And users of ARM devices shouldn't have the freedom to choose which software they run unless it's one approved by the manufacturer and the companies it serves, right?
Did you even read my OP? I never said anything like that.
They're calling out the platform which has no marketshare and making zero mention of the iPad which has around 60 million tablets sold. FYI that's an ARM device.
So you mean they think iPad users shouldn't have the freedom of choosing which software they run but Windows RT users need to? Right?
I think iPad owners should be able to run whatever they want, but that's Apple hardware running Apple software, much like my Sony TV is Sony hardware running Sony spin of Linux. That's why I don't own an iPad.
UEFI secure-boot is Microsoft pressuring other companies, companies that have no reason to restrict their users (thus reducing the perceived value of their devices) into making their devices tied to Microsoft software. That'll result in thin margins for hardware makers because they won't be able to differentiate and will have to compete in price. Microsoft, of course, is the only one who will benefit from this because they'll be the only source of software (and upgrades) for those devices.
In the 80's, PC makers were dumb enough to commoditize the hardware while Microsoft reaped the benefits of fierce competition. I wonder if tablet makers will be stupid enough to make that same mistake.
>I think iPad owners should be able to run whatever they want, but that's Apple hardware running Apple software, much like my Sony TV is Sony hardware running Sony spin of Linux
How does this distinction matter to the user of the iPad? They buy a tablet, they're able to run only what it came with. How is it better for them because Apple sells the hardware too?
>That's why I don't own an iPad.
Then don't buy a Windows RT tablet. It's not like they forced the OEMs to cancel their Android tablets. LG and HTC did that themselves without even making Windows RT tablets.
>UEFI secure-boot is Microsoft pressuring other companies, companies that have no reason to restrict their users (thus reducing the perceived value of their devices) into making their devices tied to Microsoft software. That'll result in thin margins for hardware makers because they won't be able to differentiate and will have to compete in price
Is dual booting phones and tablets such a big differentiator that people will pay a premium for them? Why do many Android tablets and phones come with locked bootloaders? Why doesn't Apple unlock the bootloader and sell more or sell for a higher price then? Hint: 99% of users don't care
>In the 80's, PC makers were dumb enough to commoditize the hardware while Microsoft reaped the benefits of fierce competition. I wonder if tablet makers will be stupid enough to make that same mistake
This really shows off your inexperience and lack of knowledge. It's the other way around, Dell and Compaq wouldn't exist today if not for MS licensing them MS-DOS when they didn't have to. Because of MS, Dell became a fortune 500 company in just 6 years. Go read about how they started.
>I wonder if tablet makers will be stupid enough to make that same mistake.
You mean they just continue to sell only Android tablets(which seem to be low margin by the way, so blame Google?)) and it's not really making them any good money. LG and HTC already dropped out.
Also you're ignoring how users reaped the benefits of commodotization of the hardware leading to the PC and internet revolution and are focusing on just MS' profits.
Actually, they buy an iPad. Much like you buy a Mac (which is just an exceedingly well designed and built x86 PC). Yet, people don't go to Apple stores to buy a PC - they go there to buy a Mac.
> Is dual booting phones and tablets such a big differentiator that people will pay a premium for them?
Thanks to licensing, it's more likely users will pay a premium for a tablet that doesn't dual boot, that cannot be upgraded and that cannot be repurposed to run anything other than older Microsoft software.
> Hint: 99% of users don't care
And, as we all know, millions of Lemmings cannot be wrong.
> This really shows off your inexperience and lack of knowledge.
I will regard that as an insult and not answer.
> Dell and Compaq wouldn't exist today
Like Commodore, Atari and Apple never existed, because, of course, because computers started to become useful with the advent of MS-DOS. In fact, the x86 PC (and Microsoft) would not exist in its present form if it weren't for Dell and Compaq and a host of other makers who built commodity hardware. Without this huge market, Microsoft would have to address a myriad of platforms and be unable to concentrate on a single one. Before it became clear the x86 PC would be the mainstream of home computing, they even backed the MSX consortium which was all about compatible (read "commodity") hardware running Microsoft software.
