the tablet? And besides, if it really only is an OS for tablets, why not put that in the name, equal to Windows Mobile and now Windows Phone? Wouldn't "Windows Tablet" make a lot more sense in that case? Windows 8 as a name suggests it's a continuation of Windows 7, which doesn't make any sense at all if it's in fact a new OS for tablet computers.

All and all I'm completely confused on what Microsoft is planning to do with Windows and Wikipedia doesn't really help. Anyone here who knows more about it?

Re:I don't get it. What is Windows 8?

[0123456]

A desperate attempt to get some upgrade income by forcing people to buy yet another version of Windows if they want the next DirectX which no game other than those developed by Microsoft will use for five years?

Re:I don't get it. What is Windows 8?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry Mr. Balmer, we can't help you either

Re:I don't get it. What is Windows 8?

[HBI]

I think the Osbourne effect must have something to do with your system biting the heads off bats and mumbling incoherently.

The Osborne effect is probably what you meant.

Re:I don't get it. What is Windows 8?

[Alioth]

It'll also bite them to call the tablet OS "Windows 8" if there is also a PC OS called "Windows 8".

What Apple did which was smart marketing, was not to use the "OS X" brand for the tablet/phone, even though iOS is indeed based on OS X. They called it something completely different, so customers will never think "Oh, my iPad runs OS X, therefore I can run $RANDOM_MAC_APP on my iPad!"

What will happen is people will buy ARM-based Windows 8 tablets and find most applications for Windows 8 won't actually run because they are Intel binaries (and most apps for Windows aren't .NET so .NET won't save them). So the early adopters will voice their disappointment that their Windows 8 tablet doesn't run most Windows apps. Now if Microsoft didn't insist on calling their tablet and phone OS "Windows", they could break this association and set different expectations.

Re:I don't get it. What is Windows 8?

[tepples]

If Windows 8 is also for desktop PC's, then Windows 7's lifetime was awfully short

If Windows 7's lifetime (which began in October 2009) was awfully short, then Windows Vista's lifetime (which began in November 2006) was awfully short

Re:I don't get it. What is Windows 8?

[dingen]

It was. Vista's market share peaked at somewhere around 20%. The only reason why W7 was released was due to the unfixable nature of Vista's bad reputation. Technologically speaking, W7 is more like a service pack than a separate release.

Re:I don't get it. What is Windows 8?

[shutdown -p now]

The delay like the one between XP and Vista is not typical of Windows relase schedule - think back to Win 95/98/XP. So, no, it's not too early.

Re:I don't get it. What is Windows 8?

[dingen]

But the world has changed since the '90ies. Back then, Windows 95 was widely adopted when Windows 98 was released. Equally so with Windows 98 and XP. But now, most PC's are still running Windows XP and twice as many PC's are running XP when compared to Windows 7. If Windows 8 is released within a year, this makes it very likely that most people will still be on XP, which will then not be the previous version of Windows, not the one before that, but the one even before that. Releasing Windows 8 next year would be same as if Windows Vista was released while most people were still on Windows 95.

You could make the case that the cause of this is people aren't as likely to change their software anymore or because they get new hardware less frequently. But the fact of the matter is that both Linux and Mac users do use the more recent versions of their operating systems. Something is clearly amiss at Microsoft, and I doubt sticking to a rigid old-fashioned 3-year release cycle is going to fix this.

Re:I don't get it. What is Windows 8?

[Billly Gates]

2 to 3 years is the normal life cycle for any platform. It's just got screwed up with WindowsXP and Windows 2003. Microsoft likes to release operating systems every 3 years as they coincide average life cycle upgrades for businesses (3 - 4 years). Odd was this severe recession caused many businesses to hold on to their pc's and servers for 7 or 8 more years which also hurt Windows Vista/7 adoption.

What I wonder is how many businesses that used their pc's until the fans all died noticed the cost savings and liked it. The accountants sure do. If that is the case it maybe difficult for corporate buyers to upgrade. Many consumers are holding off upgrading as well. But that is another discussion entirely.

I think tablets/pads and Windows Mobile integration might be key to giving organizations a reason to upgrade. 7 or 8 might be the new norm which would be a nightmare for Microsoft and OEMs.

Microsoft also mentioned that it wants to release Windows in more increments gradually like MacOSX, and older MS products. It keeps revenue flowing and a major os upgrade wont be so shocking and difficult to implement if changes happen slowly. That is the last hurdle that is keeping many PHB's from leaving XP. Windows Vista was an example of when programmers keep fitzing around and not getting anything done. Gradual releases make upgrading every 3 to 4 years less painful.

