Hmm seeing as this looks to be the path forward as far as inkernel Linux drivers are concerned , adnfor BSDs like FreeBSD that port said drivers to their own kernel.
Are we going to see the same oxidation of the BSD's or resistance and bifurcation.
If doing it from scratch, if jumping off from an already established product - could work, along with name recognition.
If there was one that i would put that could go head to head and possibly pull it off would be Corel[1], their suite is pretty comprehensive along with their collaborative suite.
Althogh from their businesss model seems they are content to maintain a narrow market and possible still remember getting burned by MS in the early days.
To add to that i think their R&D labs along with HPE were one of the few to innovate on the memristor and actually build some fascinating concept machines.If i rememeber HPE's was 'The Machine'.
Athough i think they just di/dont know how to adapt these to market that isnt a enterprise behemoth , rather than develop/price it so more devs can take a hold and experiment.
HPE's advanced technology constructed "The Machine" from Plexiglas, not known for its high switching performance. It was a total scam of moron management by their revenant R&D lab management. I saw this close up.
There is also the option by well written professional wherer the startergy is to grab as much market share as they can by allowing the proliferation of their product to lockup market/mindshare and rleaget the $ enforcement for later - successfully used by MSWindows for the longest time and Photoshop .
Conversly i remenber Maya or Autodesk used to have a bounty program for whoever would turn in people using unlicensed/cracked versions of their product.Meanwhile Blender (from a commercial past) kept their free nature and have connsistently grown in popularity and quality without any such overtures.
Of course nowadays with Saas everything get segmented into wierd verticals and revenue upsells are across the board with the first hit usually also being free.
As a business, dealing with Microsoft and Oracle is not a clean transactional sale.
They turned into legal-service-firms along the way, and stopped real software development/risk at some point in 2004.
These firms have been selling the same product for decades. Yet once they get their hooks into a business, few survive the incurred variable costs of the 3000lb mosquito. =3
Seems they still havent figured out a business model for their OS. Hardware at low volumes wont move ala kickstarter.
Would have thought after their ups and downs they would have landedon a sustainable businesss model.
The market oppurtunity is there and the timing is favourable. All thats needed to stick the landing and have a viable alt to the ios/android duoploly.
Personally would recommend they work with an established OEM to customize/port drivers to existing hardware and market to a specific vertical rather than a general purpose for normies device.
Thats part of it actually , they have(had) a nonstandard offering via Sony hardware. If it was a known OEM like Oppo/Honor/Oneplus theres already some familiarity/buyin from users and lines possibly can be opened for select verticals.
Instead with the SonyX offerings , they linited it to a tiny range, upgrades as i recall were sometimes not possible to newer versions and a separate support contract to Jollla was needed.
A pure play ala android would do better, they (jolla) do the software - the OEM does the hardware/updates similarly to how Linux distros like Ubuntu get bundled into Dell etc.
If they were a hardware firm like Huawei bulding their phone and OS makes sense , or with massive scale like Google with Pixel.They are neither. Hardware is hard, and scaling it at volume moreso.
I have Sailfish X on an Xperia 10 III (eg. officially supported Sailfis OS) and I am getting Sailfish OS updates just fine.
As for phone model support - mobile hardware is a mess at low level with most APIs that make PC hardware easy to support by a single OS image (such as ACPI tables) simply missing. Not to mention various hardware bugs that the Android firmwares need to work around or paper ober as well.
As for support contract/subscription, that is I think still a recent idea they are playing with on some newer devices. I actually think its a good idea, as it adds an incentive for the OS vendor to support existing hardware.
Currently it is usually the other way around, where the manufacturer is also the downstream OS vendor that does not get any money past initial purchase and basically wants the device to become unusable as fast as possible, so that you buy another one soon.
In fact its basically a monopoly play to sideline the longstanding seedbanks that have existed, both government ones and co-op based seed banks.
Hence the law that proposed:
Fines could reach up to 1 million Kenyan shillings (approximately $7,700) and Offenders risked imprisonment for up to two years.
Think about that for a second in a economy where approximately 40-50% is subsistence agriculture.
Basically a ploy to force the small farmers off the land and leave it to plantation and multicorps.
Its really sad but KE is in the grip of one of the worst neoliberal experiments since post Soviet in the early 90s. See recent news where all the country's healthdata has been auctioned off to the US big pharma for 25years for 1B.
The moves they have been making seem to be similar to what one would see if the VC money was getting tight or alternatively they were bought out by a Private Equity firm.
Similar to the way Broadcom did with VMware hiking prices astronomically for their largest clients, and basically killing the SME offering.
Probably inevitable since they got banned from their largest market[1] in the fallout of the semi/chip bans , with the addded disadvantage that their only play to recoup profits would be through narrowing market ang hiking prices.
And here we are - im pretty certain the other DRAM cartel members are willing to play along , as long as their profits spike.
I think its illustrative to consider the previous computation cycle ala Cryptomining. Which passed through a similar lifecycle with energy and GPU accelerators.
The need for cheap wattage forced the operations to arbitrage the where location for the cheapest/reliable existing supply - there rarely was new buildout as the cost was to be reimbursed by the coins the miningpool recovered.
For the chip situation caused the same apprecaition in GPU cards with periodic offloading of cards to the secondary market (after wear and tear) as newer/faster/more efficient cards came out until custom ASICs took over the heavy lifting, causing the GPU card market to pivot.
Similarly in the short to moedium term the uptick of custo ASICs like with Google TPU will definately make a dent in bot cpex/opex and potentially also lead to a market with used GPUs as ASICs dominate.
So for GPUs i can certainly see the 5 year horizon making a impact in investment decisions as ASICs proliferate.
reply