It's possible to differentiate around Android. It's not possible to do the same with Windows. It's simple as that.
If you could grasp the concept, you would have by now.
>Actually, they buy an iPad. Much like you buy a Mac (which is just an exceedingly well designed and built x86 PC). Yet, people don't go to Apple stores to buy a PC - they go there to buy a Mac.
So, in the future, some people will buy a Windows RT tablet. If they want an ARM device, they can buy an Android tablet(hopefully not boot locked like many Androidf tablet).
>And, as we all know, millions of Lemmings cannot be wrong.
I never said they are right. I just stated a fact when you implied that the OEMs can sell dual boot as a feature for a premium.
>Like Commodore, Atari and Apple never existed, because, of course, because computers started to become useful with the advent of MS-DOS
Why is it not clear that Dell and Compaq are different from Commodore, Atari and Apple?
From Compaq's Wiki entry:
In November 1982 Compaq announced their first product, the Compaq Portable, a portable IBM PC compatible personal computer. It was released in March 1983 at $2995, considerably more affordable than the Canadian Hyperion. The Compaq Portable was one of the progenitors of today's laptop; some called it a "suitcase computer" for its size and the look of its case. It was the second IBM PC compatible, being capable of running all software that would run on an IBM PC. It was a commercial success, selling 53,000 units in its first year and generating $111 million in sales revenue. The Compaq Portable was the first in the range of the Compaq Portable series. Compaq was able to market a legal IBM clone because IBM mostly used "off the shelf" parts for their PC. Furthermore, Microsoft had kept the right to license the operating system to other computer manufacturers. The only part which had to be duplicated was the BIOS, which Compaq did legally by using clean room reverse engineering at a cost of $1 million.[12][13][14] Phoenix Technologies would shortly follow their lead, but soon "clone BIOSes" were available from many other companies who reverse engineered IBM's design, then sold their version to the PC clone manufacturers.
What about Dell then?
Dell traces its origins to 1984, when Michael Dell created PCs Limited while a student at the University of Texas at Austin. The dorm-room headquartered company sold IBM PC-compatible computers built from stock components.[7] Dell dropped out of school in order to focus full-time on his fledgling business, after getting about $300,000 in expansion-capital from his family.
In 1985, the company produced the first computer of its own design, the "Turbo PC", which sold for US$795.[8] PCs Limited advertised its systems in national computer magazines for sale directly to consumers and custom assembled each ordered unit according to a selection of options. The company grossed more than $73 million in its first year of operation.
The company changed its name to "Dell Computer Corporation" in 1988 and began expanding globally. In June 1988, Dell's market capitalization grew by $30 million to $80 million from its June 22 initial public offering of 3.5 million shares at $8.50 a share.[9] In 1992, Fortune magazine included Dell Computer Corporation in its list of the world's 500 largest companies, making Michael Dell the youngest CEO of a Fortune 500 company ever.[10]
>In fact, the x86 PC (and Microsoft) would not exist in its present form if it weren't for Dell and Compaq and a host of other makers who built commodity hardware.
It's clear that there would be no Dell or Compaq without MS licensing DOS to them. I am not saying MS did it for charity(they did it as a strategy that worked superbly well), but to imply that Dell and Compaq shouldn't have let MS commoditize hardware is not correct either. They didn't ship hardware to do charity work for MS. They made huge profits doing so.
>It's possible to differentiate around Android
Like what? Install bloated skins and junkware that can't be uninstalled? Atleast most Windows junkware is uninstallable. See HTC, their customers have zero loyalty to them and switched to Samsung.
Which Android OEMs are differentiating with great software and beating their rivals? Why are they utterly failing at competing with the iPad?
> It's simple as that.
>If you could grasp the concept, you would have by now.
You mean the concept that people are so sick of the OEMs Android modifications that they're willing to pay a premium for stock Android and still the OEMs ship their crap unless it's a Google device? Sounds like the reverse of what you claim is true.
Trying to enlighten you is, sadly, a waste of time. Oddly enough, time has a good chance of curing you, so, I don't need to waste mine trying. In a couple years, you'll probably be more permeable to reason.
