|In reply to Comment 87 (Samface):|
> Tell me 1 x86 motherboard manufacturer which has never sold one single
> product bundled with windows?
Never? One single product? Then I don't know. Otherwise the Big Ones (ABit, Asus, iWill, Soyo...) all sell their motherboards without any OS. I suppose you could buy them bundled with Windows, but that's not really common.
The point is that they're not forced to sell it bundled with Windows (or any other OS) just because they're Windows compatible. They also don't have to modify boards/BIOSes in order to be allowed to sell them together with any particular OS. Microsoft is a software company (yeah, yeah; X-box, mice...) so they sell their software products to anyone who wants to buy it, be it separately or bundled with hardware.
> Tell me 1 x86 motherboard manufacturer who would say no to have their
> product Microsoft Windows certified?
Windows is the outstandingly dominating OS for x86 hardware. If the licensing terms aren't too outrageous, it would be silly not to get that sticker. OTOH, people who build their own computers are generally "advanced" enough users to not give a rat's ass whether their mobo's got that sticker, so there's still a big market for "uncertified" hardware - which of course keeps competition up and prices down.
AmigaOS is not Windows. Amiga Inc. is not MS. The OS isn't dominating and the company can't afford MS-like subsidies for distributors who wish to bundle AmigaOS. Even MS, although I'm sure they'd be happy to if the anti-monopoly legislation let them, does not force compatible hardware to be bundled with their OS. They're *big enough* and *already dominating* to get away with profit from demanding modified BIOSes and compulsory licensing, but not in the long run. They realise that if they want to maximise profits and keep their product being the most widespread, they can't impose such *compulsory* restrictions.
> Be Inc is now suing Microsoft for "stealing" their hardware + OS bundle
> partner and claims that this is the very reason for why they went bancrupt.
I'm not too educated when it comes to the Be(OS) happenings, but if they relied on a hardware partner selling bundles and blame their bankrupcy on this I can't see why this would be a counterpoint to what I'm saying...
> AmigaOS has always been a bundled with the hardware since 1985.
Heh. :-D Yeah, those were the days.
Luckily there is no proprietary Amiga hardware any more and nobody, especially not the licensor, is designing or making any such. Yet the licensor demands that hardware manufacturers/distributors should become licensees and sell the licensor's software product with the licensee's hardware and even modify the hardware.
> Do you need more examples of how bundling and license issues control
> the computer market of today?
Look, I don't really care about bundling and licensing in general. It can be and often is a Good Thing for both producers and consumers.
In case you missed it, it's the *compulsory* OS/hardware bundling, the *unavailability* (is that English?) of separately sold AmigaOS packages and the *compulsory* licensing that makes me cringe and lose hope for even a relatively moderate success of AmigaOS.
Losing hardware options for no technological reason whatsoever, losing competition, losing distributor options and so on would not be issues if the licensing was volontary and only required *if* you are planning to sell complete OS/hardware bundles. That would bring competition between distributors and be good for both the "beginner" and the "advanced" user markets.