Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#131

Post by freehunter » Mon, Jan 16, 2012, 7:50 PM UTC

aptwebapps wrote: post #63

cooldeal wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, that war was fought and lost won with the iPhone and iPad. If anything, Microsoft is better in the sense that it offers more share of the app cost to the developers and also doesn't charge tithes like Apple does on content.

> Sorry, that war was fought and lost won with the iPhone and iPad. No, not really. There's still a long way to go. And Microsoft's revenue sharing model vs Apple's doesn't have much to do with that.

This is part of why I bought an HP Touchpad when it wasn't on the fire sale, and a Palm Pre+ before that. The Palm folks (even at HP now) not only don't care that you're hacking their device, they actually actively encourage it. They've gone out of their way to provide an "oh shit" button for when you've completely frazzled the bootloader and nothing else works. The Touchpad runs webOS, Android, and Ubuntu, and HP/Palm doesn't give a shit.

Now that their OS is open source, too, I'd love to see the rise of HP/Palm in the hacker community. They're not just accepting of hackers, they actively encourage it in all aspects.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#132

Post by schiffern » Mon, Jan 16, 2012, 8:06 PM UTC

cooldeal wrote: post #82

nitrogen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARM laptops and netbooks and PCs won't run x86 apps, so I fail to see how MS's penetration will allow them to block out competing operating systems. The ability to run x86 apps is irrelevant. Full-fledged Linux desktop distributions have been available for ARM desktops, laptops, nettops, etc. for a long time. Microsoft is entering this existing market with a product that anticompetitively excludes Linux from the mark…

>The ability to run x86 apps is irrelevant It is very relevant. Can you tell why the EU requires Windows to display a browser selection box on first boot to Europeans, but is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines? >Full-fledged Linux desktop distributions have been available for ARM desktops, laptops, nettops, etc. for a long time. Microsoft is entering this existing market with a produc…

>Can you tell why the EU requires Windows to display a browser selection box on first boot to Europeans, but is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines?

Your information is very old. The App Store has approved third-party web browsers for over three year now.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/01/third-party-web-br...

>Why is it not anti-competitive for Apple to ship their hardware with a completely locked bootloader?

It is. Don't confuse "anti-competitive" with "illegal." If you want the DoJ to pursue an anti-trust case against Apple, you're free to push for that. The market realities will make it a hard sell.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#133

Post by comex » Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 1:32 AM UTC

schiffern wrote: post #132

cooldeal wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The ability to run x86 apps is irrelevant It is very relevant. Can you tell why the EU requires Windows to display a browser selection box on first boot to Europeans, but is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines? >Full-fledged Linux desktop distributions have been available for ARM desktops, laptops, nettops, etc. for a long time. Microsoft is entering this existing market with a produc…

>Can you tell why the EU requires Windows to display a browser selection box on first boot to Europeans, but is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines? Your information is very old. The App Store has approved third-party web browsers for over three year now. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/01/third-party-web-br... >Why is it not anti-competitive for Apple to ship their hardware wit…

Third party web browsers are still required to either use the system WebKit or run all scripts remotely (like Opera Mini) - Firefox wouldn't be allowed, for example.