Microsoft has been discovered to have changed its requirements for the upcoming ARM version of Windows 8. The change essentially will prohibit ARM devices, including PCs, from running operating systems other than Windows 8 after they ship to customers.
Specifically, Microsoft recently amended its requirements for ARM Windows 8 System Builders. Unlike Windows 8 for Intel-compatible (x86 & x64) machines, the ARM version of Windows 8 will not be sold to the public. To purchase an ARM version of Windows 8, you will have to purchase a device with it pre-loaded (similar to Windows CE devices today, such as Windows Phone). The new requirement calls for utilizing UEFI Secure Boot, a technology that forces manufacturers to instruct devices to boot code certified by the manufacturer for the device.
For consumers, this is similar to locking the bootloader on a smartphone. This is a common practice on mobile phones that secures the device, but blocks running modified or alternative operating systems. Many manufacturers now allow consumers to bypass (or “unlock”) the bootloader lock on select devices (and at times, wireless providers).
In settlements with the Department of Justice during the mid 1990s, Microsoft agreed to not block or prevent PCs from running alternative operating systems, such as Linux. If Microsoft allows Windows 8 for ARM to ship on any device that could be considered a Personal Computer, they could be in violation of this. Such settlements called for other, more trivial actions, such as Microsoft agreeing to laughable acts such as giving away copies of Linux software.
This move even comes after Microsoft specifically noted in the Windows 8 ARM announcements that they would not provide any interruption of ARM’s hardware to boot and access other platforms. Manufacturers are still free to do so if they choose, and often do on embedded devices.
Still, the consumer has been free to make the decision to purchase such a device or not. In the enthusiast community, it is commonplace to replace ARM-based Windows Mobile 6 with Google’s Android.
It is quite likely even without the PC requirement that Microsoft would still be in violation of the United States v. Microsoft settlement. The requirement of UEFI Secure Boot would require Linux and other operating systems to be securely signed by the device’s manufacturer, making them complicit with Microsoft in helping the company maintain its monopoly on UEFI based hardware. The only other EFI machines common in the industry today, are Apple Macintosh computers, which hold a small fraction of the marketplace, arguably below ten percent.
Fears of Microsoft demanding UEFI Secure Boot had persisted since the announcement that Windows 8 ARM would utilize UEFI, a technology pioneered by Intel and first used in mainstream computing by Apple. Repudiation of the move by consumer groups has been almost instantaneous, but if the move is actually a form of antitrust or settlement-breach has been less consistent.
Some argue that Windows 8 ARM does not, at this point, present itself as a solution for mainstream personal computing. These arguments are similar with those that Apple’s iPad, and other ARM tablets, are not personal computers, but rather complimentary to the PC ecosystem.
Apple, which now holds the largest single-manufacturer share of the smartphone market, does lock its bootloader on ARM devices, prohibiting users from selecting another operating system. On the Mac, it’s a different story, the company embraces users installing, or even replacing Mac OS X with Windows, via the Boot Camp initiative. Hackers have also managed to install Android on many Apple iOS devices, however Apple routinely thwarts exploits which enable the process, resulting in a continual cat-and-mouse game.
For Microsoft to comply with the rules of UEFI Secure Boot, and allow for compliance with US v. Microsoft settlements, Windows 8 for ARM would have to provide its own ability in its bootloader to allow for other operating systems to load. Such a move is highly unlikely, and would require complex and major modifications to other’s operating systems… possibly including utilizing open technologies that Microsoft has repeatedly claim infringe on their patents. Microsoft has demanded royalties for using the FAT file system on Android devices, as well as Google Chrome OS devices, for example.
Many, if not all of the terms of the settlement expire this year at the latest. This could indicate that Microsoft was waiting until the expiration of the settlement terms to make such a move. However, Microsoft is clearly aware of the antitrust ramifications that prompted such a settlement, and refusing to allow a PC-like device to boot other operating systems could create for a second wave of breaches of the same antitrust statutes.
