Microsoft's line of argument is so ridiculous no judge would ever approve something like this to go forward. This is actually a good thing, because courts around the world will probably start looking at Apple and make them change their policies too.
Quote:
Microsoft Deputy General Counsel David Heiner told Mozilla it won't permit other browsers for two reasons, Anderson said:
ARM processors, which power virtually all iOS, Android, and Windows Phone smartphones and tablets today, are different from the x86 chips that power PCs. The chips have new requirements for security and power management, and Microsoft is the only one who can meet those needs.
Windows RT -- the version of Windows 8 geared for ARM devices -- "isn't Windows anymore."
The first argument is pure non-sense. If they are concerned about battery life just put a disclaimer when people try to install third-party applications and let the user decide from himself - after using those applications, if they use more battery life, etc. BUt I doubt even this would be acceptable, because Microsoft is just as likely to produce inefficient code as everybody else.
The second argument is so laughable I'm surprised they even dare use it. They went as far as make an interface they are intending to also use on the desktop so the user experience is the same, and now they claim Windows RT is not Windows ? LOLOLOL.
I'd like to know what Microsoft Deputy General Counsel would say to a judge when presented with a tablet running Windows RT and another tablet running Windows 8 on an x86 Atom CPU.
Edited by tpi2007 - 5/10/12 at 11:54am