Slashdot Mirror


Doctorow on the War on General Purpose Computing

Cory Doctorow has posted the content of his talk delivered at Google this month on what he calls the coming civil war over general purpose computing. He neatly crystallizes the problem with certain types of (widely called-for) regulation of devices and the software they run — and they all run software. The ability to stop a general purpose computer from doing nearly anything (running code without permission from the mothership, or requiring an authorities-only engine kill switch, or preventing a car from speeding away), he says boils down to a demand: "Make me a general-purpose computer that runs all programs except for one program that freaks me out." "But there's a problem. We don't know how to make a computer that can run all the programs we can compile except for whichever one pisses off a regulator, or disrupts a business model, or abets a criminal. The closest approximation we have for such a device is a computer with spyware on it— a computer that, if you do the wrong thing, can intercede and say, 'I can't let you do that, Dave.'"

37 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. It's not that hard actually. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just extend RFC 3514 to add an "Evil Bit" to all executables. If that bit is set, the program won't run.

    Problem Solved.

  2. all in all by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article in full is a very interesting argument for why we will all regret our eagerness to embrace the "walled garden".

    Has everyone forgotten the days when your computer actually belonged to you? The days before computing was more than just shopping?

    Do you own your PS3 or your Xbox 360?

    How did we reach a point where we will so willingly turn over our individual agency to Apple, Microsoft, Sony? Or AT&T and Comcast? Who here believes that those companies can be trusted to look out for our best interests?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:all in all by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

      How did we reach a point where we will so willingly turn over our individual agency to Apple, Microsoft, Sony? Or AT&T and Comcast?

      First the earth cooled... It was all downhill from there.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:all in all by grumbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Has everyone forgotten the days when your computer actually belonged to you?

      To make a counterpoint: We need a certain level of restrictions so that the computer actually does what I want instead of does what the application wants. Current OSs offer very little in the way of actually restricting applications. If you execute an application from a third party, it can do quite literally what it wants. Even Open Source doesn't help much as you have no time to audit it all. At best it might not have root rights, but that still doesn't stop it from searching through your personal photo collection, your credit card info, your mail and all that stuff. In contrast you have Apples AppStore, it's a walled garden with all it's problems, but it also comes with a sandbox. If you execute an App from the AppStore it can't do anything to your system, as it's stuck in it's little box. It can't get your photos, credit card info or anything like that unless you explicitly allow it. The AppStore thus shift control away from the application and back to the user where it belongs.

    3. Re:all in all by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Raspberry Pi has made me realize that computers have just gotten too cheap and ubiquitous for us to ever get to a situation where we can't easily and cheaply a general purpose computer. Sure maybe our phones tablets and even desktops will be severely locked down to the point where only approved software can be run. But that doesn't mean we wont have access to general purpose computers. For 90% of my tasks I don't need to have a general purpose computer and if it offered me the ability to not worry about viruses, malware, or even needing to manually update software, then I would use that computer and have a second general purpose computer for the remaining tasks.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:all in all by next_ghost · · Score: 5, Informative

      Current OSs offer very little in the way of actually restricting applications. If you execute an application from a third party, it can do quite literally what it wants. Even Open Source doesn't help much as you have no time to audit it all. At best it might not have root rights, but that still doesn't stop it from searching through your personal photo collection, your credit card info, your mail and all that stuff.

      Ever heard of AppArmor? It comes with a nice little tool which lets you interactively decide which files and directories will the software be allowed to access.

    5. Re:all in all by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A walled garden does not preclude allowing the ability to turn it off. Apple (and soon, Microsoft) is not limiting you to the walled garden out of the goodness of their hart. It is pure greed. They could quite easily add an 'opt out' and let people install outside software at their own risk.

    6. Re:all in all by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the majority of people are not nerds. They don't know a single command of any programming language, and barely understand the idea of a heirachial filesystem. When the computer doesn't do what they expect, they have no idea how to fix it. They are willing to give up control in return for simplicity - something that, in the words of Apple's marketing department, 'just works.' They are happy to let the manufacturer of their phone and network operator run all the technical stuff because they have no idea what HSPDA, 3G, GSM, TDM and GPRS mean and they don't want to have to know. They just want to be able to make phone calls and use a few simple apps. We've gone past the time when technology was inherently cool, and entered the time when it is just a tool - and the non-nerd wishes to use the tool to achieve an end, not learn how the tool works.

