Make No Mistake … The Major Tech/Gaming Companies LOVE Borders …

Avatar
33

… they just love the ability to enforce THEIR borders.

Apple has a border around Ipad to protect THEIR SOVEREIGNTY. You have to get permission for your app get in, and if at any point, you do something they dont like, you will deported until you do what they want. The also want you to show your green card, called itunes, to show your citizenship to Apple so you can have the right to transfer movies and music. Hell, they even claim they have a border and thus, sole ownership, around shapes like circular rectangles.

Microsoft, before it got cozy with Linux, had a border around a lot of PC devices in the early days of Windows 10, as in secure boot, to discourage you from being multi-cultural in your operating systems.

Game Developers have protected their property within the border of Launchers such as Steam, Origin, and now Epic, where you must get permission to use the things you have bought. Some of them believe in borders so much, that they don’t even support inter-state travel between Launchers.

Phone companies have created a nice, bigly wall around the drivers for their devices, making installing any alternative linux bases phone operating system virtually impossible. No Free, Open Source Driver Care for you.

And just like a Country defends their borders (or is supposed to) by military force , these companies defend their borders … BY LAWFARE, court order force. They dont call the generals … they call the lawyers.

It seems like when it comes to their ecosystems, their property, their best interests …. the don’t only love borders … their business model DEPENDS ON THEM.

Comments (33)

33 responses to “Make No Mistake … The Major Tech/Gaming Companies LOVE Borders …”

  1. Avatar

    skane2600

    I don't think secure boot was much of border both because it could be easily disabled and because the vast majority of users weren't interested in running Linux anyway. A border that would be comparable to the iPhone's on Windows would require all programs be obtained from a store and MS approval of any new programs. Not really comparable.

  2. Avatar

    waethorn

    There's also the actual border issues with licensing. For instance, I can't buy a gift card for any online services for anyone residing outside of my home country without having a foreign account and credit card. And then there's movie and music licensing. If I have a Netflix license for my home country, content is different when I go abroad. Likewise, I often can't access downloads of purchases I've made online from outside of my home country. People act like China is the only country with a state-wide firewall that creates a bubble around its citizens. That's not entirely true.


    Oh, and FYI: Secure Boot started with Windows 8. When the negative feedback over it came back from Linux developers because Microsoft required OEM's to have Microsoft's signing key installed in firmware to lock out changes to the bootloader, that's when they changed the requirements so that OEM's had to have a disable switch (except for SoC's - nobody seems to remember that point in the hardware design docs). The original documentation never included that, so anyone could guess that Microsoft would've just kept the OEM lockout in place had nobody made a stink about it. If they did, it would've hurt consumer choices, and would've probably led to additional antitrust litigation. Too bad they caved. It might've really put Microsoft in their place had they faced another day in court.

  3. Avatar

    wp7mango

    It's not that they love borders AND their business model depends on it. It's simpler than that...


    Their business model depends on it, period. There is no love involved.


    If you think about it logically, if you want to protect your intellectual property or your income, then you have no choice but to use all the means at your disposal. Platforms with stores make this process easier.

    • Avatar

      waethorn

      In reply to WP7Mango:

      Some developers don't believe in intellectual property - they believe in value for production, not value for product.

      • Avatar

        wp7mango

        In reply to Waethorn:

        It doesn't matter if they believe in it or not. IP is a "thing" recognised by law, just like copyright.


        Value for production is basically a developer working for a company, ie being paid for work. But the IP belongs to the employer, unless a contract states otherwise.


        Developers working for themselves can choose not to protect their IP, but it's still their IP if they created it for themselves, unless a contract states otherwise.

        • Avatar

          waethorn

          In reply to WP7Mango:

          Someone doesn't have to work for a company to ask for value-for-value. If you work for a company, you're working for their agenda. Not every company charges customers for the product either.

          • Avatar

            smartin

            In reply to WP7Mango:

            "Someone doesn't have to work for a company to ask for value-for-value. If you work for a company, you're working for their agenda. Not every company charges customers for the product either."


            Name one. And don't give us one that uses advertising revenue. That's still a cost.

          • Avatar

            wp7mango

            In reply to Waethorn:


            Granted, not every company charges for their product, but they will be making money somewhere, otherwise it's simply not a viable business. Such a free software product might be a gateway to some other service, or a tool to use the company's other products, or a means to deliver advertising, etc etc.


            If your primary goal is to create free software and you have no other associated income stream, then that is not a business - it's a hobby, or free help. Very noble - but it doesn't put bread on the table.


            Look, it doesn't matter if you work for a company or work for yourself, the principle is the same...


            If you want to make money from your software work, you have several options -


            1. Sell the source code
            2. License the source code with terms and conditions
            3. Sell the compiled software
            4. License the compiled software with terms and conditions


            Even free software with chargeable support comes under number 4 above.


            But how do you ensure people actually pay? That ultimately depends on how important it is to you, and therefore how much effort you will spend on protecting this income, hence why we have these various platforms and borders etc. And if you can't or don't wish to protect it electronically, or want even more protection, you can protect it legally, hence why we have legal IP protection mechanisms too.


            What bothers me, I think, is when developers think that their personal choice of business model should apply to everyone else. For example, a developer wants to give away his software for free and in return expects all other developers to think the same way. WTF is that all about? Some other devs might agree, but others won't. Those that don't agree aren't wrong - they simply choose differently.


            • Avatar

              waethorn

              In reply to WP7Mango:

              The reason why developers like to promote open source code is to promote transparency from other developers. The GPL requires that linked or derivative code must preserve openness for that reason. If you can't see the code, you can't audit it. If you can't audit it, you have no idea what it's doing.

              • Avatar

                skane2600

                In reply to Waethorn:

                Let's be serious, it's extremely rare for any significant open source code to be audited. The bare minimum for an audit would require reading every line of code, something most downstream developers don't even do.


                The theory that the GPL license keeps code open while other open source licenses don't is bunk and always has been. Keeping your code open doesn't require that linked or derivative code also be open. The GPL is the "strings attached" open source license.

              • Avatar

                wp7mango

                In reply to Waethorn:

                Open source code is not the same as free (zero-cost) software.


                I understand the merits of open source code. What I don't understand are some of the business models driven by some ideology where software should be free (zero cost) or that devs should not try to protect their income from the creation of their software.

                • Avatar

                  waethorn

                  In reply to WP7Mango:


                  I never said open source is the same as free software, but that is often the distribution methodology of open source software because developers want a public audit of the code. The business model is something separate from the distribution of the code. More often than not, it's a service agreement.

                • Avatar

                  skane2600

                  In reply to Waethorn:

                  Ah, the service agreement. We found the missing somebody else's agenda item.

          • Avatar

            skane2600

            In reply to Waethorn:

            If you build a windmill and use it to power your house then you can benefit economically without having to deal with someone else's agenda, but in most cases to earn a profit you need to satisfy someone else's needs. Whether it involves an exchange of money or bartering, the principle is the same.

            • Avatar

              waethorn

              In reply to skane2600:


              A windmill is a physical thing. Software is just modified bits. It's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison.


              Now, if you were designing a windmill, you could release the designs to the public, ask for reciprocal value for the designs, and charge for a build service.

      • Avatar

        skane2600

        In reply to Waethorn:

        Not sure what you mean by "value for production".

Leave a Reply