5 ms·

I'm not proposing that we split companies. I proposing that no company that sells hardware be allowed to distribute software, and no company that distributes so

I'm not proposing that we split companies. I proposing that no company that sells hardware be allowed to distribute software, and no company that distributes software be allowed to sell hardware. The Apple split is only a consequence of that. As would be the likely end of locked down game consoles, now that I think of it. What I'm hoping to accomplish with this is: reduced or eliminated vendor lock-in, harmonisation and simplification of ISAs, the ability to support any hardware in any OS, and maybe even the the ability to actually write new OSes and see some real competition in this space. Note one important component I haven't mentioned: ISA patents should be rendered null and void. Anyone should be allowed to design, make, and sell an ARM or x86 CPU without asking anyone's permission. Or a GPU clone, or a network card clone, etc. Without that we'll just strengthen monopolies, or maybe allow new ones to arise.

Jtsummers 3y ago
This is a rather amazing comment, I'm astonished by the bald-faced lie that you open your first paragraph with: > I'm not proposing that we split companies. Also you, only a couple comments up: > As far as I am aware my proposal would only force Apples to split itself in 2: a hardware company that sells top notch hardware (so top notch in fact that even the hardware interfaces are as clean and slick as an iPad's case), and a software company that sells a top-notch integrated software suite on whatever hardware they chose to support (and no other hardware). Which is it, split companies or don't split companies? You can't have it both ways. If you aren't proposing that we split companies then you can't propose we split Apple unless you want to be a pedantic twit and point out that that's just one company and not companies.
- loup-vaillant 3y ago
  Listen to any pro-gun advocate: the goal is not to kill the bad guy, the goal is to stop the bad guy… though unfortunately sometimes this means reducing their blood pressure to zero. The law as I propose it would not legally force Apple to split. They would have 3 alternatives: stop selling software, stop selling hardware, or split. They could fire half the company, but we all know what they would actually do. Same deals with banks: enforcing the separation between deposit and investment wouldn't force the banks to split, but we all know that in practice they would. Understand here that splitting Apple is not my goal. My goal is to separate the activities, in the hope of fostering more competition and personal freedom.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    But how would that actually work? Two companies have an agreement to work together and share specs between themselves?
    - loup-vaillant 3y ago
      Actually no that would defeat the point. There are a couple thing we need to do beyond separating hardware and software: the first is forbidding NDAs around hardware interfaces. If you sell hardware to someone, you cannot force them not to publish the manual. The second is an interoperability mandate: reproducing the functionality of existing hardware (a CPU ISA, a GPU clone…) must be authorized, and all relevant copyright and patents ignored. This doesn’t mean that we would end all partnerships. The hardware company can still send prototypes to the software company, so driver development can begin before the hardware gets production-ready. That kind of workflow is common today.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        So...why bother with the separation? Why not just publish the specs and let people copy your hardware work and be done?

Jtsummers 3y ago

This is a rather amazing comment, I'm astonished by the bald-faced lie that you open your first paragraph with: > I'm not proposing that we split companies. Also you, only a couple comments up: > As far as I am aware my proposal would only force Apples to split itself in 2: a hardware company that sells top notch hardware (so top notch in fact that even the hardware interfaces are as clean and slick as an iPad's case), and a software company that sells a top-notch integrated software suite on whatever hardware they chose to support (and no other hardware). Which is it, split companies or don't split companies? You can't have it both ways. If you aren't proposing that we split companies then you can't propose we split Apple unless you want to be a pedantic twit and point out that that's just one company and not companies.

loup-vaillant 3y ago
Listen to any pro-gun advocate: the goal is not to kill the bad guy, the goal is to stop the bad guy… though unfortunately sometimes this means reducing their blood pressure to zero. The law as I propose it would not legally force Apple to split. They would have 3 alternatives: stop selling software, stop selling hardware, or split. They could fire half the company, but we all know what they would actually do. Same deals with banks: enforcing the separation between deposit and investment wouldn't force the banks to split, but we all know that in practice they would. Understand here that splitting Apple is not my goal. My goal is to separate the activities, in the hope of fostering more competition and personal freedom.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  But how would that actually work? Two companies have an agreement to work together and share specs between themselves?
  - loup-vaillant 3y ago
    Actually no that would defeat the point. There are a couple thing we need to do beyond separating hardware and software: the first is forbidding NDAs around hardware interfaces. If you sell hardware to someone, you cannot force them not to publish the manual. The second is an interoperability mandate: reproducing the functionality of existing hardware (a CPU ISA, a GPU clone…) must be authorized, and all relevant copyright and patents ignored. This doesn’t mean that we would end all partnerships. The hardware company can still send prototypes to the software company, so driver development can begin before the hardware gets production-ready. That kind of workflow is common today.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      So...why bother with the separation? Why not just publish the specs and let people copy your hardware work and be done?