1 |
On 06/15/2012 06:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> 8. I think the bigger issue is with ARM, and I'm not personally clear |
3 |
> on what the exact policy is there. That really strikes me as |
4 |
> antitrust, but MS might argue that on ARM they have no monopoly |
5 |
> (instead we have a bunch of different vendors who almost universally |
6 |
> lock down their hardware). |
7 |
This requirement by M$ is applied to hardware that wants the "Certified |
8 |
for Windows 8" logo. If the OEMs don't care about windows 8 |
9 |
certification, they can provide for UEIF secure boot disabling. Since it |
10 |
is a "voluntary" acceptance in return for granting a consumer-fooling |
11 |
certification, they get away with an anti-competetive practice. They |
12 |
want to keep android off hardware used for Windows 8. |
13 |
Always follow the money. |
14 |
|
15 |
-- |
16 |
G.Wolfe Woodbury |