    7. Re:all in all by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      the Raspberry Pi has made me realize that computers have just gotten too cheap and ubiquitous for us to ever get to a situation where we can't easily and cheaply a general purpose computer.

      Will you feel the same when the most powerful Intel processors lock out your choice of OS?

      I suppose if you don't mind using underpowered hardware, and being very limited in your choices of peripherals and software, then you're OK, but that's not the way things have been. Until now, those of us who want a general purpose machine with which to do things (instead of to buy things) have been able to choose among the most powerful personal computing hardware.

      No, the Raspberry Pi is not my idea of a general purpose computer. It's great to use in limited applications, but not as an all-around workhorse.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:all in all by amorsen · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a bit funny that you use Raspberry Pi as an example. After all, it has code to prevent certain parts of its firmware from running unless unlocked by a license key. You cannot even boot the thing without loading proprietary firmware doing who-knows-what.

      (Disclaimer, I own one)

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    9. Re:all in all by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody* gives a shit about GPC

      "Why can't I watch this DVD on my tablet when I lack an Internet connection?"

      "...because your tablet has a walled garden and they want to force you to buy the movie again. We warned you about that before you bought that thing."

      "Damnit make it work now!"

      People most certainly do care about general purpose computing; they just do not know what that terms means or that they actually want it. Apple is not marketing the iPad as, "Do everything you want that we approve of! The magic is in us controlling your computer use!" because that is not what people want to buy. Look at the outcry when Amazon deleted 1984 from the Kindle; people expect their computers to do what they want and not just what Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, the MPAA, the Chinese government, etc. approve of.

      On a subconscious level, people know that a PS3 is somehow different from their PC. They cannot articulate what that difference is, but they refuse to call the PS3 a "computer" -- even when they see a PS3 with a keyboard and mouse, running Firefox in YDL. People absolutely do care; they just lack the sophistication needed to express that, to identify when someone is tricking them into giving up their freedom, or to know how to protect themselves from such attacks.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    10. Re:all in all by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup. Exploiting the ignorance of others is the best way to take power for oneself. Just look at the modern US political process. Exact same thing, and just as much if not a bigger disaster.

    11. Re:all in all by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the majority of people are not nerds.

      So, because "the majority of people are not nerds" means that nerds must not be allowed to exist?

      Wow, way to misinterpret something and bring up a straw man. Nowhere does he state that "nerds must not be allowed to exist." He's stating that the device demographic has changed. These things used to be by nerds for nerds. Now they're by business managers/bean counters/nerds for decidedly non-nerds.

      Nerds, however can still get their fix because they're nerds (eg Cyanogenmod for phones, Raapberry Pi, any x86 computer, etc.)

      *posting from my Samsung Galaxy S II running Debian.

    12. Re:all in all by Linsaran · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Your argument is slightly flawed, roads are a public resource, you can only fit so many cars on any given road, and if those cars don't behave in a way which is predictable to other drivers then travel time would be erratic, and the danger of crashes is increased. Further without rules and an enforcement process if someone felt like being an asshole, they could simply park their 18 wheeler across the street and stop anyone from going anywhere. We have traffic laws because the road is a public place and without agreeing on some common rules they would be unusable. You are not giving up your freedom to speed, you are agreeing that if you want to use public roads you won't speed on them. If you however had a private road you could drive your car anyway you like on it, at any speed and any amount of recklessness.

      If I was using a public computer with agreed upon rules about how the machine would be used to ensure the safety and security of others I would have no problem operating within a walled garden, it's not my hardware, and if I want to use it the owner is perfectly justified at setting rules on how it is to be used. However if it's MY hardware, why does some other company have the right to decide what I can and can't do with my hardware. Now if I was either too lazy or unskilled to properly secure my hardware I have the right to allow some other company to do it for me by creating a 'walled garden' as it were, but I should always have the right to say screw you I want to run this program anyways, acknowledging the risks involved. If I want to let someone else handle the responsibility of securing my device that's fine, but I shouldn't HAVE to let someone else handle that responsibility.

      This would largely be the same as the owner of a private road hiring a private security company to police their road and make sure that drivers on it obey whatever rules you institute, but you always have the right to fire that security company.

