Wrong, only the Chrome OS can be give away for free.

Hardware doesn’t come for free and the only time to subsidize hardware like that is when it gets first introduced, which is no longer the case for Chromebooks. Even with a shift to ARM based systems the lack of interest in Chromebooks precludes the risk of fully subsidizing them.

Btw, I’m no fanboy, I just can’t stand BS. If you’re going to make claims then make claims based on facts and not what you want to believe!

Really, there are things to criticize about Intel and MS but you go beyond them into conspiracy nonsense that has nothing but your bias backing them up.

If you want anyone to take you seriously then you need to cut the crap and stop confusing what you want to happen with what is happening!

ARM Chromebooks can be given away for free to all users with a Google account. Google makes the money back to subsidize the laptop hardware easily. OK bye. You just go talk on some other Wintel-fanboy website, bye.

The fact is all my predictions are fully correct and have always been or the past decade, you are just jealous because you can’t understand any of this industry.

Really, you’re in such denial. Pointing out facts like if your contention was true that Chromebooks would already have better pricing but they don’t.

Google doesn’t pay to have systems makers use their OS, only for their services which is separate and doesn’t effect the pricing of the systems!

Google’s interests are in it for profit just like any other company and they do push the limits to get that profit. Violating privacy, security, and leveraging their influence just like any other company.

While dirt cheap devices are dirt cheap because they’re made crappy, but they can only go so far down before the devices are too crappy to sell.

So there are literally a ton of factors that will prevent a Chromebook from being sold for $200. They may get it below $300 but there’s no way they can get it to $200 when even cheaper to make products still are going for more.

From top to bottom I’ve countered every one of your false claims. So you’re not fooling anyone but yourself.

Sorry but all your proving is how blindly you believe your own BS.

Really, with supporters like you Google won’t need any enemies.

Fact is your predictions are wrong most the time. You confuse what could be with what is and factor things that don’t actually factor the way you think they do.

You also try to confuse different aspects of the industry with each other, which shows how little you actually know!

While Europe went after Google for Anti-trust practices too. Just to show how a total naive fool your are in thinking there’s any real difference between these companies other than how often they get caught!

So you have fun with your fantasies! Because that’s as close as they’ll ever be to reality!

Go work for Microsoft, or Intel or something. Your total lack of understanding of what is happening to this industry fits perfectly well with those last-century’s corporations totally outdated business models.
Everything Intel does is a complete failure. Same thing for Microsoft. The only thing left that they have is their mafia tactics of the last century. They are both convicted several times of breaking antitrust laws but I guess they do need people like you to tell them that it’s ok. Have fun with that.

You don’t like to think do you?

Paying to make other use their search engine has nothing to do with compensating system makers for making the devices in the first place.

It doesn’t matter if it’s fixed or a percent of their revenue. They do it mainly because otherwise those companies would give that space to competition like Bing. They give a damn which is better!

And the price difference between ARM and Intel is not huge. A celeron/pentium can be had for as little as $86 and that’s only a little over a $60 difference in price. There’s even less of a difference between ARM and ATOM now that prices are below $50 for ATOM.

While you have yet to even acknowledge that your BOM costs for a Ultrabook built quality system will cost more than your $200 estimate even with the savings from using ARM. Never mind acknowledge the addition costs of business and profit margins that gets tacked on to justify the company even making the device in the first place.

Chromebooks have never had a large market share and they can’t built on overnight by switching to arm. Never mind Chromebooks don’t appeal to everyone to begin with. So you’re 90% estimate is pure fantasy and you bloody well know it! You just won’t admit it!

The only big difference is between Intel’s high end chips and ARM but ARM has nothing even close to that performance range.

So stop confusing your bias with the facts. You use conspiracy theories to justify your claims and that fools no one but yourself!

Google pays all those hardware and software companies a precise share of the exact revenue based on the actual usage of each device and each software, it’s not a fixed fee, it’s well known, you just don’t know it.
Intel Chromebooks are expensive because Intel wants them to be expensive. Intel decides pretty much everything that happens with Intel powered devices, that’s how Intel does business, dictatorship. If makers don’t follow the orders from Intel, then they have to pay a lot more for Intel processors, and they have to pay a lot more for Microsoft software, same thing for makers when they attempt at building and selling devices that don’t use Intel and Microsoft.

Only when the companies are big enough and tired of being told what to do from Wintel do they stop working with Wintel and do they start shipping the alternative.

