Microsoft Said To Limit Device Makers' Partners 200
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) has asked chipmakers that want to use the next version of Windows for tablets to work with no more than one computer manufacturer."
The article also said, "Seeking to limit variations may help Microsoft speed the delivery of new Windows tablets by keeping tighter control over partners and accelerating development and testing. Though the program isn't mandatory, the restrictions may impede chip- and computer makers from building a variety of Windows-based models to vie with Apple Inc. (AAPL)'s iPad... In past versions of Windows software, chipmakers could work with multiple computer manufacturers. "
How is this not anti-trust? (Score:5, Insightful)
This reminds me of standard oil making deals with railroads, to not carry oil for companies that competed with standard oil, or to charge those other companies much more.
As I understand it, these actions by the old robber barons brought about the Clayton Act, and the Sherman Act.
So why are the new robber barons allowed to get away with such abusive, anti-competitive actions?
Great business model (Score:3, Insightful)
Limiting hardware and exercising very stringent control has worked for Microsoft so well with Windows Phone 7 and was obviously the reason their OSes didn't sell.
The reason DOS and later Windows took off was exactly that every Tom, Dick and Harry from the shadiest backroom company could slap together something to sell. Many of those things didn't sell, many of them were and maybe still are atrocious piece of kit. But they simply swamped the market, drove prices to rock bottom and made MSFT's software have 90%+ marketshare, made the current and former CEOs of Microsoft multibillionaires, etc. Additionally they drove Apple nearly to extinction since they just couldn't compete with true mass production.
But this time around everything is different. Learning from Apple means more profit and success!
Re:In other words (Score:4, Insightful)
Oddly, this is also Microsoft deliberately giving up what was originally their biggest selling point against Apple -- the PC won because you could buy cheap clones from any number of manufacturers, and they'd all run DOS and Windows, whereas anything from Apple would have exactly one choice of hardware manufacturer and OS provider: Apple.
Re:How is this not anti-trust? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? It reminds me of Microsoft making deals with OEMs, to not install operating systems from companies that competed with Microsoft. They've already been caught doing this with Hitachi and Compaq to kill BeOS.
Re:How is this not anti-trust? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? They make a product, and sell that product. Just like Nike makes products, and sells them. I don't think you understand the difference between a homogenous product chain and antitrust/anticompetitive practices, which I assume you're driving at with this fact-free statement.
It's not illegal to choose what you sell in your store (apart from for discriminatory reasons), and not illegal to have a monopoly. Apple is no different to any other single brand manufacturer with a retail and online presence - do you think Nike should be sued for not selling Addidas products in their stores? Do you think they should be forced to carry a competitor's product? Extending it, do you think that any retailer should be forced to sell something against their will?
Re:How is this not anti-trust? (Score:5, Insightful)
I must have missed the time when Microsoft stopped using their old tricks.
Re:Great business model (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as Tom, Dick and Harry join the Open Handset Alliance and pay dues to same, sign nondisclosure agreements forbidding them from releasing new OSs before Google, and agree to not bundle their phones with apps and services that compete with Google's.