Securing bootloaders, UEFI Secure Boot aside, remains controversial. Many in the technology industry insists it is necessary to secure machines from rootkits and other low-level hacking tools that undermine device security. Others however view it as security through obscurity, citing vulnerabilities in bootloaders, and planned obsolescence in hardware’s firmware. UEFI Secure Boot does allow for manufactures to sign multiple operating systems, but updates or other modifications that are common can break such security, leading to a perpetual need for firmware updates, testing, and certification of software.
In the Linux world, software is maintained in a free, open source state, making such certification nearly impossible to offer on a widespread basis. Solutions that rely on Linux, such as Google’s Android and Canonical’s Ubuntu, provide managed/customized versions of these open platforms, but mandating UEFI Secure Boot would prevent up-and-coming platforms from starting up altogether. This stifles innovation, and applied globally, would make building a Linux startup nearly impossible as the world moves to a primarily a two-architecture universe (x86 and ARM).
Windows 8 will mark the first version of the operating system where Microsoft will have a single, monolithic kernel that spans nearly all device form factors. It is all but assured that at least some form of Windows 8 Phone will share the Windows 8 kernel, but will likely not be released until mid or even late 2013. Less clear is the future for Windows Embedded Compact (aka Windows CE), the embedded alternative to mainstream Windows, which will likely continue to exist for lower-end hardware and embedded solutions.
It’s no surprise that everyone at PhoneNews.com opposes the demand for Secure Boot in Windows 8. Manufacturers have always been free to require Secure Boot on devices, based on the clients wants, needs, and requests when ordering them. There is no need from an architectural standpoint that we can see for this demand.
This article’s title has been modified to reflect the final name for Windows-on-ARM, Windows RT.
This is the biggest bunch of bullshit. Microsoft is not locking out any alternate OSes on anything but Windows 8 ARM tablets, which is no different than what Google and Apple already do on their tablets. Yet I don’t see you crying about them. You’re simply a Microsoft hating shill whose spreading a lot of BS.
Here’s the simple fact. If you want an Android tablet, why would you buy a Windows 8 tablets? Your statements make no sense. If you want Android, you buy Android. If you want iOS, you buy an iPad. If you want Windows 8, you buy a Windows 8 tablet.
One last thing, UEFI is not a Microsoft feature at all.
Joe, the requirements apply to all ARM Windows 8 installs, including ARM laptops and desktop personal computers. If the requirement were only for tablets, you might have a more compelling case.
We said quite clearly in the article that EFI was originally an Intel technology, not Microsoft’s. We also provided a brief history of its evolution, so you may want to take a second look at the entire article.
Uefi smartphones tablets laptops computers etc.
microsoft never invented anything and are always trying to take control of evrything
well sucks for them the IT world have no master it will never work
[…] Microsoft Illegally? Demanding ARM OEMs to Block Linux on Windows 8 Hardware | PhoneNews.com. Rate this: Share the love!Like this:LikeBe the first to like this […]
Simple question from a novice;
If you choose not to keep the Windows OS, can you format the drive and then successfully install a different OS?
@BIgcat: no, and that’s exactly the point.
I guess this is good news for Linux specific hardware vendors and white box dealers; if there is a bright side.
The legal trouble I see here is not whether Microsoft is right or wrong, it seems from the blogs they are definitely on thin ice. The issue is finding an entity within the Open Source / Linux community willing to put up the huge monetary investment to see this through in court. The legal process would be lengthy and arduous as Microsoft has the funds to mount numerous appeals, cause legal delays, etc. It would seem Microsoft is making the bet no one will step up to the plate. In light of the mid-1990s pathetic DOJ case, it is not hard to see why Microsoft feels no threat.
@Bigcat would it really require an entity in open source to take it to court? That is what the DOJ is there for. Notification of Microsoft moving to break their agreement should be enough.
TGM, I agree!! (in theory anyway)
History shows the DOJ is unable to bring Microsoft to justice. Only Europe has succeeded in this arena. My bet is that DOJ ignores the issue completely rather than risk defeat / face again.
I am not being negative, I sincerely believe this will promote independence and more business opportunities for the Linux / Open Source community. Something I feel is very much needed, we need to stop relying on others. Change and growth is always scary.
