Slashdot Mirror


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. "

11 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. How is this not anti-trust? by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:How is this not anti-trust? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:How is this not anti-trust? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:How is this not anti-trust? by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    4. Re:How is this not anti-trust? by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  2. Great business model by klingens · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Great business model by iluvcapra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  3. Re:In other words by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  4. Re:In other words by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  5. Microsoft is Confused by chill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  6. Re:I don't get it. What is Windows 8? by Alioth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.