      Instead what we have is a situation where I can buy a private road (piece of computing hardware), and the company I buy it from says, "ok you can only use your road (computer) to do these certain things we have already decided are allowable, otherwise we'll stop you from doing it"

      Screw that, if I want to drive around like a mad man (expose my personal information to potential identity thieves), flip my car (have my banking info exposed to a Nigerian prince), and leave be hind some flaming wreckage (have all my money stolen) on my own private road (personal computing hardware) I should be allowed to.

      --
      In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
  3. Gosh by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its almost as though freedom requires responsibility or something.

    1. Re:Gosh by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Too bad "responsibility" has come to mean things like, "buying things from corporations," "obeying pointless and destructive laws," and "not helping dissidents in China."

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  4. Re:Welcome to 2006, Cory Doctorow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Cory Doctorow has been writing about this stuff for years, and is a huge influencer on slashbot comments. Lame critique, dude.

  5. Re:how long be for a Rosa Parks or concentration c by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quite possibly they won't. But the case will drag through the courts for a decade, and eventually Microsoft would face a fine of a few hundred million dollars. I'm sure they'd be willing to pay that much, if doing so allowed them to destroy linux on the desktop almost entirely. We've been through this before with their bundling decisions: A seemingly endless legal battle, and while Microsoft eventually lost the benefits they gained from their anticompetative actions arguably outweighed even the record-setting fine.

  6. Re:Businesses.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Diablo 3 had 6Million+ morons buy it."

    No, those are 6 million people that got screwed by Blizzard's business model. Same one used by almost all game makers today. A lot of those simply expected an improved Diablo 2, they didn't care about the reviews, because they expected, expected Blizzard to deliver something just as good as the previous one, or better.

    Why I'm saying the business model is broken? Well, say you have a demo (not gameplay movie on youtube, because that's just a short movie where you just watch people doing stuff how they want it not how you want it, you watch their experience, not yours), in that demo, you don't see the network problems, the online only issues that crop up, the utterly fucked up auction house business model, and most of all it's hardly enough time to realize just how worthless it is compared to other titles, not just today, but in the previous years as well.

    So, they hate piracy? Of course they do, if those 6 million would have played the pirated edition first, they wouldn't have bought the original.

    Most games have very little value, or no replay value. Piracy hurts them, because people get a preview without wasting money on them, then uninstall them and try to forget the experience.

    Should we care? Absofuckinlutley not. They try to con people into buying their games without puting any effort into their work. Those are the kind of games where you get only a few hours of playtime, at best, or hours of pointless grinding at best. Could you name a few names? You could try, but it would be very hard, those are the kind you intentionally wait until can pick them from the bargain bin, then an hour later, sigh with frustration over the wasted money.

    Where am I know? I'm just playing a few flash games, online only, and PS3 to pass the time or socialize, the rest? Well, let's just say I gained a thorough knowledge of emulators for all kinds of platforms in the past decade.

  7. depends on intended users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here is car/microwave analogy.. and forgive my crassness.

    A) Stupid or indifferent people want a computer (car) that just works and they don't have to/nor want to fuck with the innards. They want the computer to be microwave simple. 1) Put food in microwave. 2) Press the "30 sec" button repeatedly until they get the cook time to time they want.* That is it. (Or for the car: key, ignition, go. It came from the factory with everything needed and how it came from the factory is how it will stay)

    B) Slashdot "power users" car analogy is that of the muscle cars of the 1960s in the united states. They want to redo the suspension, the transmission. the engine, the carb(s), the differential, get it from the factory with aluminum instead of steel for the body, and have no federal E.P.A. emissions regulations.. straight pipes off the headers. They will get their hands greasy and it will not bother them.

    Economically, Apple and Microsoft and all the other players know there is greater market of people for A than B.

    Now, I do like the idea of a walled garden to protect the idiots from themselves without telling them "No" outright. (Just don't run as admin/root and you're 90% there, but most ISV can't or won't write code that works as non-root) I just don't want the walled garden applied to me. I don't need their excuse of "give me your freedom so I can keep you safe". I know how to fix my own car.

    * About the 30 seconds and microwave. for some it seems "time cook" + "5" + "0" +"0" + "start" is too complex.

  8. Re:Oh shit! by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm a woman who uses a PC and a Christian.

    I figure I know what you do with the PC. What's the Christian for?