Microsoft’s consent decree expired in May of 2011. There are no current findings that would prohibit Microsoft from any of these sorts of activities. A new antitrust case would be required in order for this to be illegal, and given that Microsoft is hardly a monopolist in the ARM tablet market and further given that no one here is suggesting Microsoft is sanctioning OEMs if they do choose to build tablets for other operating systems, this article seems to be completely offbase. There is no current illegality, and the odds that a case could be made that this would eventually be found illegal are extremely slim.
Marc,
You obviously missed Christopher’s comment… Or were just copying and pasting you’re comment from another site… Or the Microsoft spin room.
The change applies to all ARM devices, including laptops and desktops, where Microsoft clearly is still a monopoly.
Marc,
I have read a number of blogs and articles on this subject today, trying to catch up. Microsoft supporters are consistently missing / avoiding / ignoring the laptop and desktop monopoly issue. You may have hit the nail on the head with folks copying and pasting from the MS spin room.
I am no legal expert and do not pretend to be; but one thought drives me batty. Does not the consumer buy the device? I know there are patents and copyright laws protecting software, OSs, drivers, etc. But how can a manufacturer stop you from doing what you want with the hardware? This would drive any other industry bankrupt. Imagine a car builder saying you can only put XYZ tires on it’s vehicles, a television manufacturer allowing one network provider or an airline restricting it’s planes to certain airports. How did we get here?
Go Microsoft! I support this 100% no way would I want to see that turd of an OS called Linux or that inbred cousin Android on my W8 tablet.
@RON. Are you saying that you need a locked bootloader so that you can’t install Linux/Android on YOUR tablet? The way you wrote that, implies that you can’t help yourself and have the urge to install an OS you don’t want on your tablet, if MS doesn’t lock it.
My guess is that you want others prohibited from using their legally purchased hardware as they see fit. The only problem with that is that it turns otherwise general purpose hardware in a locked toy. Don’t think for a moment that MS will allow you to upgrade to the next version of Windows for ARM. It will create a whole new upgrade treadmill through planned obsolescense. The e-waste will increase quite a bit.
Windows as firmware. You’d have to be absolutely crazy to see this as a desirable thing. The only silver lining I see, is that Windows 8 for ARM is a toy OS without the possibility to run the vast selection of x86 software. It might “take off” the same way Windows Phone 7 has “soared”.
This is a really big deal and I don’t think it will fly in the EU, even if the US allows it. In any case this would be Microsoft’s version of shooting themselves in the leg. Why would I buy any hardware that is locked? Even Apple haven’t gone this far for their desktops and laptops.
The news is microsoft is creating a separate version to run on ARM based tablets and another for PC’s…and combine them to work as an ecosystem,, i. e. Windows phone, Windows 8 and windows 8 (ARM)…
[…] illegality of this is also being debated in the news: Microsoft has been discovered to have changed its requirements for the upcoming ARM version of […]
Like IBM in the 1980, 1990, Microsoft is still relying on a fail strategy giving the company almost no growth, there is a limit to the game of Monopoly: you win by absence opf players.
If Microsoft still wants to act rough, like the king of the hill, then the OEM´s as well as the customers will go play with a sexier partner.
The choice is plenty, from Linux, to Android, Meego, and now the upcoming opensource WebOS from HP.
For EFI, nothing forces OEM to use EFI, etc… and OEM canb use creatives solutions, that I have in mind, but let Microsoft discover, as it goes.
Will at some point Microsoft be willing to compete, on the quality of a superior products, or continue to indulge in exposing its weaknesses?
Note that the ARM based notebook does not really need windows, actually today most ARM based ¨solutions¨ are Linux Kernel derivatives!
Go FOSS ! (Free Open Source Software).
So many people don’t seem to get what Microsoft is trying to do. So let me explain: If Microsoft actually somehow gets this passed, then You CAN NOT install other operating systems on ANY devices because it will be ILLEGAL. It wouldn’t matter if you want to, it wouldn’t matter if the manufacturer wants you to be able to, it would still be illegal. They claim it is for our “security” but this is perhaps the most obvious lie I have ever seen in my life, and I have seen some pretty obvious ones.