|
Home > Archive > Linux Debian support > April 2005 > Product Internals
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Clinton V. Weiss 2005-04-17, 5:46 pm |
| In the thread "Wireless in Linux needs HELP", Trent Buck stated:
> - write to hardware manufacturers asking them to publish
> information about the internals of their products.
I fully understand why companies would want to gain an advantage by
releasing their hardware products with features that improve on the
competition. I do not understand why a large majority of these
companies wish to hide the details of how to interface with their product.
Certainly these companies write their own interface for their target
(e.g. Microsoft Windows, Macintosh) but why not release the details so
that other developers can quickly and easily write software for the
unsupported target (e.g. legacy machines, Linux).
In doing so,the product can potentially be used by a larger customer
base which would then increase sales, which of course would increase
profit. Or perhaps my understanding of business disallows me to see the
reasons why.
Would someone with the proper business sense (meaning I don't want
anyone's 2 cents - I'd like facts) please explain the reasoning for
companies not to release details of how to interface with their
product's internals?
| |
|
| Clinton V. Weiss wrote:
[I'm remain Google constipated;][
> In the thread "Wireless in Linux needs HELP", Trent Buck stated:
>
>
> I fully understand why companies would want to gain an advantage by
> releasing their hardware products with features that improve on the
> competition. I do not understand why a large majority of these
> companies wish to hide the details of how to interface with their
product.
>
> Certainly these companies write their own interface for their target
> (e.g. Microsoft Windows, Macintosh) but why not release the details
so
> that other developers can quickly and easily write software for the
> unsupported target (e.g. legacy machines, Linux).
>
> In doing so,the product can potentially be used by a larger customer
> base which would then increase sales, which of course would increase
> profit. Or perhaps my understanding of business disallows me to see
the
> reasons why.
>
> Would someone with the proper business sense (meaning I don't want
> anyone's 2 cents - I'd like facts) please explain the reasoning for
> companies not to release details of how to interface with their
> product's internals?
This is that "Dude - shut the hell up with your Linux zealot postings"
target, so be warned, I'm off the deep end, have never used Windows,
never suggest that my clients use Windows, etc.;) Wish I'd never had
to be entangled with EULAs, also ...
This is partly lawyer habit from the days when you (as a
hardware/software writer) laid claim to every scrap of code/knowledge
with I.P. that you could in order to discourage rampant
copying/redistributing (maybe by competitors). The history of I.P. and
computer code is too convoluted to explore here. Basic idea was that
if you did not hide it or find some legally "enforcible" claim on your
work, you would never get as rich as Bill G. or Larry E.
Of course, if you _really_ want to protect yourself you simply keep a
secret like Coca-Cola or Mars Candy.
The way to do this (since copyright seemed too flimsy and courts
_originally_ showed disinclination to accept patents) was with the use
of licenses, ie., contract law. The nearest thing to "'God Sanctified"
in American jurisprudence. Not even treaties (just ask Native
Americans) or the Constitution have been so elevated as the idea of
"sanctity of contract".
The real kicker is that technology (hardware and software) changes so
quickly that even a 6-18 month "advantage" can mean big $$$ (when
you're selling to Fortune 500s). As end users we don't see or are even
aware of the deals that manufacturers make amonst themselves to squeeze
out extra $ advantage. This practice, btw, is _not_ limited to the
computer world. Thus, if a restaurant wants to offer Coke, it _can't_
offer Pepsi because of the contract;) This is a practice "sanctified"
by the Supreme Court as _not_ being "in restraint of trade".
Now, the question of why small-fry companies do not release details
about their hardware/software interfaces is directly related to staying
in the "good graces" of the Big Boys and how they want to do business.
If Bill G. says he's unhappy about somebody pre-loading software
(because of its viral, GPL, licensing) on platforms _he_ loads _his_
software on, well, what's a computer maker to do? To get along, you
gotta go along...
At some point, the smaller fish get tired of feeding Bill's bank
account and figure "what's to lose?" So, they start releasing some
code/documentation, more people use/interface with their products, and
they make more $ (or not). Maybe even enough to pay the health
insurrance of their workers;) Bill (or Ballmer) gets pissed, but what
can they _really_ do? They are a multiple, non-conformant monopoly re:
"unfair business practices". Damn...
But, hey, contracts are not a matter of public record, they _are_ court
enforcible, and by the time the grinding wheel of "justice" works out a
solution (without penalties on appeal;), they've served their purpose.
Crush the squirt! Or make them suffer as you inexplicably lose paper
work whose timely processing is a requirement of the squirt's survival.
Hmmm...
In the end, it's just a matter of what the folks running a company
think is in their best interest. But that's another discussion of
business practice;)
regards,
prg
| |
| John Hasler 2005-04-17, 8:45 pm |
| prg writes:
> Now, the question of why small-fry companies do not release details about
> their hardware/software interfaces is directly related to staying in the
> "good graces" of the Big Boys and how they want to do business.
A major reason why some such companies do not release details about their
hardware interfaces is that they often have licensed key parts of their
hardware design from outfits specializing in doing so. This secret "IP" is
licensed under terms that make the grossest misinterpretations of the GPL
look like public domain by comparison. The companies are often afraid that
if they release any interface data the "IP" owners will revoke their
licenses.
--
John Hasler
|
|
|
|
|