There's No Windows for Arm Macs Yet Because Microsoft Has Secret Exclusivity Deal With Qualcomm

[Lihp8270]

M1 isn't out of the question in the slightest. Windows runs perfectly well on it, including x86-64 binary emulation. The problem here is a licensing one only. Which is to say that someone at Microsoft has their head up their ass because in the normal state of affairs selling N+M things ought to be better than selling N of them.

Maybe it’s just a good business sense.

Once they offer and license it officially for apple they’re going to need to support it like any other commercial application.

Maybe they realise that the money they would make, wouldn’t be worth the money spent in supporting it.

I’d guess they’re likely aware people are using it on M1 and just aren’t too fussed

 

[nsayer]

Maybe it’s just a good business sense.

Once they offer and license it officially for apple they’re going to need to support it like any other commercial application.

Maybe they realise that the money they would make, wouldn’t be worth the money spent in supporting it.

I’d guess they’re likely aware people are using it on M1 and just aren’t too fussed

That's not how OEM licensing works. Microsoft doesn't support OEM end users directly. That's why OEM licenses are cheaper. If they allowed Parallels to be an "OEM," then they get to sit back and watch the money printer go BRRRR while Parallels has to do end-user support.

 

[Lihp8270]

That's not how OEM licensing works. Microsoft doesn't support OEM end users directly. That's why OEM licenses are cheaper. If they allowed Parallels to be an "OEM," then they get to sit back and watch the money printer go BRRRR while Parallels has to do end-user support.

Parallels aren’t an OEM though.

Additionally from MS own documentation OEM software is pre installed on new machines. So to get a legit OEM license on Mac, it would need to be pre installed by Apple.

 

[polyphenol]

Parallels aren’t an OEM though.

Additionally from MS own documentation OEM software is pre installed on new machines. So to get a legit OEM license on Mac, it would need to be pre installed by Apple.

People who build PCs using motherboards, RAM, storage, processor, etc., have always been able to use OEM versions - often bought along with the hardware.

 

[nsayer]

People who build PCs using motherboards, RAM, storage, processor, etc., have always been able to use OEM versions - often bought along with the hardware.

And the wink and the nod there has always been that they are supposed to go to the store that sold the license to them for retail support. In reality, the folks who do that don't need a lot of support, so it works out.

 

[nsayer]

Parallels aren’t an OEM though.

Additionally from MS own documentation OEM software is pre installed on new machines. So to get a legit OEM license on Mac, it would need to be pre installed by Apple.

Parallels is the "manufacturer" of the virtual machine. Going further into the weeds on this little cul-de-sac of the argument is just semantical masturbation.

 

[jlc1978]

That's not how OEM licensing works. Microsoft doesn't support OEM end users directly. That's why OEM licenses are cheaper. If they allowed Parallels to be an "OEM," then they get to sit back and watch the money printer go BRRRR while Parallels has to do end-user support.

Th problem for Parallels is how MS might charge for an OEM license if they decided to do that. Parallels would likely wind up bundling Windows to recover the costs, angering users who already have a license and don't want to pay twice. Software upgrades and cross grades could be problematic if MS' terms are on a volume sold basis.

Plus, as you point out, Parallels would find itself in the Windows support business, something they likely won't due because the costs would likely overwhelm the revenue. Parallels would still expect MS to ensure it works with Apple ARM machines; if Parallels would have to develop drivers, etc. the costs would ballon. I just don't see it happening.

 

[nsayer]

Th problem for Parallels is how MS might charge for an OEM license if they decided to do that. Parallels would likely wind up bundling Windows to recover the costs, angering users who already have a license and don't want to pay twice. Software upgrades and cross grades could be problematic if MS' terms are on a volume sold basis.

Plus, as you point out, Parallels would find itself in the Windows support business, something they likely won't due because the costs would likely overwhelm the revenue. Parallels would still expect MS to ensure it works with Apple ARM machines; if Parallels would have to develop drivers, etc. the costs would ballon. I just don't see it happening.

Well, I see the situation entirely differently. I see Parallels selling Windows licenses the exact same way the B&M store down the street does. It makes no sense to assume that OEM licensing revenue is just a straight percentage of sales. Dell sells lots of things that don't need a Windows license (more and more every year), as does that same B&M store down the street.

Parallels today already is in the Windows support business because they advertise a product that is meant to, well, run Windows. Their support forum is chock full of people asking questions and getting answers about running Windows. Parallels already makes a pile of drivers and "tools" to interact with Windows running under Parallels. They've already invested in all of the stuff that you "just don''t see happening."