Re:I don't get it. What is Windows 8?

[Billly Gates]

"hey called it something completely different, so customers will never think "Oh, my iPad runs OS X, therefore I can run $RANDOM_MAC_APP on my iPad!""

AMD is betting on an x86 one. Rumor has it Asus will make it and can run those apps. Battery life and cost wont be as great as an arm, but it might be what the scientist in R&D imagined what WindowsXP Tablet edition was supposed to be.

Windows NT 4 had decent x86 emulation for the Alpha version. It had x86 emulation for Windows 2000 Server for the Itanium. My guess it will use something like this for the ARM. I just squirm imaging running Office 2010 on it.

Re:I don't get it. What is Windows 8?

[brentrad]

Windows 7 was Released To Manufacturers (RTM) on July 22, 2009. Windows 8 is scheduled for sometime in 2012. So three years, which is actually a totally normal span of time for Microsoft to release a new OS. It took five years between XP and Vista, so if you're used to that, three years for a new MS OS seems like a really short time span. Windows 7 has seen a very rapid uptake, but the problem is that there are a LOT of Windows XP computers out there. And until those computers die, lots of people will likely use XP. Most consumers will never upgrade their OS, they just use whatever their old computer came with. However, every new computer is sold with Windows 7 these days, and people are generally happy with it. You're not seeing much of the XP downgrades like you did with Vista.

Windows 8 (or whatever MS decides to call it) will be a desktop replacement for Windows 7, and will ALSO be available in an ARM version (or versions) for tablets. You hear a lot about the new Windows 8 ARM version (and less about the desktop OS version) since an ARM version of Windows has never been widely available before now. Microsoft saw the writing on the wall and realized that desktop Windows just is too fat and bloated to run on the new tablets. I know this from experience - I have a Windows XP convertible tablet (I'm using it now) and while it works OK as a tablet with an input pen, hardly anyone at my work actually uses it in that configuration - desktop software just isn't designed to be used with a pen. And the battery life stinks compared to an ARM-based tablet. With dual batteries, the best we can expect from our tablets is about 6-7 hours. The iPad (and other ARM-based tablets) can get over 12-16 hours constant use.

In my opinion, you're going to see the OS stats change drastically from XP to 7 in the next year or so. Businesses for the most part gave Vista a pass - plus during the recent recession, a lot of businesses gave any kind of OS or hardware upgrades a pass. But XP is looking a little dated at this point, and a lot of them can no longer put off upgrades. Businesses are starting to upgrade - and it's to Windows 7 they are upgrading to. (Especially since MS no longer sells XP licenses or provides much support.) The fact that Windows 7 SP1 came out recently is a definite plus, since some businesses wait until the first Service Pack to jump into a new OS. At my work (a medical practice), all our new computers are getting Windows 7 64-bit, and we've had very few problems with it.

Re:I don't get it. What is Windows 8?

[Lonewolf666]

For Windows, user behavior has certainly changed. Back in the 90s, lots of Windows users happily went and got the latest version when it came out. These days, most users seem to be happy to keep whatever came with the computer. With the possible exception of Vista.
If you trust the statistics on netmarketshare.com, Windows 7 has gained about 12% of the total installation base within the last year. That is about 1/7 of the 89% Microsoft still has. Likewise, XP has lost about 1/7 of the share it had a year ago. Looks like most people replace their OS along with the computer (and at a rather slow replacement cycle of seven years at that). Only Vista appears to decline faster (in relative terms). Maybe it is still hated enough that people actively move away from it.

On Linux, three things are different:
1) The support time frames are shorter. On Ubuntu for instance, even the "Long Time Support" desktop versions will get only three years of patches. Compared to Windows with its 10 years, this certainly pushes people to switch more often.
2) Upgrading is a lot cheaper, or even free in terms of money, for most distributions. While one license of Windows Home premium costs around 80 Euros.
3) Newbie-friendly GUIs have only recently reached a convenience level that is on par with Windows. So I guess there is still some demand for catching up via new versions. For instance, Ubuntu was one of the the first Linux distributions that could be managed without expert knowledge, but the switch from 8.04 to 10.04 was still a big step ahead.

Microsoft is Confused

[chill]

Apple went it alone, and while they've had their share of heartache, they eventually built the shining behemoth they are today.

