4 ms·

OK, how is that different from Apple? They replaced all the protocols for keyboard/trackpad communication with their own at some point and it took forever for p

OK, how is that different from Apple? They replaced all the protocols for keyboard/trackpad communication with their own at some point and it took forever for people to reverse engineer it. Same with the SSD and other components. M1 was shrouded in secrecy and apple tried to ditch all GPL software so that they wouldn't have to upstream anything if they don't want to. Let's at least compare apples to apples. Pun intended.

kitsunesoba 6y ago
The difference is that Apple is a single company, so secrecy doesn't interfere with product development. Communication happens between the involved internal teams and the magic happens. In the case of collaborations between separate companies, secrecy becomes a problem because inevitably, details that are held close and not communicated turn into stumbling blocks. For a collaboration between Nvidia and Microsoft for instance, the teams at Microsoft involved with the project would need the same level of access to Nvidia's half as Nvidia's employees do in order to be as effective as Apple's internal teams have been. This isn't impossible of course, but historically Nvidia is not inclined to do things like this.
- ngcc_hk 6y ago
  Firm is NOT market. In fact fir property right economics why firm exist is a big study area. Why such contractual transaction is efficient compared with free market. (May be it is not as open source “economy” has organised transaction that is not possible with firms. And firms does cooperate.) The question further is this model extended to say china. Many things happened in china was closed to outside. Not much as a secret but more like a big firm operate cheaply in a world economy. Would others compete or like apple others have to follow inline to get the supply. One wonder.
gumby 6y ago
> ... apple tried to ditch all GPL software so that they wouldn't have to upstream anything if they don't want to. A side point: it was the patent clause of the GPL v3 that frightened them off. The GPL doesn’t require “upstreaming” of anything — you merely have to release the source code you used; any use of that code by another person is that person’s responsibility. More generally on Apple: they just treat open / proprietary as another tactical tool. When they were on the ropes (e.g. late 90s) they happily embraced open standards like mp3 and jpeg, yet also happily purchased a license to .rtf. They quickly realized the ipod needed Windows support. Then as (and where) they became stronger they stoped caring.
- xenadu02 6y ago
  I seem to recall a wide variety of people objected to the patent clause during discussions on the GPLv3. Quite a few companies won't touch GPLv3 software which is unfortunate because it was gaining a lot of momentum at the time.
- krrrh 6y ago
  MP3 wasn’t an open standard. They paid licensing fees to the Fraunhofer institute like every other commercial vendor.

kitsunesoba 6y ago

The difference is that Apple is a single company, so secrecy doesn't interfere with product development. Communication happens between the involved internal teams and the magic happens. In the case of collaborations between separate companies, secrecy becomes a problem because inevitably, details that are held close and not communicated turn into stumbling blocks. For a collaboration between Nvidia and Microsoft for instance, the teams at Microsoft involved with the project would need the same level of access to Nvidia's half as Nvidia's employees do in order to be as effective as Apple's internal teams have been. This isn't impossible of course, but historically Nvidia is not inclined to do things like this.

ngcc_hk 6y ago
Firm is NOT market. In fact fir property right economics why firm exist is a big study area. Why such contractual transaction is efficient compared with free market. (May be it is not as open source “economy” has organised transaction that is not possible with firms. And firms does cooperate.) The question further is this model extended to say china. Many things happened in china was closed to outside. Not much as a secret but more like a big firm operate cheaply in a world economy. Would others compete or like apple others have to follow inline to get the supply. One wonder.

gumby 6y ago

> ... apple tried to ditch all GPL software so that they wouldn't have to upstream anything if they don't want to. A side point: it was the patent clause of the GPL v3 that frightened them off. The GPL doesn’t require “upstreaming” of anything — you merely have to release the source code you used; any use of that code by another person is that person’s responsibility. More generally on Apple: they just treat open / proprietary as another tactical tool. When they were on the ropes (e.g. late 90s) they happily embraced open standards like mp3 and jpeg, yet also happily purchased a license to .rtf. They quickly realized the ipod needed Windows support. Then as (and where) they became stronger they stoped caring.

xenadu02 6y ago
I seem to recall a wide variety of people objected to the patent clause during discussions on the GPLv3. Quite a few companies won't touch GPLv3 software which is unfortunate because it was gaining a lot of momentum at the time.
krrrh 6y ago
MP3 wasn’t an open standard. They paid licensing fees to the Fraunhofer institute like every other commercial vendor.