No, it’s not a share of revenue! Google pays them to use their search engine by default and has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of the devices they run on!

If Google actually paid for manufacturers to make systems running their OS then the Chromebook wouldn’t cost more than a equivalent netbook!

So get a clue already!

Wow ok, so Mozilla, Opera, Sony, Dell, Toshiba, Acer, Samsung and more than 50 carriers worldwide aren’t being paid hundreds of millions of dollars by Google as a share of revenue generated by the hundreds of millions of users of Google’s search and other online services on Android and Chrome hardware. OK bye.

Nope, Google isn’t paying them out of their profits. They only pay companies to use their search engine, which is separate from any sales of their OS!

So keep on dreaming, you’re only confusing fantasy with reality and pretending the former is reality.

They can’t even come out with a $199 Chromebook, let alone make one that’ll convince 90% of all laptop users to switch.

Never mind it would take years to happen anyway!

Really, all you’re doing is dreaming and wasting our time with this discussion.

Yeah right, Mozilla, Opera Software, Sony, Dell, Toshiba that Google isn’t paying them hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue share. Go tell about the over 50 carriers worldwide that Google isn’t paying them 20% of Google Play store revenue. Go tell HTC, Samsung, Motorola and the other big certified Android hardware makers that Google isn’t paying them millions of dollars in revenue share to help them subsidize their Android hardware. Go tell Acer and Samsung that Google isn’t paying them millions of dollars to subsidize their Chrome OS devices. OK, have fun not knowing how Google works.

Google can easily take 90% of the laptop market because nobody can compete with $199 ARM Powered Chrome OS Ultrabooks. Because no consumer in their right mind worldwide are going to pay upwards 5x more for an Intel powered alternative running Windows or Mac. And because the thin client HTML5 computing model is now ready to take over the world and it’s long overdue.

Grow a brain, those BOM estimates were for 1st gen Ultrabooks and they did not have high resolution screens to begin with!

The BOM would be even higher with 1980×1080 screen!

So you didn’t even think what was standard for the screen size before claiming a lower cost.

While what Google makes means absolutely nothing to the manufacturers of the system who have to make enough profit off the system sale to justify making it in the first place.

Google never shares it’s revenue and they don’t make so much that they can start doing so!

So again, wake up! Your estimates are pie in the sky BS that depend on things that will not happen!

The only way Google would ever get 90% of the laptop market would be if there was no other choices!

I said lower pixel density, I didn’t say lower than 1280×800 resolution. 1366×768 on a 13.3″ sreen is about 4x lower pixel density than 1280×800 on a 7″ screen. Higher pixel density means higher cost. Even 1920×1080 on a 13.3″ screen is 2x lower pixel density than 1280×800 on a 7″ screen.

Google makes $50 per year per user of Chrome and Android. Google can easily subsidize a non-profit hardware industry for Chrome OS and Android. Quite simply sharing that revenue with the hardware maker. And the $50/year that Google easily makes on advertising for Chrome and Android users today can easily be increased, as ARM Powered Chrome OS devices come with ARM TrustZone and that enables 100% secure online transactions, easier online authentication, users spend more money online, which in turns means advertisers pay more and which in turn lets Google potentially make upwards $100/year on Chrome and Android users. That means each year, Google can make as much money from online advertising as Microsoft makes on their OS licence which users use over several years in average. The $199 ARM Powered Chrome Ultrabook makes perfect sense. Google captures 90% of the new Laptop market, Microsoft and Intel cry and whine but there is no reason Google should be bothered about that.

Wrong, the BOM given for the Ultrabooks doesn’t include the price of a touch screen and the screen resolutions are for the first gen which are not high.

Anything lower than 1366×768 on a 13.3″ would be crap, many people even consider that resolution too low for a 13.3″ screen.

So again, you’re estimates are fantasy based on what you want the pricing to be and not what they will be!

Like the fact even if they get the BOM to below $200 they will never sell it for at cost!

The only way to get a Chromebook to be as cheap as a Nexus 7 is to make it crappy!

So the only thing Google has that can threaten MS is Android for the mobile market, with Chrome mainly being just a threat to IE.