  9. Re:Oh shit! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can stop using the Christian. Stopping being a woman is difficult and PCs are too much useful to get rid of, but at least you'll get rid of a third of your problems.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  10. Overblown by sqrt(2) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can still go to Newegg.com and order a bunch of commodity parts and assemble a general purpose computer, install a completely FLOSS operating system and all the software I want on it. I can load it up with quad GPUs for password cracking, terabytes of storage for all my pirated media and warez, run TOR and Truecrypt, and all sorts of other "evil" features. If there's a war on general purpose computing it's clear which side is winning.

    As it stands now, an individual has never had more access to computing power, bandwidth, and data than they do now. Yes, there are locked down boxes you can buy if you're not interested in all that, but individual components are still being sold. There's a thriving market for computer hardware that isn't going to disappear any time soon, and neither will the free software made to run on such hardware. As little as $35 (or whatever the Raspberry Pi costs) gets you a "general purpose computer", albeit a very simple and underpowered one.

    Walled gardens can peacefully co-exist without threatening general purpose computing.

    And as we've seen from every iOS device, even walled gardens don't keep people locked in if they are determined to leave. If you make compelling hardware people will always find ways to use it how they wish. I can easily take root control over my iPhone if I wanted to. Same is true for Android devices.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Overblown by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can still go to Newegg.com and order a bunch of commodity parts and assemble a general purpose computer

      Until every motherboard comes with a locked-down BIOS that only supports Microsoft/Verisign approached bootloader signing keys. Unless you are building your computer from discrete logic, this argument does not fly. We also have to worry about possible bans on general purpose computers connecting to the Internet (see e.g. ITU proposals for "next generation" networks, past proposals in the US congress, etc), or de facto bans i.e. ISPs/banks/utilities/etc. requiring a locked-down computer (and not everyone can afford two computers). This is not as simple as, "I can build one for myself!"

      Walled gardens can peacefully co-exist without threatening general purpose computing.

      Thus explaining the prevalence of not-locked-down cable and satellite TV receivers, DVD players, and video game consoles.

      as we've seen from every iOS device, even walled gardens don't keep people locked in if they are determined to leave

      Which is a nonsense argument for most users, and is simple silly -- you are suggesting that it is reasonable for people to have to attack their own computers just to run the software (or in a dystopian nightmare, compose the documents) they want to run.

      If you make compelling hardware people will always find ways to use it how they wish

      Yet someone who publishes a book on hacking cable modems is arrested. Do you really think the police would hesitate to arrest someone who is teaching people how to unlock their laptop's bootloader?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  11. "I can't let you do that, Dave." by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Funny

    Except in this case it's "They told me not to let you do that, Dave."

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  12. Re:Businesses.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I basically agree. Why impose you own opinion on others? As an long-term Apple user who switched to Linux some years ago I have stopped giving people advise on what to buy or not to buy. If people like the walled-garden approach, fine for them -- and fine for me, too, because don't have to give free support any longer. However, I do reserve the right to ridicule Apple users whenever I wish. Have fun with your glossy "retina" displays, fixed batteries, and soldered memory! ;-)

    That's the user perspective. From a developer perspective, things look a bit different, because in comparison to 10 years ago it does feel a bit as if Apple is wanting to screw us. And you need to make money somehow,right? I still develop for the Mac, but it's likely that in the near future either Apple will have to pay me if they want a Mac version rather than vice versa. Or, more likely, the Mac and iOS versions of our programs will be more expensive than Windows and Android. Other developers should do the same, since app-store overhead, lack of portability, risk of being rejected by Apple for no reason, etc. all create additional costs and risks. No problem, since Apple users just love to pay more and have (obviously) have enough money to burn.

  13. Re:Who really cares? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just want things to work.

    Me too -- when I instruct my computer to play a movie, copy a file, or print 1000 pamphlets criticizing the government, I want it to do what I tell it to do.

    I don't want to spend hours trying to get Wine to run World of Warcraft better

    So complain to Blizzard -- what does that have to do with running a free operating system? Blizzard ships malware with WoW; why are you not pointing the finger at them for failing to deliver an easy to use, malware-free product?

    I use an iPhone because its working is binary

    No, whether or not any particular program works is binary, and that decision is up to Apple. Do you consider a product that will run an email program but will not run a political cartoon program to be working or broken?

    Who really care if you can't telnet to your phone?

