3 ms·

Tell me this -- whatever the next technology is, why would a business spend the time or money to develop it? Why would Apple, Google, or any of the EU Phone OS

Tell me this -- whatever the next technology is, why would a business spend the time or money to develop it? Why would Apple, Google, or any of the EU Phone OS developers bother creating a new feature that they will immediately be forced to allow everyone to use?

ben_w 2y ago
AirDrop and AirPlay are 13 and 14 years old — an eternity in software development. Even full patents only last for 20, and the "utility model" (AKA minor patent*) last 6-15 years depending on jurisdiction. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_model
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pentamassiv 2y ago
I'm sure e.g Jolla would be happy to develop a new feature that helps them become big enough that politicians feel like they need to regulate them
enragedcacti 2y ago
> Why would Apple, Google, or any of the EU Phone OS developers bother creating a new feature that they will immediately be forced to allow everyone to use? Because new hardware/interoperability features are an opportunity to sell more hardware. Apple still gets to make and sell accessories, their product just has to compete on the merits with other products in the segment. People will keep buying Airpods even if Sony's can hand-off between Apple hardware because Airpods are a great product that can stand on their own.
- sadeshmukh 2y ago
  Or they could do nothing, wait for others to make features, and leech. It incentives parasitic behavior in the long run.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    So what? This idea that every feature or protocol needs to be owned, with allowed uses dictated by some corporation is gross.
    - sadeshmukh 2y ago
      The idea doesn't matter, only the effect. If the net change is less innovation for temporary benefit, then it is a failure.
kelnos 2y ago
Because there are still market advantages to creating and maintaining protocols that you are required to license to others. Making everything proprietary and exclusive is not the only way to make money. And even if you can make more money that way, I don't care: corporations exist at the pleasure of the people, and we should feel free to demand whatever we want from them.
ThatPlayer 2y ago
There is value in being able to lead the direction of the tech with new features. Look at how many companies bother contributing to Linux even though all their competitors get access. Alternatively, look at Google trying to take control of the web/HTML with their Web Environment Integrity API proposal. If the web was a "Google Protocol" rather than a W3C one, they would have been able to add it despite the negative feedback.

ben_w 2y ago

AirDrop and AirPlay are 13 and 14 years old — an eternity in software development. Even full patents only last for 20, and the "utility model" (AKA minor patent*) last 6-15 years depending on jurisdiction. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_model

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

pentamassiv 2y ago

I'm sure e.g Jolla would be happy to develop a new feature that helps them become big enough that politicians feel like they need to regulate them

enragedcacti 2y ago

> Why would Apple, Google, or any of the EU Phone OS developers bother creating a new feature that they will immediately be forced to allow everyone to use? Because new hardware/interoperability features are an opportunity to sell more hardware. Apple still gets to make and sell accessories, their product just has to compete on the merits with other products in the segment. People will keep buying Airpods even if Sony's can hand-off between Apple hardware because Airpods are a great product that can stand on their own.

sadeshmukh 2y ago
Or they could do nothing, wait for others to make features, and leech. It incentives parasitic behavior in the long run.
- kelnos 2y ago
  So what? This idea that every feature or protocol needs to be owned, with allowed uses dictated by some corporation is gross.
  - sadeshmukh 2y ago
    The idea doesn't matter, only the effect. If the net change is less innovation for temporary benefit, then it is a failure.

kelnos 2y ago

Because there are still market advantages to creating and maintaining protocols that you are required to license to others. Making everything proprietary and exclusive is not the only way to make money. And even if you can make more money that way, I don't care: corporations exist at the pleasure of the people, and we should feel free to demand whatever we want from them.

ThatPlayer 2y ago

There is value in being able to lead the direction of the tech with new features. Look at how many companies bother contributing to Linux even though all their competitors get access. Alternatively, look at Google trying to take control of the web/HTML with their Web Environment Integrity API proposal. If the web was a "Google Protocol" rather than a W3C one, they would have been able to add it despite the negative feedback.