Hacker News Reader

Comment by RexRollman | Hacker News Reader

Is that really any worse than Google? At least with Windows, the Microsoft account is optional; you can't even create a local ChromeOS account without a Google account (which is a little bit more disturbing these days).

View on HN

The difference with Google is that millions of consumers and businesses are simply forced to buy Windows because that is the only way to run software that they need. There is pretty much nothing you can run on ChromeOS that you can't run outside ChromeOS almost just as easily, including all the related Google services if you want them. Thus people buying it are buying it on its own merits and people using Google services related to it are using those on their own merits.

I think the bigger case against Google on this front is with how they are tying Google+ to Google Search. I am actually kind of surprised they have not gotten more heat for it - if Facebook ever succumbs its market share to Google I suspect an issue will be made of it. But then, even with search you have to work very hard to make the case that people are "locked into it".

Android is the place where Google is doing this. Want to use Android without Google? If you are anyone who is non-technical, you damn sure wont!

If Windows was FOSS and we could "swap ROMs" and extract their stuff easily as many of us do on Android, it would be much more acceptable. Forcing your users to use your other products when you have a monopoly is absolutely outrageous.

As it is, I'm staying on Windows 7 (I have only one laptop and need Word, otherwise I'd be using Linux instead of a Linux VM) and Paranaoid Android. No unwanted Micrsoft or Google products anywhere.

Well, Amazon et. al, but your point still stands.

Its about the same. When/if Google fully replaces Microsoft everywhere it'll be the same but with google products. In case of doubt, just look at android.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com