Linked by David Adams on Tue 13th Dec 2011 03:12 UTC
Editorial I was reading today about how Linux Mint developers altered the Banshee music player source code to redirect affiliate revenue from Amazon music orders to them instead of Banshee. They've reportedly made less than $4, which has caused a kerfluffle among those paying attention to that corner of the world. But it raises a larger point that has been swirling around for a couple of decades: an OS vendor has a lot of power to influence, and even monetize their user base. Where should they draw the line?
Permalink for comment 500046
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Amazon clearly states that the Fire points back at it's own "app market" repository and content sources. They don't claim it's Android running off Google's market place.

I also find it interesting that the media is reporting on the recent hack to install stock Android on the Fire replacing Amazon's distribution fork.

As for seporate distributiosn being seporate product that happen to run the same kernel; are you seriously suggesting that Backtrack, Mint and Debian are all the same product? They are clearly different products produced by different manufacturers though they happen to be assembled from similar commodity parts. Maybe Ford and Toyota are the same product because they happen to both include engines? No? We recognize that the different manufacturers produce different models of product though they compete in the same product category?

Why is it ok for different manufacturers to produce different products in every other product category but when it's a general purpose OS suddenly the kernel is the most important commodity part and having more than one competing product is just the very definition of insanity?

Reply Parent Score: 3