All Microsoft has to do is cash the checks and not go out of their way to break things. That's hardly too much to ask.

 

[falainber]

Parallels is the "manufacturer" of the virtual machine. Going further into the weeds on this little cul-de-sac of the argument is just semantical masturbation.

OEM stands for "Original Equipment Manufacturer". Obviously virtual machine does not qualify.

 

[jlc1978]

Well, I see the situation entirely differently.

Fair enough. Who knows what Parallels or MS may cook up. I just don't see it being a smart move cost wise for Parallels, and nay sales for MS would be rounding error and not worth the costs.

I see Parallels selling Windows licenses the exact same way the B&M store down the street does.

It really depends on how MS views VMs. B&Ms see boxed software versions (which come with NS support) or as part of a PC that runs what an OEM licensed version. It will, in general, only work on a specific machine, such as when you buy a Dell you can't migrate the image to a VM, for example, in most cases. That OEM license is tied to a specific machine, and if Parallels has to do that it complicates life for them.

It makes no sense to assume that OEM licensing revenue is just a straight percentage of sales. Dell sells lots of things that don't need a Windows license (more and more every year), as does that same B&M store down the street.

True, but Dell licenses Windows for PCs that come with Windows and pays a royalty; soemthing MS may want Parallels to d rather than just sell a retail version.

Parallels today already is in the Windows support business because they advertise a product that is meant to, well, run Windows. Their support forum is chock full of people asking questions and getting answers about running Windows.

From my experience with their forums it's mostly a community support forum with limited parallels input. That's a lot different than supportting an OS you sell and have to Dela with install, crashes, missing drivers, etc. They o offer phone support but on a paid for basis.

Plus, every time Apple releases an OS update that breaks something in Parallels they now have to figure out a fix for the OS they sold rather than just say "it don't work." The expectations of end users are different if tehy buy an OS with the VM, IMHO, and will expect it to work like a dedicated PC, something Parallels doesn't fully do.

Parallels already makes a pile of drivers and "tools" to interact with Windows running under Parallels. They've already invested in all of the stuff that you "just don''t see happening.

No doubt they have a lot of experience making VM work with Windows but that is different than supporting an OS. My guess is teh costs would not make it worth it. Their money is better spent on improving the VM and letting users get Windows elsewhere.

All Microsoft has to do is cash the checks and not go out of their way to break things. That's hardly too much to ask.

"Not break things" is teh issue as I see it. Either tehy work with Parallels to keep teh VM version working, which costs money, or they keep tailoring it their hardware design which may beak things. From a cost perspective the latter is more attractive, since having an ARM version that works on Macs in a VM requires a bit more than just cashing checks.

 

[polyphenol]

Obviously virtual machine does not qualify.

I don't think "obviously" is appropriate. Microsoft could turn round and deem a virtual machine as qualifying. Or not.

Arguments could ensue, but it starts out with Microsoft's decision.

 

[nathansz]

del

 

[nathansz]

del

 

[Thebrochure]

Windows 11 is better than Windows 8. That's a hill I will die on and I suspect I am not alone.

In some ways (or even most), sure. But not all ways. In some ways, Windows XP is better. And that's my point here. Newer doesn't equate better by default. It just equates newer.

 

[Lihp8270]

People who build PCs using motherboards, RAM, storage, processor, etc., have always been able to use OEM versions - often bought along with the hardware.

Of course. I often use OEM licenses on my builds.

But in that circumstance I am the OEM and the software is installed with the machine.

Parallels are an equipment manufacturer if you take the logic of them being an OEM or a VM they would need to supply the windows license as a “preinstall” with the VM.

 

[nsayer]

OEM stands for "Original Equipment Manufacturer". Obviously virtual machine does not qualify.

There's that semantical masturbation I was talking about. End of thread.

 

[nsayer]

Fair enough. Who knows what Parallels or MS may cook up. I just don't see it being a smart move cost wise for Parallels, and nay sales for MS would be rounding error and not worth the costs.



It really depends on how MS views VMs. B&Ms see boxed software versions (which come with NS support) or as part of a PC that runs what an OEM licensed version. It will, in general, only work on a specific machine, such as when you buy a Dell you can't migrate the image to a VM, for example, in most cases. That OEM license is tied to a specific machine, and if Parallels has to do that it complicates life for them.



