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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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: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.