3 ms·
I wonder what the catch is. Requiring membership to use a zero-cost technology is a way of enforcing constraints on implementers. If I were to bet, I'd say it
by forgottenpass 12y ago
I wonder what the catch is. Requiring membership to use a zero-cost technology is a way of enforcing constraints on implementers.
If I were to bet, I'd say it's a way of guaranteeing they retain external access to in-home data. Just market it as ensuring interoperability and the apologists will be coming out of the woodwork.
- IanCal 12y ago> Requiring membership to use a zero-cost technology is a way of enforcing constraints on implementers. I assume it's so you don't have thousands of non-compliant devices being sold with the same name on them. Avoids the "Oh no, that's spec+- not spec-+, they're not compatible unless you've got a bridge with a chipset with part ID starting with 71204, 71205xxx are not compatible".
- duncan_bayne 12y agoI think you're likely right: the two worst answers (lock out implementors we don't like, and let's harvest your data while we're at it) are the most likely candidates. As I've said elsewhere on this thread, I hope this dies, and it's yet another nail in the coffin for Google's once-deserved reputation for supporting open ecosystems.