[Nottingham] Microsoft's restricted boot

[Jason Irwin]

On 18/05/12 12:07, Alex Holt wrote:
> I'm not sure if Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop can by itself be
> used as a reason to force them to require OEMs to allow secure boot to
> be configured on ARM devices that ship with Windows 8. That seems like a
> bit of a leap to me, especially when signed boot is not at all unusual
> on ARM.
It's not the signed-boot per se that's unreasonable, or even the
pre-loading of Win8 keys; it's the block on allowing the user to add new
keys on ARM devices that are Win8 badged (i.e. no custom mode).  Not
only is it a serious restriction on use, but it is enforced obsolescence
as there is a good chance the kit will refuse to run Win9 (even if it
had the legs to do so).

As to the coercion, like I said the rumours have been around for a while
but nothing has been proven in court.  Obviously any such coercion would
only affect OEMs who play in both markets (e.g. Samsung).  Manufacturers
like ASUS might be able to resist/evade as they do so much contract
fabing for others and direct domestic consumption (e.g. MoBos etc)

One example could be exclusive contracts, a bit like Apple has on
unibodies and other items (e.g. liquid metal I believe) with some
manufacturers.

One saving grace in this scenarios is that MS has no cool and has
consistently bombed on mobile platforms (phones, platforms, media etc).

Anyhoo, taking the tinfoil hat off, the block on consumers having the
ability to enable custom mode on ARM is IMHO wrong and I consider it to
be a abuse of a monopoly position; whether or not the regulators/courts
agree with me is another matter.

Obligatory car reference: it is a bit like Ford mandating that only Ford
dealers can sell Ford parts (or Ford licensed parts) and said parts can
only be fitted by Ford trained personnel at Ford premises for Ford
prices.  Imagine the uproar, and in point of fact we have regulations to
prevent just such a scenario.

-- 
Jason Irwin