Microsoft never did that. *IBM* built their market, and Microsoft rode in on the coattails. (See the history of PC-DOS vs MS-DOS.) They certainly took advantage, but *THEY* did not build the market, IBM did.

As far as I can tell, they've NEVER built ANY market. They've always come in as a Johnny-Come-Lately. The 900 lb gorilla J-C-L, but never-the-less, not the innovator.

In the past few years it seems their entire business plan could be summed up simply as "Whatever Google is doing, plus Windows and Office".

Their stock has floundered under the leadership, or lack thereof, of Steve "Monkey Boy" Ballmer. They need a new direction, and since all they know how to do is emulate, they might as well emulate the most successful company they can find.

Re:Microsoft is Confused

[dingen]

In the past few years it seems their entire business plan could be summed up simply as "Whatever Google is doing, plus Windows and Office".

You're really not telling the whole story here. Microsoft also take into account what Amazon, Apple, Nintendo and Sony (XBOX!) are doing.

Re:Microsoft is Confused

[marcosdumay]

They got nearly all the market on embebbed interpreters on personal computers before DOS, by themselves, they got the word processing and spreadsheet markets by themselves, they created the ASP like servers (an inovation here!!! And then lost most of the market to PHP, but that was later)... That is just from memory, there is probably more.

I'm not saying they were ethical, honest, or that they acted within the law on any of those markets. But they become dominant by their own effort.

Re:Microsoft is Confused

[fat_mike]

So using your logic Chevy, Dodge, Mercury, Plymouth, Pontiac (Fiero owners REPRESENT!), Edsel, etc. never innovated and rode the coattails of Ford.

And Yahoo and Google DIDN'T ride the coattails of AltaVista

And JC Penny, Dillards and Macy's DIDN'T ride the coattails of Sears

And Apple DIDN'T ride the coattails of Xerox

And Linux DIDN'T ride the coattails of AT&T and Minix

And the web DIDN'T come from HyperCard which DIDN'T come from Gopher

And no offense, Apple built some of the crappiest crap ever...Newton, IIgs, Mac +.

As did IBM...PC jr anyone?

To say that Apple went it alone is a pile of crap. Who lent them the money to get their butt back in gear after Scully was gone and Job's came back? Who gave them the killer apps they needed to survive and of those two companies which one did Apple stab in the back when their iGadgets became popular? And who did Apple turn to when they realized that their stupid RISC PowerPC experiment was a waste of millions of dollars.....the same companies that everyone else uses. When was the last time you saw an Apple printer? What do you think Apple (like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Ford, General Foods, etc) does with all that capital they have? Sure they invest in R&D but they also pay people to go find things they want that other people have already created and they BUY them!

And IBM already had a market, MS-DOS that would run on different hardware configurations (unlike...hmm...APPLE) allowed the growth of the computer industry. They bought the OS fair and square and negotiated a stellar contract with IBM from a business perspective. And what happened, Tandy, Micro"fill in the blank", heck even Epson was making computer because they were cheap. For someone who has such a low UID you are either extremely biased or stupid. Do you not remember going to Walgreens or CVS in the 80's and picking up a Computer Shopper that topped out at a whopping 500+ pages and drooling at all the choices you had? In the meantime whenever someone tried to put out an Apple clone Job's sued the pants off of them.

Slashdot is the MSNBC of the IT World and is only surpassed by ComputerWorld when it comes to real and perceived reality.

Re:Microsoft is Confused

[chill]

I meant that IBM *created* the business computer market. Prior to them, there was no big business PC market. It was a bunch of people TRYING -- Tandy, Apple, Commodore, etc. -- but it was IBM that *CREATED* the business PC market.

Apple essentially CREATED the fashion computing market. Their equipment is as much a fashion accessory as it is an electronic device.

I never said MS didn't do a killer business deal. But IBM legitimized computers in the office. Before them a PC was looked at as a toy and a game machine, but not for serious business.

MS-DOS succeeded because it was originally compatible with PC-DOS. IBM was expensive, which is where the entire clone market came from.

(And I *LIKED* the Newton. ;-) It was the only Apple kit I've ever owned, other than recently an iPod Shuffle. Yes, Apple and all the others have made crap at one time or another.

I wasn't talking about necessarily being the first, but being the one who popularized everything and created the MARKET.

Yes, Henry Ford with his assembly line essentially CREATED the personal automobile MARKET.

