Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
Well, except that the monopoly was Windows the OS, which is exactly why the Amazon <--> Microsoft analogy doesn't work.
|
If cabbages where . . . .
Maybe I can find a way to make it work, considering how to describe that "boundary"
The clue was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
A dedicated reader is not an "open" device, and it's not sold for the purpose of installing your own applications on any more than, say, a dedicated MP3 player is. You'd be laughed out of court.
The Windows browser issue was different in that a Windows PC does have the express purpose of the user installing their own software on it, but Microsoft were perceived to be putting their competitors at a disadvantage by bundling their own browser with the o/s.
There's no law against selling "closed" devices.
|
HarryT wasn't trying to give a technical definition, but came very close without getting technical.
So to get technical - - - -
In computer systems, there are two, I'll call them categories, of operating systems -
Multitasking and non-Multitasking -
Non-Multitasking is very clearly a dedicated purpose device.
Of the Multitasking category, there are two major divisions -
Fixed task and Dynamic task -
Fixed task - the multiple tasks are set at build time.
Common examples: WinCE and VxWorks (rtos) (and u-boot and redboot, etc).
Again, very clearly those devices are for a dedicated purpose.
Dynamic task - the multiple tasks are determined at run time.
Common examples: Windows, Linux (Amazon Kindle OS), Android . . . .
Even more specifically, an OS that includes a 'fork' system call.
Of the Dynamic Tasking systems -
A system can be shipped with a limit on the set of available tasks -
This can limit the device **as shipped** to supporting only a dedicated purpose (Example: Amazon Kindle).
That is HarryT's point written from a technical basis.
A system can be shipped **without** a 'hard' limit imposed on the set of available tasks
The above two divisions of Dynamic Tasking systems is close to eschwartz point written from a technical basis.
Which brings us to the question of how is that limit set?
The Amazon Kindle is a good example to apply that question to.
In its case, it is set by limiting the end-user's ability to make available additional purpose tasks.
I.E: As long as its not Jail broken, it is a dedicated purpose device. Once it is Jail broken, it is no longer a dedicated purpose device.
We, at this forum, already know about that, we have been providing a "jail break" and add-in applications for years now.
Now the point on how Amazon is implementing that limit -
Up until now - they have implemented that limit in a manner where it is not really a 'hard' limit - with work, it can be overridden.
The hardware of the Kindle does provide the means to implement a 'hard' limit that can not be overridden - even if you 'peel' the SoC and re-wire its silicon.
An example of such a device is the 3G modem/radio that ships installed in the 3G Kindles.
(Which is also a complete, ARM, SoC. )
Amazon ships the Kindles without the 'hard' limit set -
It ships as a dedicated purpose device, but it does not have to remain that way during its lifetime.
The 3G modem/radio ships with the 'hard' limit set -
It ships as a dedicated purpose device and no one is ever going to change it during its lifetime.
Translation:
If the Amazon Kindle shipped with the 'secure boot' feature used, then eschwartz's point would hold, its a case of Apples and Oranges.
Ah, my point, it doesn't ship with 'secure boot' feature used.
Regardless of the limited set of application tasks loaded at shipping time and a company position statement of not supporting after-market additions or modifications . . . .
It is not technically limited to being a 'dedicated purpose device' so it isn't one, it just a general purpose device shipped with a castrated set of applications.
Edit:
There have been some exceptions to the description I offered above -
I am pretty sure there was at least one eBook reader that ran WinCE -
Like the Windows/WinCE technical difference, there is a variation of Linux that does not support 'fork' -
Windows, prior to 2.5 (IIRC) was dynamic multi-task **without** fork (no memory management device available).