Remove the capacitive touch screen functionality, lower the pixel density, and for sure the ARM Powered Ultrabook screen, even as large as 13.3″ absolutely can be made for about as much as the 7″ 1280×800 screen of the Nexus7. The other components cost about the same as the ones to be in an ARM Powered Ultrabook. A plastic keyboard and mouse pad cost less than $5 even using the highest quality of components. So actually yes, the $152 (low quantity, no long term component pricing reductions factored in) estimate for Nexus7 isn’t far off the price to manufacture an ARM Powered Chromebook to be mass released to destroy Microsoft and Intel within the months leading up to Christmas this year.

“And now magically just 7 months later, they revised it to $133 when comparing it with the Nexus7.”

Nothing magical, it was already old tech when they announced it. You forget it’s based on technology that had already been out for about a year and now it’s even older.

Never mind those are costs for a device that doesn’t cost anywhere near as much as a Ultrabook.

“BOM for Intel Ultrabooks are $650 including the overpriced Windows software.”

Wrong, the Windows cost isn’t factored for the BOM. Only for Final pricing!

So the only difference is CPU cost between Intel and ARM.

While ARM devices by and large don’t use SSDs, they use simple flash memory like used in USB drives and SD Cards, which cost a lot less than SSDs!

While you didn’t bother adding business costs and profit margins.

So you’re way off on the pricing!

iSuppli was the source of the supposed $208 Kindle Fire manufacturing cost. And now magically just 7 months later, they revised it to $133 when comparing it with the Nexus7. iSuppli DOES NOT take into account the average cost of components for the expected lifetime and bulk volume of the device to be made. While a price at low volume may be $152 for Nexus 7 today, if they make 100 million units within the next 6-9 months as demand clearly can pay for, that brings down average cost of producing each Nexus 7 at BELOW $100.

BOM for Intel Ultrabooks are $650 including the overpriced Windows software.
BOM for ARM Ultrabooks are sub-$200:

ARM vs Intel processor and PCB: -$100
8GB SSD vs 128GB SSD: -$100
Chrome OS vs Windows 7 Pro: -$100
Cheaper battery and simpler casing: -$50

That’s just some of the savings. More can be optimized. The ARM Chromebook is a lot easier to mass manufacture, yield on ARM is much higher than on Intel devices, assembly with ARM is much easier than with Intel devices.
Retail prices may be $199 for 11.1″ and $299 for 13.3″ (including additional things like 2.5″ HDD slot and 3G dongle slot), just to leave enough hardware margins for Sony, Toshiba and whoever else is getting ready to parter with Google instead of Wintel and to mass sell ARM Powered Chromebooks before the end of the year and totally destroy Microsoft and Intel’s only remaining market.

 Wrong, stop embarrassing yourself already.

The $152 BOM is not for manufacturing just one unit, it’s the unit price for the number of Nexus 7’s made.

Manufacturing a single device would more than double the price.

While Chromebooks won’t be sold in as many numbers as the Nexus 7 anyway!

As to Ultrabooks, the BOM for 21mm ultrabooks runs from $475 to $650 and that’s not counting any other business costs or profit margins.While the price difference between ARM and Intel Celeron is less than $40!Things like usage of a SSD instead of typical Flash memory that other ARM devices use costs more!The 3G module may cost only around $42.85 but to the consumer that comes out to around $100 by itself.

Add the cost of display and you’re already reaching the $200 price point with no casing or anything else added yet.

Really, we debated this before.  You’re $200 price point for a Chromebook just by switching to ARM is a fantasy.

Android and Chrome OS are GPL2, proprietary forkscan bemade.

“No, it’s over $152! Again stop with the BS.”

$152 BOM per unit is when you manufacture 1 unit in June 2012. Not when you manufacture 100 million units between May 2012 and February 2013. iSuppli does not factor in bulk component prices and they do not factor in lowering component prices over the lifetime of a device.

“If they did that then it would cost over $500 to make.”

Ok Mr BOM Expert. The 13.3″ screen of an Ultrabook costs $70 to make at highest quality. The ARM SoC costs $40 to make at highest performance/quality and with at least 2GB RAM. So yeh, you just believe that a piece of plastic or some metals for the case and a battery, mousepad, plastic keyboard and few other things costs $390 extra to make it all cost $500 to make. You just have fun with that.

An ARM Powered Ultrabook can easily be made and sold for less than $200. Easily as there are further savings on software, on not having to ship with an expensive SSD drive, on much smaller motherboard electronics, much fewer components means much lower price.

 Never mind Google allows for proprietary modifications that don’t need to be open source!

Sorry but it’s you confusing the facts.

