User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Secure Boot, No Thanks

Secure Boot, No Thanks

Posted Jan 2, 2013 4:06 UTC (Wed) by dlang (subscriber, #313)
In reply to: Secure Boot, No Thanks by efraim
Parent article: The H Year: 2012's Wins, Fails and Mehs

> Yes, I really do not understand why should customers of said monopolist (BTW, are you ready to claim the same status for Android once it dominates some 90% market of smartphones which is very likely) suffer just because.

If Android does achieve this sort of market dominance, it will be a Monopoly, and If Google _abuses_ this monopoly to extend their reach into other areas, there will need to be actions taken against them.

However, it may very well be that the fact that Google allows the vendors to customize Android so drastically before shipping it may be enough to avoid this.

This is why Google has to be very careful about the requirements it puts on the vendors to call their product Android.

It may also be that the fact that Google allows companies like Amazon and B&N to take the android source, modify it and ship it without branding (as on the Kindle and Nook Tablets) may be enough to prevent the "Android" branded version which Google controls from hitting a high enough percentage to become a Monopoly

The key thing isn't to make Opera Software happy, it's to prevent a Monopoly in one field (OS) from leveraging this Monopoly to harm competition in other fields (Browser software, Office Software, etc)

A monopoly also indicates a strong barrier to entry for new competitors. This is why calling Google's dominance of Search a "Monopoly" is highly suspect. there's nothing preventing other search engines from starting up, and if they server the users better than Google, it will be very easy for users to switch and forget Google exists (assuming google doesn't improve their version to compete)

A Monopoly is not just the dominance of a field, and there's nothing wrong with being a Monopoly. It's just that if you _are_ a Monopoly, then you are not allowed to "abuse" your Monopoly status to take over other fields.

It's perfectly legitimate for you to use your income from your Monopoly to fund good products in other fields, you just can't do things like selling them at a loss once you are past the R&D stage and into production.


(Log in to post comments)

Secure Boot, No Thanks

Posted Jan 3, 2013 20:28 UTC (Thu) by efraim (guest, #65977) [Link]

>> A Monopoly is not just the dominance of a field, and there's nothing wrong with being a Monopoly. It's just that if you _are_ a Monopoly, then you are not allowed to "abuse" your Monopoly status to take over other fields.

>> It's perfectly legitimate for you to use your income from your Monopoly to fund good products in other fields, you just can't do things like selling them at a loss once you are past the R&D stage and into production.

I understand your position, however I do not agree with it because I feel like many of the terms here are too ill defined to be a matter of law (for instance, what's R&D phase? Is Android in R&D phase? Is GMail? When quality control and brand control become abuse?)

I am not commenting on LWN often and this thread is pretty far from core LWN software topic, so if you feel I am veering off-topic into politics too far please say so.


Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds