Quote:
Originally Posted by Quoth
It's purely a marketing decision. Not technology.
|
Not marketing, management.
That it boosted Kindle to the top was proof it was *necessary* to conoete with Kindle and Nook.
Competitors chose not to use the available technology and Amazon did.
Amazon wrapped up the lions share of the market, competitors didn't.
The wireless ereader tech was available and *necessary* (as proven by sales) either by licensing or rolling their own.
Amazon didn't expect anybody to take their offer; it was just antitrust insurance to firestall whining from the smaller players who couldn't afford to roll their own. And in those days there were lots of very small players.
Just because the basic technology is free doesn't mean it can't be cheaper to license a proven *implementation*.
There's lots of technologies being licensed not because of exclusivity but because its cheaper to license than going to the trouble of implementing an inhouse implementation. You see it all the time; the buy or build conundrum.
If you look at the credits of any major video game you'll see the logos of maybe a halfdozen products for Physics engines, rendering engines, audio, etc. These are massive companies with thousands of programmers, they clearly have the inhouse talent to create their own tools. But it is cheaper to pay for Havoc or Unreal or Atmos and put the inhouse staff to work on the primary product.
Management business choices, not technology choices.