Facts are making a separate product is irrelevant  to whether it’s allowed on the original product or not!

It doesn’t matter if it’s open source or not if you still have to make a separate product!

Try getting a clue before you make such outrageous arguments!

 “Nexus7 bill of materials is $100” 

No, it’s over $152! Again stop with the BS.

“Google only takes their share of the web and platform monetization that follows.”

Doesn’t matter, all business costs accounted for only breaks even. 

Most companies are going to want more profit to make it practical for them to sell a similar product.

“The ARM Powered Chromebooks at $200 can have same build quality as a
$1000 Intel Ultrabook. Same 13.3″ screen, same full sized keyboard and
mouse pad. Thinner form factor even and with 2x longer battery life.”

If they did that then it would cost over $500 to make.

The savings of switching to ARM don’t make that big a difference in total cost of the system.

So stop confusing your pipe dream with reality!

You obviously have no idea about the difference between opensource free software and proprietary overpriced software that violates antitrust laws. You obviously think Microsoft has a chance in continuing a business model of selling $100 software when now hardware is sold at sub-$200 prices. Have fun with that.

 “But iOS has about 2% as much influence on the web a Windows does because iOS is limited to mobile devices for now.”

Wrong, the Safari browser is not limited to iOS!

“Microsoft and anyone else can go to http://chromium.org and take the source code of Chrome OS and build Internet Explorer OS if they want”

That’ll be a separate product! 

Are you so blind not to see these gapping flaws in your logic?

“Microsoft only functions in a world of proprietary $100 software that
OEMs are scared into having to include pre-installed on overpriced
hardware.”

Again wrong, the hardware is not being over priced and they’re charging less than $100 for the OS.

Nexus7 bill of materials is $100 when 100 million bulk orders for components and constantly lowering component costs over the 6-9 months product lifetime are factored in. In anyways, the hardware profits never go to Google on Nexus devices, they always go to HTC, Samsung and now Asus who make and sell the devices. Google only takes their share of the web and platform monetization that follows. This only changes now when Motorola are to release products, but even then Google likely plans to take little to no profit on hardware. The ARM Powered Chromebooks at $199 can have same build quality as a $999 Intel Ultrabook. Same 13.3″ screen, same full sized keyboard and mouse pad. Thinner form factor even and with 2x longer battery life. The $199 ARM Powered Chromebooks are going to destroy Intel and Microsoft, and they are going to destroy the Macbook.

The only reason Google hasn’t released them yet is because Intel CEO Paul Otellini is one the board of directors at Google still, so Google has to be gentle in their act of destroying Intel and Microsoft in one swoop. The initial Chromebooks have been overpriced simply because Intel decides on how those are made and sold.

The EU should penalize and ban iOS, yeah sure, that’d be fine also. But iOS has about 2% as much influence on the web a Windows does because iOS is limited to mobile devices for now. When iOS comes to replace Mac OSX on Macbooks then the EU should rapidly get involved if Apple doesn’t give Chrome full hardware access by then.

Microsoft and anyone else can go to http://chromium.org and take the source code of Chrome OS and build Internet Explorer OS if they want, using exactly the same hardware that ARM Powered Chrome OS laptops are going to come with. The thing is, Microsoft does not want to build a Linux thin client type web-oriented OS to be distributed for free with web-only monetization prospects, Microsoft only functions in a world of proprietary $100 software that OEMs are scared into having to include pre-installed on overpriced hardware.

 More like you’re the desperate one.  Fact is Chrome performance isn’t great for low end hardware. 

All you’re doing is talking like a fanatic and pushing your theories out as facts.

Unless they come out with something smaller than even the Nexus 7 then there won’t be a $200 Chromebook anytime soon.

Simple reality check, despite the low cost of parts for something like the Nexus 7, Google only about breaks even with the $199 8GB model once all business costs are factors and not just the parts costs.

While typical Chromebook is 11.6″ sized laptop, which is going to cost more to make than the Nexus 7.

Even Asus low cost Transformers cost more than $200 and that’s without the keyboard dock and even if you subtract the cost of the touch screen will still not bring the cost that low.

So you’re $200 is a pipe dream!  They’d have to make a crappy system to get it that low and that’ll never sell.

Meaning no matter how many times you say it, it won’t make it come true!

 Sorry, but again, if they do that then they have to also do it to iOS for the same reasons!

