4 ms·

You know, this gave me an idea: I'd love to see legislation that states that when a company the size of Google, Microsoft, etc. launches a product like this, th

You know, this gave me an idea: I'd love to see legislation that states that when a company the size of Google, Microsoft, etc. launches a product like this, then kills it off, that they MUST open source the proprietary parts inside of it. Not just for hardware like controller firmware etc. but also for software they used to create it. Obviously the games themselves in the case are IP owned by other firms so that would be exempt, but I think this would go a long way to forcing companies to stick it out with supporting products and customers they create over longer periods of time or not launch things flippantly in the first place.

onion2k 4y ago
they MUST open source the proprietary parts inside of it This would have no impact on anything. If they had to share IP after shutting it down they'd just restructure the business so that Stadia licensed IP from Google Streaming Gaming Technology LLP, and do the all the real work in that absolutely-definitely-a-separate-company-look-the-logo-is-a-different-shape part of Alphabet instead.
- MrWiffles 4y ago
  Eh, there's probably ways to mitigate that from a legislative point of view. The point of this was to make the act of shutting products down all willy-nilly like this less attractive, and if they keep doing it at least the world at large gets a little something out of it. But you're not wrong in pointing out they'll do everything they can to sidestep accountability and screw the little guy, either. I'm just hoping there's some way we can make that more trouble than it's worth.
  - bogwog 4y ago
    Maybe it would work if it was based on the production volume and product category, not the size of the company. Not sure how the IP thing would work, but making it possible to reuse/recycle electronics that would otherwise end up in a landfill due to no other reason than software locks is a good idea. But forcing a company to relinquish its intellectual property just because they're successful seems counter-intuitive. Maybe they just need to make it possible to install alternative firmware (whether or not it exists) in a reasonable way for no additional cost.
    - MrWiffles 4y ago
      Yeah I should have thought that through a bit more before posting it. > Maybe it would work if it was based on the production volume and product category, not the size of the company. Not sure how the IP thing would work, but making it possible to reuse/recycle electronics that would otherwise end up in a landfill due to no other reason than software locks is a good idea. THIS! > But forcing a company to relinquish its intellectual property just because they're successful seems counter-intuitive. Maybe they just need to make it possible to install alternative firmware (whether or not it exists) in a reasonable way for no additional cost. Well, this too, with a twist... I'm not saying they have to relinquish their IP. There's a difference between open sourcing something and relinquishing intellectual property. One says "the world can USE this" and the other says "the world can use this and somebody can PROFIT FROM IT." I'm saying exclusively the former. I'm not OK with them being forced to allow somebody else to pick up their work and make money on it without them getting a cut purely because the government forced that function, that's not ok. So maybe if there's going to be a forcing function here there needs to be some kind of licensing that allows their IP to be used purely in non-profit contexts. ...but then again, coming back to my whole "should have thought it through before posting" notion, no profit might mean no maintaining body. So...I dunno. It just rubs me the wrong way that Google launches new products and kills just as many every single year, and loads of people worldwide get screwed in the process while they get away with it every single time. If they're going to keep doing this, and let's face it, they are, the world at large oughtta get a little something out of it. Seems like having them open source the thing they're clearly not going to make any money on anyway is the right thing to do here.

onion2k 4y ago

they MUST open source the proprietary parts inside of it This would have no impact on anything. If they had to share IP after shutting it down they'd just restructure the business so that Stadia licensed IP from Google Streaming Gaming Technology LLP, and do the all the real work in that absolutely-definitely-a-separate-company-look-the-logo-is-a-different-shape part of Alphabet instead.

MrWiffles 4y ago
Eh, there's probably ways to mitigate that from a legislative point of view. The point of this was to make the act of shutting products down all willy-nilly like this less attractive, and if they keep doing it at least the world at large gets a little something out of it. But you're not wrong in pointing out they'll do everything they can to sidestep accountability and screw the little guy, either. I'm just hoping there's some way we can make that more trouble than it's worth.
- bogwog 4y ago
  Maybe it would work if it was based on the production volume and product category, not the size of the company. Not sure how the IP thing would work, but making it possible to reuse/recycle electronics that would otherwise end up in a landfill due to no other reason than software locks is a good idea. But forcing a company to relinquish its intellectual property just because they're successful seems counter-intuitive. Maybe they just need to make it possible to install alternative firmware (whether or not it exists) in a reasonable way for no additional cost.
  - MrWiffles 4y ago
    Yeah I should have thought that through a bit more before posting it. > Maybe it would work if it was based on the production volume and product category, not the size of the company. Not sure how the IP thing would work, but making it possible to reuse/recycle electronics that would otherwise end up in a landfill due to no other reason than software locks is a good idea. THIS! > But forcing a company to relinquish its intellectual property just because they're successful seems counter-intuitive. Maybe they just need to make it possible to install alternative firmware (whether or not it exists) in a reasonable way for no additional cost. Well, this too, with a twist... I'm not saying they have to relinquish their IP. There's a difference between open sourcing something and relinquishing intellectual property. One says "the world can USE this" and the other says "the world can use this and somebody can PROFIT FROM IT." I'm saying exclusively the former. I'm not OK with them being forced to allow somebody else to pick up their work and make money on it without them getting a cut purely because the government forced that function, that's not ok. So maybe if there's going to be a forcing function here there needs to be some kind of licensing that allows their IP to be used purely in non-profit contexts. ...but then again, coming back to my whole "should have thought it through before posting" notion, no profit might mean no maintaining body. So...I dunno. It just rubs me the wrong way that Google launches new products and kills just as many every single year, and loads of people worldwide get screwed in the process while they get away with it every single time. If they're going to keep doing this, and let's face it, they are, the world at large oughtta get a little something out of it. Seems like having them open source the thing they're clearly not going to make any money on anyway is the right thing to do here.