Re:Yoshinoya

[hairyfeet]

Hey as long as MSFT keep this "idea" to tablets I'm fine and dandy with it, but they can fuck right off if they try to lock down the X86 desktop and laptop market. IMHO what has made PCs so great is that anybody can find something they can afford, you can DIY or go whitebox or find a sale, there is a niche for everybody.

I know old Ballmer has a hardon for the other Steve (I still think the MSFT Gates borg should be replaced with Ballmer in a beanie with his tongue out and "I heart Apple!" written on the beanie) and cutting down version on the tablet will let them get it out the door quicker, but the last thing we need is the PC landscape to be as locked down as Apple, with only a small handful of models to choose from.

Of course on the other hand if Ballmer really does get THAT stupid then we might actually see some serious R&D spent on Linux on the desktop as those companies that don't want to limit themselves to only a couple of models try to make Linux more user friendly.

Frankly I don't even get WTF MSFT is thinking ATM anyway, I mean Windows on ARM? WTF? Yeah I could see Win 8 on one of those new ULV AMD APUs, with the nice Radeon chips and dual cores, but ARM? The whole selling point of Windows is third party programs, 99% of which don't work on ARM! WTF is Ballmer thinking? Does he think people will pay the MSFT tax just to stare at the desktop? Maybe use WMP? Give me a break! If all my third party Windows programs don't work then WTF do I need Windows for when I could go Android or iOS?

Re:Yoshinoya

[rickb928]

Decaf.

Just sayin.

*shrug*

[voss]

In most free markets cheap and good enough eventually overtakes state of the art. Apple fanboys need to realize
not everyone shares their priorities and not everyone has $1000 for a laptop.

Re:increase the quality of the user experience?

[obarthelemy]

harking back to the good old DOS, plenty of apps were accessing the BIOS, OS, or the hardware (video, I/O ...) directly. There were no real UI norms: I remember thinking CUA (IBM's Common User Access) was quite cool: yeah for standardizing menus and menu access (Alt-F...), with Ctrl for shortcuts, F1 for help.

Apart from those internals, interfaces were totally different company from company, even app from app. There were no "Microsoft Design Guidelines" the way Apple had theirs. And hardware support was wide, rather than targeted. Installing a new card, or even just buying a new PC, could be stressful (remember the quasi-compatible Amstrad PCs in Europe ?).

So I guess it cuts both ways: strictly controlling the hardware, OS, and software does limit flexibility and openness, but it also simplifies hardware support, makes skills more transferable... My take is it's a good move, and MS should go all the way and just make their own devices, the way they make their xboxes.

Interesting to watch

[Pop69]

It will be interesting to see how MS do in a market where there is no lockin to office/exchange and where there are already successful competitors in the marketplace shipping very good products.

This could be one of the few times where MS have to compete on their own merits rather than their usual practice of havings Windows as the centre of everything.

Microsoft might require a Silverlight rewrite

[tepples]

What will happen is people will buy ARM-based Windows 8 tablets and find most applications for Windows 8 won't actually run because they are Intel binaries

And half the Xbox library doesn't run on Xbox 360. And Windows 3.1 apps don't run on Windows Vista 64-bit or Windows 7 Starter or Home Premium 64-bit. (I haven't had a chance to try them in Windows XP Mode on Windows 7 Professional.)

and most apps for Windows aren't .NET

Yet. If Windows 8 is really intended to unify Windows NT and Windows Phone, then perhaps Microsoft will require all apps carrying a "designed for Windows 8" logo to be rewritten for Silverlight or XNA, just like it already requires of all apps for Windows Phone 7 or Xbox Live Indie Games.

Re:Microsoft might require a Silverlight rewrite

[0123456]

And half the Xbox library doesn't run on Xbox 360. And Windows 3.1 apps don't run on Windows Vista 64-bit or Windows 7 Starter or Home Premium 64-bit. (I haven't had a chance to try them in Windows XP Mode on Windows 7 Professional.)

So which store are you buying your Windows 3.1 apps from? We're not even talking about old Windows apps here, we're talking about ordinary everyday Windows apps that you buy and try to install on your tablet and it doesn't work.

And while I haven't tried it, I strongly suspect that 32-bit Windows 3.1 apps will run on 64-bit Windows 7; it's the 16-bit apps that can't run on a 64-bit x86.