While your Chrome argument is total BS, it’s a Browser based OS and won’t be running any other browsers!

Chrome is also more sand boxed than Android and doesn’t give full access to all its API’s, which is why they came out with the Native Client to compensate.

Android is an open platform and everyone is free to install any application they want on it. Chrome is also an open platform, anyone is allowed to copy any of the Chrome features to any other browser.

Microsoft must not be allowed to sell roads that only let their own proprietary cars drive on them. That’s what this is about.

“Right now manufacturers are pushing higher performance x86 systems because the previous ATOM systems didn’t provide enough performance.”

Manufacturers and Intel are just deperate to increase the average price of laptops on the market. The Netbook under the pressure from the $100 OLPC Laptop project had to be introduced and it halved the average laptop price in 2 years, even as Intel and Microsoft did everything they could to try to limit Netbooks at small srappy screens with small crappy keyboards, no HDMI, no USB3, small hard drives and small amounts of RAM.

Now all Intel and its corrupt PC makers are hoping is to again try to increase the average price of laptops, but they won;’t be able to. $199 ARM Powered Chromebooks with screens and keyboards/mice like Ultrabooks are imminent.

Another example of BS logic, since by that logic then they should block Android on tablets with keyboard docks too.

Stop embarrassing yourself Charbax!

“This is bogus reasoning.”

What does Chrome performance have to do with MS OS performance?

The only thing bogus is your reasoning.  Chrome has yet to even run their full OS on ARM. 

Right now manufacturers are pushing higher performance x86 systems because the previous ATOM systems didn’t provide enough performance.

While the Android Chrome browsers is more limited than the desktop version.

So cut the BS already.  Whine all you want but you’re arguing from a biased point of view.

 Do you even bother reading those articles…

“Apple continues to lead smartphone manufacturers in Q1, rising 7 percent
in Q1, over the same period last year, to capture 29 percent of the
market.”

Which still leaves Samsung at 24%, which is lower than 29% for Apple!

And that’s just for phones, you’re being misleading by purposely ignoring the other iOS products!

Never mind you again point to a article that’s predicting and doesn’t factor for annual market shifts.

I don’t even like Apple but I’m at least honest about the actual numbers.

 That’s a forecast!  And it doesn’t factor product release sales bumps.  Samsung just came out with their Galaxy S3 phones while Apple is between phone releases.

Are you really that desperate as to use clearly lopsided numbers?

Never mind it doesn’t change the points being made regardless!

If Windows RT isn’t the new version of Windows for Laptops and Desktops, then Microsoft must simply not be allowed to sell it in any device with a keyboard and mouse pad that lets it be used as a Laptop of Desktop.

https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/pressreleases/pr_120502#.UAqCKrSsl08 

 “Windows remains over 90% of the global Laptop and Desktop market.”

Over 85% actually, but that’s only for desktop and laptops.

And no, Windows RT is not the new version of MS laptop/desktop OS.  Windows 8 is the new version of their desktop!

While Windows RT is the version between the desktop and mobile version!

Like the mobile WP8 version RT will only come pre-installed, there will never be a retail version of RT and it won’t be running any legacy desktop apps.  It will also only run on ARM devices and is bound by the same limitations and hardware considerations as any other ARM based OS.

While MS doesn’t make much money on browsers, their recent reported loss was even mostly because they tried and failed to develop that source of revenue.

So stop confusing your bias with the facts!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/samsung-widens-lead-over-apple-says-survey/2012/07/16/gJQAzASboW_blog.html

“everything ported has to be made to work on ARM, and the desktop is locked off for again, (1) reliability, (2) battery life, and (3)security!
You may not think those are good enough reasons but they are reasons!”

This is bogus reasoning. Anyone can go to http://chromium.org and look at the Chrome source code and look at all benchmarks of Chrome over the past 3 years, Chrome has consistently been the most reliable browser, the one using the least battery life and the most secure web browser in the world.

If Microsoft wants to have new requirements for reliability, battery life and security, that’s great! They should have done that a long time ago. That would have prevented a situation where 25% of the worlds Windows computers today are acting as malware infected botnets for spreading of spam and viruses worldwide.

“So let’s not pretend those aren’t valid considerations for pretty much any ARM device!”