    That's a red herring and you know it. Hardly anyone is trying to telnet to their phone, but large numbers of people have been told that their program cannot run on iOS for one arbitrary reason or another -- it performs bytecode translation, it might offend Republicans, it might offend Democrats, it might enable jailbreaking, etc. Your iPhone only does what you want as long as Apple approves, and Apple's approval process is not about stopping you from telnetting to your phone (though I must wonder why they would even care), it is about making sure you keep paying them and the politicians stay happy.

    After all, if you work for your machines, who owns who?

    Funny how my laptop running ScientificLinux does everything I ask it to do without first checking with CERN...

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  14. Re:Businesses.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They try to con people into buying their games without puting any effort into their work.

    You're not a game developer, I take it?

  15. Re:Same exact thing with cars by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To me, I don't think you have to do anything more on this issue but compare the first 5 years of Windows XP malware (seemingly infinite â" at one point XP malware was the majority of Internet traffic) to the first 5 years of iOS native malware (zero.) END OF DEBATE

    End of debate? Really? I would have thought the debate ended when Apple decided that the Bush II countdown app was not allowed on iPhone because it might offend Republicans, but then again, maybe I care more about free speech than I care about run-of-the-mill viruses (don't think for a moment that an intelligence agency could not create the iPhone equivalent of Stuxnet).

    Nobody is taking away your Unix

    This is not about Unix, this is about my ability to run the programs I want to run and to use my computer to do the things I want to do, and yes, that includes my ability to copy files without permission. If I want to run an Obama countdown app, why should I be prevented from doing so? Heaven forbid Democrats might be offended, right?

    It is a sad day when we can honestly say that Windows users have more freedom than Linux users, but that is where we are now (but not for much longer it seems). Everyone loves it when their computers "just work," but when their computers start saying, "No you cannot play that movie, "No you never purchased 1984," and "That file is not allowed to be printed, except for a few author-selected paragraphs" people will suddenly demand their PCs back -- and by then it will be too late.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  16. Re:If you don't like it, make it yourself by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AFAIK nobody is preventing you from making your own computer that will run any program you want.

    Except an army patent lawyers at every major computer and software company.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  17. Re:Oh shit! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 5, Funny

    Christians have been used as lion food since the heyday of the Roman Empire.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  18. Re:Same exact thing with cars by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody is taking away your Unix.

    UEFI came close though.

    A better car analogy would be the (unsuccessful) attempts made back in the 1970s to regulate auto power to weight ratios. The mother hens in congress were bent upon killing off the muscle car market. Fortunately, they were laughed out of that attempt. In some European countries, cars capable of higher speeds were to be taxed or outright prohibited. So you got cars with speedometers that maxed out at 85 MPH (125 KPH). Even though the car could keep going.

    Sure. You can still have your Unix. On a $25K workstation. Just like the old days, before some crazy Finn ported it to a 386.

    And no, we can't make a car that never ever crashes, but we can take legitimate steps to reduce crashes significantly, and in fact it is immoral to do any other thing.

    We don't legislate morality. This isn't the Soviet Union. Or Saudi Arabia.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  19. Re:Already there... by rrohbeck · · Score: 5, Informative

    Freedom, security, stability. Choose two.

    I have all three with Debian stable or CentOS.

  20. Re:Businesses.... by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're missing the point. What happens when nobody sells general purpose computers - just special purpose appliances? Think it can't happen? Where do you go to buy electronics parts? That used to be what Radio Shack sold, now I have to buy parts mail order from Digi-key. How about ball bearings? Hardware stores used to sell the raw materials that I used for projects, now it's all special purpose parts that only work with one manufacturer's product.

  21. Re:Oh shit! by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers. I am firmly of the opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant. Indeed, the Macintosh is counter-reformist and has been influenced by the ratio studiorum of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory; it tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to reach -- if not the kingdom of Heaven -- the moment in which their document is printed. It is catechistic: The essence of revelation is dealt with via simple formulae and sumptuous icons. Everyone has a right to salvation.
    DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free interpretation of scripture, demands difficult personal decisions, imposes a subtle hermeneutics upon the user, and takes for granted the idea that not all can achieve salvation. To make the system work you need to interpret the program yourself: Far away from the baroque community of revelers, the user is closed within the loneliness of his own inner torment.
    You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe has come to resemble more closely the counter-reformist tolerance of the Macintosh. It's true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism, big ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre decisions: When it comes down to it, you can decide to ordain women and gays if you want to.

