4 ms·

I feel like the difference here should be fairly obvious. One is an open protocol, and one is proprietary technology. AWS even at one point supported the proto

I feel like the difference here should be fairly obvious. One is an open protocol, and one is proprietary technology. AWS even at one point supported the protocol. I don't know if it's still a thing but it wasn't terribly uncommon to find Linux distros and other legitimate things shared through that protocol. Here we are talking about proprietary technology by Nintendo. On a system that they are currently selling and making money on. Given how much money they were bring in on patrion, it isn't much different than if they tried to make a physical knock off switch that could run switch games.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
> it isn't much different than if they tried to make a physical knock off switch that could run switch games. Over in computer land we would call that "IBM PC Compatible".
- mardef 3y ago
  I think it'd be closer to a Hackintosh.
- 12_throw_away 3y ago
  Anyone else old enough to remember Connectix Virtual Game Station [1] for, like, MacOS 9 I think? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix_Virtual_Game_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix_Virtual_Game_Station
pcwalton 3y ago
> Here we are talking about proprietary technology by Nintendo. x86 is also proprietary technology that Intel is currently making money on. Should Intel be able to sue AMD out of existence? NVIDIA's GPU specs are proprietary technology that NVIDIA is currently making money on. Should NVIDIA be able to shut down Nouveau? Flash is proprietary technology that Adobe still sells under the name Adobe Animate. Should Adobe be able to shut down Ruffle?
- nerdjon 3y ago
  > x86 is also proprietary technology. Should Intel be able to sue AMD out of existence? AMD has a perpetual license from Intel to use the technology. Nouveau is different, you are still buying Nvidia cards just running an open source driver. Nvidia doesn't make money on their drivers, they make money on the graphics cards. Similar situation to Ruffle, Adobe never charged for the end user to download flash. It was free. Ruffle is an alternative to that. Also it is worth mentioning that flash is all but dead and this really just keeps it breathing. While both companies probably could make an argument to argue for a take down of both, they have no incentive to do it.
  - pcwalton 3y ago
    > AMD has a perpetual license from Intel to use the technology. AMD only managed to negotiate that because Intel lost in arbitration [1]. Intel's preferred option was always to eliminate AMD entirely. It's good for us consumers that they didn't succeed in that! > While both companies probably could make an argument to argue for a take down of both, they have no incentive to do it. NVIDIA absolutely has an incentive to get rid of Nouveau. Its existence discloses IP (their GPU inner workings) that they would prefer to keep secret. More examples: JavaScript was proprietary technology at the time. The fact that it was specific to Netscape browsers absolutely benefited Netscape's business model. The existence of Chrome depends on the fact that Netscape had no grounds to go after Microsoft for an independent implementation. SMB is a proprietary Microsoft technology. '90s Microsoft would definitely have preferred to keep that specific to Windows in order to sell more Windows licenses. It's good for the industry that Microsoft never felt they could go after Samba. Another fun one: The FBX file format, which Autodesk makes money on through Maya, has a half-hearted attempt at DRM in it to limit it to approved Autodesk licensees. Blender's FBX exporter breaks it with a pass-the-hash attack. Get rid of that and Blender can no longer talk to Unity. Obviously, the entire industry benefits from the fact that Autodesk can't go after Blender for this. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD#IBM_PC_and_the_x86_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD#IBM_PC_and_the_x86_archite...
    - nerdjon 3y ago
boolemancer 3y ago
> Given how much money they were bring in on patrion, it isn't much different than if they tried to make a physical knock off switch that could run switch games. Why would that be a problem? As long as they're not actually violating trademarks or patents and making an actual counterfeit product, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to make their own hardware that is compatible with Switch games. These products already exist for other systems, and they are a good way to allow you to play your existing games on more modern hardware. Just because it upsets some executive at Nintendo doesn't make it illegal.

_aavaa_ 3y ago

> it isn't much different than if they tried to make a physical knock off switch that could run switch games. Over in computer land we would call that "IBM PC Compatible".

mardef 3y ago
I think it'd be closer to a Hackintosh.
12_throw_away 3y ago
Anyone else old enough to remember Connectix Virtual Game Station [1] for, like, MacOS 9 I think? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix_Virtual_Game_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix_Virtual_Game_Station

pcwalton 3y ago

> Here we are talking about proprietary technology by Nintendo. x86 is also proprietary technology that Intel is currently making money on. Should Intel be able to sue AMD out of existence? NVIDIA's GPU specs are proprietary technology that NVIDIA is currently making money on. Should NVIDIA be able to shut down Nouveau? Flash is proprietary technology that Adobe still sells under the name Adobe Animate. Should Adobe be able to shut down Ruffle?

nerdjon 3y ago
> x86 is also proprietary technology. Should Intel be able to sue AMD out of existence? AMD has a perpetual license from Intel to use the technology. Nouveau is different, you are still buying Nvidia cards just running an open source driver. Nvidia doesn't make money on their drivers, they make money on the graphics cards. Similar situation to Ruffle, Adobe never charged for the end user to download flash. It was free. Ruffle is an alternative to that. Also it is worth mentioning that flash is all but dead and this really just keeps it breathing. While both companies probably could make an argument to argue for a take down of both, they have no incentive to do it.
- pcwalton 3y ago
  > AMD has a perpetual license from Intel to use the technology. AMD only managed to negotiate that because Intel lost in arbitration [1]. Intel's preferred option was always to eliminate AMD entirely. It's good for us consumers that they didn't succeed in that! > While both companies probably could make an argument to argue for a take down of both, they have no incentive to do it. NVIDIA absolutely has an incentive to get rid of Nouveau. Its existence discloses IP (their GPU inner workings) that they would prefer to keep secret. More examples: JavaScript was proprietary technology at the time. The fact that it was specific to Netscape browsers absolutely benefited Netscape's business model. The existence of Chrome depends on the fact that Netscape had no grounds to go after Microsoft for an independent implementation. SMB is a proprietary Microsoft technology. '90s Microsoft would definitely have preferred to keep that specific to Windows in order to sell more Windows licenses. It's good for the industry that Microsoft never felt they could go after Samba. Another fun one: The FBX file format, which Autodesk makes money on through Maya, has a half-hearted attempt at DRM in it to limit it to approved Autodesk licensees. Blender's FBX exporter breaks it with a pass-the-hash attack. Get rid of that and Blender can no longer talk to Unity. Obviously, the entire industry benefits from the fact that Autodesk can't go after Blender for this. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD#IBM_PC_and_the_x86_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD#IBM_PC_and_the_x86_archite...
  - nerdjon 3y ago

boolemancer 3y ago

> Given how much money they were bring in on patrion, it isn't much different than if they tried to make a physical knock off switch that could run switch games. Why would that be a problem? As long as they're not actually violating trademarks or patents and making an actual counterfeit product, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to make their own hardware that is compatible with Switch games. These products already exist for other systems, and they are a good way to allow you to play your existing games on more modern hardware. Just because it upsets some executive at Nintendo doesn't make it illegal.