Android has the Native Development Kit for Android, Android NDK, thus allowing third party web browser to get a full deep level access to the hardware of all ARM Powered Android devices, that is how Firefox, Opera and other browsers on Android are able to bring the most hardware accelerated best possible experience on the platform. Android NDK is also how all the major Android games are made. Considerations for battery consumption, reliability, stability and security just simply are not incompatible with providing third party app developers access to the full performance of the ARM Powered device. 

“I even gave you examples of Google doing things that would not be in the consumers best interest”

That is plain not true. Not Tracking by default on Safari and Internet Explorer only benefits Apple and Microsoft, it does not benefit the consumer. Microsoft and Apple wants to set the browsers like that because those two companies are worthless in online monetization of web usage. Apple is worthless at web apps and Microsoft is a lost cause in monetizing the web. Apple wants to silo the web into their BS proprietary apps store and Microsoft was even against the idea of the web when it came out.

Wrong, latest IDC estimates for 2012 puts them up to around 4%.

Even last year they were over 2.2%

While regardless, it shows that market margins will be hard to be used against MS.

“Not true. Samsung sells 2 ARM Powered Android smartphones themselves for each 1 Apple iPhone sold in the world.”

You just never stop with the BS do you?

Apple’s market share isn’t limited to phones!  Never mind the main discussion is over Tablets!

So sorry but it is true, Apple still has the largest market share of any one company.

While regardless your figures are exaggerated.

“So anyway you cut it, if you want to sanction only MS but not Apple or any other company doing the exact same thing then you’re just a biased hypocrite.
Laws are to be applied equally to all, regardless of whether you like them or not!”

The Desktop and Laptop web browser is the one doing all the majority of the difference in the world of the Internet today. While the importance of the mobile and tablet browser constantly increases, its direct share of global web monetization is still less than 5%. Google makes huge amounts of money on Android, but not directly through Android-only advertising, they make huge money in Android users becoming more addicted to all Google services and then using them more on their Desktop and Laptop.

Windows remains over 90% of the global Laptop and Desktop market. Windows RT is the new version of Micosoft’s Laptop and Desktop OS.

The EU aren’t morons, you can’t just trick them into thinking that one thing should be compared with another when in fact they are not comparable in terms of influence on the money European Citizen spend online.

“MS as their share is still non-existent.  Even their phones, despite minor growth to around 4% is far too small a share of the market to ever claim a monopoly.”

I don’t know where you get you numbers from. Windows Phone market share is down below 2%, Windows Phone global market share is only going down, nowhere else.

“Sorry but Apple is still the single largest company in the ARM device market by a very large margin.  Android only can claim larger numbers with all the companies combined.”

Not true. Samsung sells 2 ARM Powered Android smartphones themselves for each 1 Apple iPhone sold in the world.

If you take all Android companies combined, they sell upwards 4 Android phones worldwide each day for each Apple iPhone sold.

 “Apple does not dominate in the tablet market anymore.”

Sorry but Apple is still the single largest company in the ARM device market by a very large margin.  Android only can claim larger numbers with all the companies combined.

I’d expect that to change in the future but it’s irrelevant to the state of affairs now.  While also irrelevant to MS as their share is still non-existent.  Even their phones, despite minor growth to around 4% is far too small a share of the market to ever claim a monopoly.

Regardless, market share would only emphasis a need or lack there of but doesn’t change whether what MS is doing is in any way different to what Apple has been doing for years.

So anyway you cut it, if you want to sanction only MS but not Apple or any other company doing the exact same thing then you’re just a biased hypocrite.

Laws are to be applied equally to all, regardless of whether you like them or not!

“It’s not true Windows RT can’t provide a full range of app support.”

Wrong, RT doesn’t support legacy Windows code.  It’s API’s are different, everything ported has to be made to work on ARM, and the desktop is locked off for again, (1) reliability, (2) battery life, and (3)security!

You may not think those are good enough reasons but they are reasons!

I even gave you examples of Google doing things that would not be in the consumers best interest, along with malware that comes with the territory for MS, and running a more powerful OS on ARM means they have to worry more about performance and reliability as otherwise they wouldn’t stand a chance of competing with the other mobile OS.

While even Android and iOS struggle with battery life.

So let’s not pretend those aren’t valid considerations for pretty much any ARM device!

“And for most of the rest of x86 apps backwards compatibility simply use PCoIP services also similar to OnLive”

Sorry, but it doesn’t change that the software can’t be run natively!  There’s already service providers like Citrix that provide that kind of service to Android and iOS devices but in no way changes the limitations of those OS!

