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 product that anticompetitively excludes Linux from the market by preventing users from upgrading their OS (as has been traditionally available on Microsoft-targeted computing platforms) through the same kind of license agreements with OEMs that got them into trouble with Be.
Why is it not anti-competitive for Apple to ship their hardware with a completely locked bootloader? Can Microsoft claim they're being anti-competitively blocked for shipping an OS for the iPad? How is it legal for the Kindle Fire and Nook to ship with locked bootloaders?
>It is not the responsibility of users and OS vendors to preserve the flawed business model of their competitors. Microsoft's competitors shouldn't be forced out of the operating system market just because Microsoft wants to sell its own licenses below "cost" (whatever that means for something that has virtually no cost to duplicate).
Similarly, Microsoft should be allowed to sell the software they create on their own terms.
No cost to duplicate doesn't mean there was no cost to create it. Or do you propose that the first copy cost $5 billion and then the rest are freely reproduced and distributed?