Re: Re: Apple at it again..

[Robert Welsh <rob.welsh@xxxxxxxxx>]

2009/7/17 Ian Lowe <ianlowe@xxxxxxx>
>
>
> This is *precisely* the same thing - and there is a long tradition of
devices cloning USB VID/PID combinations.

Doesn't mean I should permit my driver software to work with it though,
does it?
Just because you develop hardware that mimics my 'doofer', you think I
am morally obliged to allow your 'dooferCopy' to work with my
software?

Why?

I may have invested 100s of man years and millions of brain cells in
developing my software. It might, in fact, be the hardest part of the
problem to solve. Yet, somehow, you feel you should be able to sell
'dooferCopy' off the back of my hard work? Even though all you did was
build a cheap and nasty version of my 'doofer', churn it out by the
million in a Chinese factory?

Clearly I'm not saying that Palm Pre is cheap, nasty, built in a
Chinese factory or required no development.

What I am saying is that Palm chose not to build their own
'iTunesCopy' for Apple users, were either denied (or chose not to ask
for) licencing for iTunes integration and therefore are selling Palm
Pre to Apple users using Apple's iTunes as lever towards their own
sales.

There is no moral obligation here.
There is no legal obligation here.

Without wanting to see this topic spiral out of control, I continue to
fail to see why people feel the need for everything to 'open' and
'free'.
It's not like Apple have an monopoly state in the computing universe.
They have a minor ~10% desktop stake.
That's 10% of people on this planet who have made the self-conscious
decision to purchase technology from Apple and work with Apple
software and hardware. There are plenty of alternatives. Some will
argue the alternatives are worse. Some will argue better.

- Rob


------------------------------------