▲ 540 ▼ Volkswagen now blocks grapheneOS (cybernews.com) submitted 4 months ago by HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world 119 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] badgermurphy@lemmy.world 112 points 4 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 55 points 4 months ago Because the greed of corporations knows no limit. They sold you the (expensive) hardware, now they want to sell you the (specific, usually compatible but not really, and slightly buggy implementation) software. Can't do that with open specifications. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Evotech@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (2 children) Because many customers expect a seamless experience with zero tinkering permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jj4211@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago No, the lock in is not needed for seamless behavior. The lock-in is to secure various revenue opportunities. For example, if I connect a displayport cable to a displayport connection, poof, display happens. There's no 'tinkering', there's no "trying to match vendors", it just works. Similarly, here folks sorted out the protocols in use, and none of the 'seamless' users were impacted. VW went out of their way to break them not to ensure a seamless experience, but because they wanted to paywall capability in a reliable way. One could easily imagine schemes that didn't require the lock-in, but would not assure an enduring revenue opportunity. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago And you can't have this with open standards..? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 55 points 4 months ago Because the greed of corporations knows no limit. They sold you the (expensive) hardware, now they want to sell you the (specific, usually compatible but not really, and slightly buggy implementation) software. Can't do that with open specifications. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Evotech@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (2 children) Because many customers expect a seamless experience with zero tinkering permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jj4211@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago No, the lock in is not needed for seamless behavior. The lock-in is to secure various revenue opportunities. For example, if I connect a displayport cable to a displayport connection, poof, display happens. There's no 'tinkering', there's no "trying to match vendors", it just works. Similarly, here folks sorted out the protocols in use, and none of the 'seamless' users were impacted. VW went out of their way to break them not to ensure a seamless experience, but because they wanted to paywall capability in a reliable way. One could easily imagine schemes that didn't require the lock-in, but would not assure an enduring revenue opportunity. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago And you can't have this with open standards..? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago No, the lock in is not needed for seamless behavior. The lock-in is to secure various revenue opportunities. For example, if I connect a displayport cable to a displayport connection, poof, display happens. There's no 'tinkering', there's no "trying to match vendors", it just works. Similarly, here folks sorted out the protocols in use, and none of the 'seamless' users were impacted. VW went out of their way to break them not to ensure a seamless experience, but because they wanted to paywall capability in a reliable way. One could easily imagine schemes that didn't require the lock-in, but would not assure an enduring revenue opportunity. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago And you can't have this with open standards..? permalink fedilink source parent