Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tsiolkovsky | Hacker News Reader

It is not so simple. Often you like some hardware and want to buy it but you get no option of getting it with GNU/Linux or at least without paying for Windows which you will then replace with GNU/Linux anyways. You can choose other laptops but often they don't offer what you want, hardware wise.

View on HN

What if I like the iPad's hardware but want to run Android on it? Is Apple similarly obliged to make that possible? There's a slippery slope here when it comes to forcing manufacturers to offer choices to the consumer, particularly as politics inevitably get involved.

Disclosure: I work at Microsoft.

Tablets, phones are expected to be bundled as they are expected to work out of the box, and were designed for that particular OS (the different model of ARM and friends in most cases).

Laptops, PCs are historically not, they are expected to be installed and customized, and were NOT designed for a particular OS, but work as "general purpose computing" (the universality of x86 in most cases).

There's no slippery slope, it's the customers want their general purpose device to be general.

This was a big reason why I disliked Chromebooks using different firmware. Why do you think firmware standards exist in the first place?

They should obviously be obliged to make it possible. It's sad that Apple isn't treated as harshly as Microsoft by the internet community and regulators.

Both deserve to be criticized for the same unethical practices. Android phone manufacturers may be the worst offenders of all.

I'll repeat. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

If you don't want to pay the windows tax, don't buy the computer. They don't have any obligation to you unbundle hardware and software. Likewise, you have no obligation to buy it. It is a voluntary exchange.

Sure, don't like it don't buy it, but if there's 0% (that's zero) other option, what can you do? That's the case in practice over here in Taiwan that you have to choose between no computer, or one with Windows. That's not really a choice, is it?

Considering that in the EU Microsoft has to provide a choice of alternative browsers (the N edition of windows) I see this as more sane option that addresses the problem closer to the core and I hope that it will be required practice in the whole EU.

After all, a vendor who is confident in the value of their product has nothing to fear in the face of fair competition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com