Besides, those services wouldn’t be free and you’ll be limited to what apps/programs the service supports only!

“Intel is desperate to not have consumers confuse the ARM Powered Windows
8 Laptops with the Intel powered ones, it would basically mean the
death of Intel on the laptop market.”

An exaggeration at best, based on rumor you apparently started! 

You shouldn’t be confusing your theories with facts! 

According to most sources MS always called it internally RT, since it stands for what it uses as in WinRT (Runtime).  While they did similar with the Server edition, calling it Windows Server 2012 instead of 8 Server.

While Intel isn’t tied to just Windows, as they got Tizen, Android, GNU/Linux, and OSX as well.  So at best an exaggeration.

“Microsoft’s contribution to Linux has only been done to let Linux better support Microsoft services.”

In part yes, but that’s only part of the reason.  MS has contributed to Linux before and to other open source projects where they both work with and contribute.  Some open source projects have even replaced their own software in some cases and they have pushed for Windows to be used for Open Source projects.

So your conclusion is biased, MS does work with Open Source.  It just doesn’t change their main traditional business model. 

“The EU has the power to ban all sales of Microsoft software and products
in Europe if they do not comply in allowing other full browsers on
Windows RT at launch. You can’t just scam a whole population with one
product and keep selling you other products to that same population.”

There you got with your bias again.  It’s not a scam to sell a different product to one you sold before. 

The term “Windows” has already been generalized and no longer is a specific reference to MS desktop OS. 

While MS has been selling Windows CE, Windows Mobile, Windows Phone, etc.  Along with none OS products like Windows Live, etc.

The only question is if Windows RT is different enough to consider it separate like those other products and being on a different platform gives it a strong argument that it is different!

“That is why Windows RT was made, it’s to try to prevent the Laptop and
Desktop market from moving towards Chrome OS on ARM too quickly.”

This is a pretty laughable statement given that Chromebooks haven’t done very well in the x86 market and have yet to enter the ARM market. 

So Chrome may be major player as a browser but as a OS there’s no threat to MS. 

Windows RT is simply a quick way for MS to get into the mobile market as it’s still another generation at the earliest before x86 can become a major factor in the mobile market.

Along with Windows Phone 8 allowing them to leverage running Metro apps on a wide range of devices to better leverage all their products.

So had more to do with market strategy than worrying about the competition.

Apple does not dominate in the tablet market anymore. Android tablets sell more each day worldwide than iPads. That has been going on since December 2011. And the gap is each day widening. iOS has no where close to the 90% market share that Windows has on the desktop and laptop. iOS is at 40% daily worldwide market share or less by now.

It’s not true Windows RT can’t provide a full range of app support. There is no technical reason for Windows RT not to provide third party desktop apps API hooks and development environment. And for most of the rest of x86 apps backwards compatibility simply use PCoIP services also similar to OnLive. Now Microsoft are perfectly allowed to be much more strict in terms of 
reliability, battery life and security, in terms of absolutely not allowing any bloatware at all, but then it’s actually very much proven fact that the Chrome browser is much less bloatware, much more reliable, uses much less battery life and is much more secure than Internet Explorer ever has been. Thus if Internet Explorer can run, Chrome can run even more easily on Windows RT.

Microsoft already removed the naming Windows 8 from Windows RT, that was by request from Intel, Intel is desperate to not have consumers confuse the ARM Powered Windows 8 Laptops with the Intel powered ones, it would basically mean the death of Intel on the laptop market.

The EU has the power to ban all sales of Microsoft software and products in Europe if they do not comply in allowing other full browsers on Windows RT at launch. You can’t just scam a whole population with one product and keep selling you other products to that same population.

Microsoft’s contribution to Linux has only been done to let Linux better support Microsoft services. That basically is because Linux controls 90% of the server market so Microsoft has been compelled to give up and work on being compatible with Linux servers.

Microsoft is just not interested in working with open source now that it dominates in device classes that approach the replacement of Microsoft’s giant proprietary software licencing for consumer and professional use. Microsoft does not like to see Linux overtake the whole smart devices market and to see Linux being a huge threat now in the Laptop and Desktop market, the main source of profits that Microsoft still has left. Microsoft will do everything they can to compete with Linux on smart devices and entering the Laptop and Desktop market. They will fight as hard as they can even if it only means they delay their own proprietary software for Laptop/Desktops business models demise by a couple or three years. That is why Windows RT was made, it’s to try to prevent the Laptop and Desktop market from moving towards Chrome OS on ARM too quickly.

