MS couldn't do that because it would be an antitrust violation.
That's never stopped them before, why should it stop them now?
Microsoft seems to think that everyone who runs an x86 machine needs a Microsoft Windows license. I do many things, but I do not do Microsoft Windows. I'm a Unix/Linux guy and on non-Mac hardware why should I have to pay for a software license for something I'll never use?
For those of you techies out there consider this - the Microsoft strategery is very similar to the "public option" in Obamacare. You have to pay for it whether you want it or not.
I'm going to have to do an essay on this.
I have mixed emotions regarding this suit, but as AAPL is the last bastion of free choice in the computer+OS market in the OS I have to side with them.
The best of all worlds is that Microsoft comes up with their own machines, especially branded for Microsoft Windows. Generic PCs then can be sold without an OS (or FreeDOS) and the user can install whatever they want on it (legally of course).
So, bring it on MSFT. Kick AAPL in the 'nads and bring out a Microsoft branded line of machines and let generic PCs sell with no OS. Or are you chicken to compete in a free market?
Add to that, Apple does not “pre-install” Windows.
Further, MS’s eula allows their properly purchased (aka - legal) software to be basically installed anywhere you want to install it. MS makes money primarily through software/OS sales. Their interest is to sell the maximum number of installs/licenses. Period. You want to cobble together your old Commodore 64 and run some flavor of Windows - they don’t care, as long as you have a properly licensed (purchased) copy and unique serial number - all is good (except they still won’t support you if it isn’t hardware that meets their minimum requirements).