    Umberto Eco, 1994

  22. Re:Businesses.... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And I wonder how many millions more said "Always online? Fuck that noise" and went elsewhere? I know that I can only speak for myself, my friends, and my family and we all just went over to Steam and picked up Torchlight II (Not only is it only $20 but you get Torchlight I for pre-ordering) instead of dealing with the bullshit.

    As long as we have choices? I have no problem with companies being douchebags because the douchebaggery will come around and bite them in the ass. Look at how EA is on the selling block and Activision is talking restructuring, why? Got to be too big of a douchebag and ran off their customers, that's why.

    So as long as I can buy or build my own machine that does what I want? Then go ahead and be a giant douchebag Mr Corp, I'll take my business elsewhere. The threat that Mr Doctorow is pointing out is when ALL the companies decide to be douchebags. Look at desktops, for the vast majority if Win 8 don't bomb you are gonna have the "choice" of an Apple walled garden..or a MSFT walled garden. Too many companies aren't even competing with each other anymore, as we saw in that article a couple of weeks back how Apple and MSFT have signed cross licensing agreements up the ass so they are now buddy buddy.

    It is THAT which we have to watch out for, the day when your choice is black box A or black box B which can be killed at the whim of the OEM and which is completely worthless without the OEMs blessings.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  23. Re:Businesses.... by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is much deeper than you think, but you're on the right track. The problem is that you can't economically sell copies. It's retarding the industry. Think about Economics 101: if copies are in infinite supply then what is their price (regardless of cost to create)? Zero

    Piracy is just a symptom of an artificial scarcity racket.

    Game developers get paid only when they're making a game. The publishers must add cost to the equation (to support their own existance), and they try to get as much money as possible for doing what? Providing Copies? Well, yes, but that's a bogus reason. The only reason we really need Publishers now is that the market is fucked up -- If we could just do work and get paid, like a mechanic does, or a home builder does, then we wouldn't have to charge extra for the work once the games are finished.

    The publishers are in the way between the customers and the developers. This is why things like Kickstarter are exciting; However, once free from the Publisher's constraints the Developers are quick to adopt the artificial scarcity system only because they can, and because they can't ask enough funds up front. However, if they couldn't use artificial scarcity to make money, then you could have all games for merely their cost to create (plus a little profit to run things). If we can just get you players to fund the development of the game, we can give you the game for free when its done (since you paid us to make it already), and get more money by making more games / producing mods, etc. -- Game prices are WAY over inflated right now for the successes, but for the less stellar games the margin is so small that one misstep kills the studio. Ah, but the publishers don't care that they're gambling with the futures of the studios! There are other groupn of devs to buy up, milk, and slaughter. You keep paying the inflated prices so the Publishers only need to make a few big hits to stay in business.

    Now, to solve the artificial scarcity problem there are a few solutions, some less savoury than others:
    o Ensure artificial scarcity can not be circumvented -- This leads to DRM and closed computing with permanent spyware installed.
    o Tie the game to a service -- This way the publisher is still providing some work, running a server, but the quality of service drops as usage goes up (Protip: That's bad for sales), and leads to games being unplayable without subscription, and planned obsolescence.
    o Stop selling copies, since they're not rare at all. Instead sell our ability to make new content -- to do work -- because that's what is actually scarce. This means having a good reputation, and even releasing a few details of the game up front, like playable demos, to earn investment -- It's a DRASTIC change in the marked, but this is also the ONLY way to end piracy.

    As a race, we haven't adapted to the realities of the Information Age yet. We're still clinging to artificial scarcity and trying to sell information as if it can be a physical thing. We haven't yet adjusted to the SIMPLE idea that you only get paid when you're doing work (like everyone else does). THAT is the REAL problem, and the above solutions apply to all information markets, from Software to Music & Movies.

    If you can't sell ice to an Eskimo in the Ice Age as a valid business strategy, why would you think you could sell 1's and 0's to folks with computers in The Information Age?! As someone who benefits by holding copyrights over the works I create, I say: We must end all copyright. Once we remove the incentive of artificial scarcity I can actually get paid a fair price for doing the work you want us to do, and end the rein of the Money Leaching Middlemen (Publishers).

    Note: there's nothing wrong with charging a subscription for a game service, but forcing a subscription fee where none is required is called rent seeking.