True, but Dell licenses Windows for PCs that come with Windows and pays a royalty; soemthing MS may want Parallels to d rather than just sell a retail version.



From my experience with their forums it's mostly a community support forum with limited parallels input. That's a lot different than supportting an OS you sell and have to Dela with install, crashes, missing drivers, etc. They o offer phone support but on a paid for basis.

Plus, every time Apple releases an OS update that breaks something in Parallels they now have to figure out a fix for the OS they sold rather than just say "it don't work." The expectations of end users are different if tehy buy an OS with the VM, IMHO, and will expect it to work like a dedicated PC, something Parallels doesn't fully do.



No doubt they have a lot of experience making VM work with Windows but that is different than supporting an OS. My guess is teh costs would not make it worth it. Their money is better spent on improving the VM and letting users get Windows elsewhere.



"Not break things" is teh issue as I see it. Either tehy work with Parallels to keep teh VM version working, which costs money, or they keep tailoring it their hardware design which may beak things. From a cost perspective the latter is more attractive, since having an ARM version that works on Macs in a VM requires a bit more than just cashing checks.

Ok, at this point both of us have made our cases and we continue to disagree. Continuing to argue about it clearly is not going to do anybody any good. Peace.

 

[Lihp8270]

There's that semantical masturbation I was talking about. End of thread.

It seems quite clear to me. What isn’t clear is the mental gymnastics to call parallels an equipment manufacturer. Or to suggest that they are doing anything similar to providing hardware since an OEM license is tied to a motherboadd

 

[gtg465x]

It seems quite clear to me. What isn’t clear is the mental gymnastics to call parallels an equipment manufacturer. Or to suggest that they are doing anything similar to providing hardware since an OEM license is tied to a motherboadd

What do you think the definition of equipment is? “Physical hardware”? Oxford says “the necessary items for a particular purpose”. Parallels is by definition equipment.

 

[chucker23n1]

It seems quite clear to me. What isn’t clear is the mental gymnastics to call parallels an equipment manufacturer. Or to suggest that they are doing anything similar to providing hardware since an OEM license is tied to a motherboadd

That's how Microsoft would like to see it, but an OEM license is really just "here's the bare product; you do the support". There's no reason Parallels can't do that if they want to and Microsoft lets them.

 

[Lihp8270]

That's how Microsoft would like to see it, but an OEM license is really just "here's the bare product; you do the support". There's no reason Parallels can't do that if they want to and Microsoft lets them.

It appears I am incorrect.

I read through the terms and conditions, and an OEM license does allow for use on a virtual machine.

 

[jlc1978]

Ok, at this point both of us have made our cases and we continue to disagree. Continuing to argue about it clearly is not going to do anybody any good. Peace.

Fair enough. Thanks for a good, reasoned discussion. Only time will tell what MS and Parallels will do. Personally, I hope I am wrong and you are right. Take care.

 

[jlc1978]

It seems quite clear to me. What isn’t clear is the mental gymnastics to call parallels an equipment manufacturer.

An OEM, traditionally, is a company that provides components to another, who in turn incorporates them into a product they sell. The company that incorporates OEM products can be considered a Value Added Reseller, or VAR; as is often the case in software related products but not in physical products. After all, no one would call Ford a VAR. In the scenario described, MS is the OEM and Parallels the VAR. If Parallels sells a VM to another company that incorporates it into a product, Parallels would be the OEM.

Or to suggest that they are doing anything similar to providing hardware since an OEM license is tied to a motherboadd

OEM licenses are tied to a specific device, and use its characteristics to limit it to that device. Parallels and MS could accomplish the same thing by binding an OEM copy of Windows to a serialized copy of Parallels and limit the bundle to one activation per license.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Apple silicon didn't even existed when Windows ARM was released and the deal was made. No one colluded against apple

Apple Silicon the brand no, but since the A4 it’s been a LOT longer in the making than Windows Arm.

 

[KPOM]

Maybe it’s just a good business sense.

Once they offer and license it officially for apple they’re going to need to support it like any other commercial application.

Maybe they realise that the money they would make, wouldn’t be worth the money spent in supporting it.

I’d guess they’re likely aware people are using it on M1 and just aren’t too fussed

They could offer OEM licenses to Corel (owner of Parallels Desktop) and let them worry about support. Corel seems to be doing the heavy lifting making Windows on ARM work on M1 Macs anyway, so it would cost Microsoft very little.