 Sorry but it doesn’t matter if iOS isn’t a desktop OS as to the question of being anti-competitive or not. 

So if you want to call a block on all Windows RT devices then fairly you must also call a block on all iOS devices!  Especially because Apple dominates the ARM tablet market much like MS dominates the PC market.  While Windows RT has yet to garner any market share.

Besides, Windows RT is only for ARM devices and isn’t offering the full range of Windows app support.  Making it only a step above a mobile OS and follows many of the same limits as other ARM devices.

So the commission has to decide whether it even falls under the same requirements as are placed for Windows 8, which does not have the same limits imposed.

Also MS could just change the name, simply removing “Windows” from the
name takes away a lot of the supposed emphasis being argued and make it all that much harder for the commission to associate it with the full desktop OS.

While security and power needs of the ARM-based chips and processors are technical reasons!  Providing (1) reliability, (2) battery life, (3)security are all provable results of imposing stricter control over software and hardware.
The only debate is whether they are good enough reasons for the limitations.Mind again, MS is not actually preventing the development 3rd party browsers.  The Metro-style Chrome and Firefox browsers should also run on Windows
RT.  It’s just a issues for those 3rd party browsers having to work without win32 API and working entirely with Metro.

Though it’s likely MS will have to jumps some hoops to satisfy the commission on Windows 8 or pay the fine.  Even though it doesn’t impose the same limitations as RT, MS is under legal requirement for making sure users are aware of their choices.

Btw, stop with the BS.  Microsoft has been officially recognized for making large
contribution to the development of Linux, and additionally supporting
the OpenStreetMap project.

Microsoft now supports multiple programming
languages, such as Java, PHP and Node.js, in addition to .NET, on its
Window Azure cloud computing platform.

The company has also taken
advantage of open solutions, including Hadoop, MongoDB, Drupal and
Joomla. Further, Microsoft has been involved in sponsorship of such
meetings as Joomla Day.

iOS isn’t yet a desktop OS so the browser issue is much less urgent to get fixed on iOS.

There is absolutely no technical merit in Microsoft blocking full Chrome, Firefox, Opera browsers from being available in the desktop mode of Windows RT.

This is a case of Microsoft trying to force a monopoly on the browser of Windows RT desktop mode.

Microsoft is welcomed to release IE for Android, Microsoft is welcome to go to http://chromium.org and design a version of that Linux OS to run IE instead of Chrome. But quite simply, Microsoft is not interested in participating in the promotion of any open source OS system. That is why Microsoft is desperate at trying to exclusively push Windows RT and Windows Phone and they are desperately trying to make IE the exclusive on those.

The EU must block all sales of Windows software in Europe if they don’t agree to allow alternative browsers to be installed on Windows RT. This is not just an issue of Microsoft paying $1 Billion fine in 5 years or not, they don’t care about that. This is a case of Microsoft having to comply with antitrust regulation or they must have the entirety of their products banned from import into Europe.

 Don’t count on it, as otherwise they would have already sued Apple for the walled garden they’ve created for their iOS devices.

Like for example Chrome for iOS isn’t really Chrome.  Instead, it’s a native iOS app that acts as a shell over the Mobile Safari engine. 
Just like what will be likely the case for Chrome on Windows RT being a shell over IE.

While the reasons for the limitations are legitimate security concerns.

Since JavaScript and browser plugins are extraordinarily popular
and thus have become effective vectors for installing malware and gaining illicit access
to a remote computer or device.

So in a modern operating system, it’s a valid argument to point out that those
subsystems have to be tightly controlled, and third parties can’t be
allowed to install their own replacements without introducing risks of introducing vulnerabilities that can’t be serviced by the OS
developer.

Mind examples like earlier this year, Google was caught deliberately circumventing privacy settings in Safari, by implementing a technical workaround that tricks the browser into accepting tracking cookies from a third-party site.

Google’s representative to the W3C has also argued that it has “the option to reject” Do Not Track (DNT) requests coming from browsers that have the DNT setting on by default and specifically that refers to Internet Explorer 10.

So there’s more than just letting there be open competition at stake.

While MS isn’t preventing third parties from making Metro apps. It’s just the sand box nature of Metro that’s getting them riled up with the limitations it imposes but that’s no different from how iOS is handled.