Yet. If Windows 8 is really intended to unify Windows NT and Windows Phone, then perhaps Microsoft will require all apps carrying a "designed for Windows 8" logo to be rewritten for Silverlight or XNA, just like it already requires of all apps for Windows Phone 7 or Xbox Live Indie Games.

Yeah, that'll work. 'I bought this Windows game and it won't run on my tablet 'Look on the back of the box, does it say it's designed for Windows 8? No, see, it won't work.' 'But it's Windows, why won't it work?'.

Microsoft have built their fortune on backwards compatibility; there's no reason for an average user to buy a Windows tablet if it can't run their Windows programs.

Re:Microsoft might require a Silverlight rewrite

[dunkelfalke]

There were no native 32 bit applications for Windows 3.1 since it was a 16 bit operating system. Sure, there was the Win32s runtime which allowed some NT applications to run on Windows 3.1, but it was more a dirty hack than anything else.

And over Mordor

[hilldog]

Now two eyes scanned the horizon for the tiny penguin fighters.

That's silly

[A nonymous Coward]

Apple's monosystem helps Apple because it keeps their support options limited, rules out funky hardware and mysterious interactions between odd combinations of hardware and software. Their software can be exquisitely tailored to very specific hardware.

But the only way this could help Microsoft would be for Microsoft to design very specific hardware. The fact that they have multiple hardware vendors who are not under their control means this business model won't help them. You might extrapolate and say it would help the individual hardware vendors, but it won't, because they have no control over Microsoft's software.

There's also a very simple rule for things like this. If you have to dictate unpopular terms to companies where there is sufficient competition for the companies to make intelligent decisions on their own, because their very survival is at stake, then your dictated terms are NOT in the best interest of said companies. The same rule applies to people, too, with s/survival/happiness/g. If Microsoft feels the need to pressure these companies against their better judgement, Microsoft is doing something wrong, which is their usual modus operandi: when in doubt, be arrogant and stupid.

JCL

[G3ckoG33k]

JCL may refer to:

Business:

        * Juniperus Capital Limited, a Bermuda-based hedge fund

Computing:

        * Job Control Language, a scripting language used on IBM mainframe operating systems
        * Java Class Library
        * Java Constraints Library
        * Jedi Code Library [1], a subproject of Project Jedi
        * Jakarta Commons Logging

Periodicals:

        * University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law
        * Journal of Commonwealth Literature
        * Journal of Corporation Law

Junior Classical League:

        * The National Junior Classical League (NJCL) or any of its state-level affiliates.

Academic:

        * J.C.L., degree of Licentiate of Canon Law

An oil-producing plant

        * Jatropha curcas (abbreviation of Jatropha curcas Linnaeus)

Other

        * The Journal of Cosmetic & Laser Therapy

The 900 lb gorilla Journal of Cosmetic & Laser Therapy?!

Re:JCL

[chill]

I defined the acronym in the previous sentence.

Re:It's an interesting balance, but anti-trust?

[michael_cain]

MS got into anti-trust trouble the first time because the court was willing to accept that "desktop computer operating systems" was a market that could be considered in isolation. At the time, many legal scholars were surprised that the court accepted that argument. Once the court took that position, though, MS was sufficiently dominant in that market that some of their behaviors were no longer acceptable. That is, having a dominant position is not illegal, and product-tying by itself is not illegal, but the combination of a sufficiently dominant position and product tying is illegal. Given the current situation, I see no way they can get into anti-trust problems over tablet operating systems.

If I were going to make up a conspiracy theory over this, it would be that MS has reconsidered their decision about the Courier, and wants a unique vertically integrated product. By imposing this restriction— which no sane chip vendor is likely to accept— MS insures that no other tablet will be running the MS tablet OS. I think there's a corporate tablet market that MS would be uniquely positioned to service.

Xbox 360's incomplete back-compat

[tepples]

And half the Xbox library doesn't run on Xbox 360.

Yeah, that'll work. 'I bought this Windows game and it won't run on my tablet 'Look on the back of the box, does it say it's designed for Windows 8? No, see, it won't work.' 'But it's Windows, why won't it work?'.

Microsoft has already crossed that proverbial bridge: "But it's Xbox; why won't it work?"

Re:Xbox 360's incomplete back-compat

[marcosdumay]

Breaking compatibility on XBox is completeley different from breaking compatibility at Windows. That is just the second generation that videogame manufacturers kept compatibility, gamers are used to keep their old machines for playing.