On Sep 16, 2010, at 4:36 AM, David Greaves wrote: > On 15/09/10 23:59, Skarpness, Mark wrote: >> I view it the other way around: what requirements is compliance placing on >> the device manufacturer and are those reasonable and supportable. >> >> Setting the details of how compliant apps are packaged and delivered aside - >> compliance does not dictate whether or not a device allows apps to be >> installed (or which app sources are allowed) - that is a choice made by the >> device creator / distributor. > > Excellent. > > So... a vendor has the freedom to forbid certain MeeGo compliant apps on > their > device/store? Yes > > If MeeGo then permits Surrounds-dependent apps to be labelled "Compliant" > then > there is no addidional burden placed on a vendor since they can simply refuse > to > allow them on their device/store? No - that is a different problem. If compliance says that compliant apps can have external dependencies, then every compliant device MUST support those dependencies and ensure they are available to every device. That is the burden we are debating. > > This demonstrates *exactly* what I expected and I fully support and > comprehend > it. Vendors are *NOT* obliged to support compliant apps so allowing some apps > to > be labelled "compliant" does not put any mandatory burden on vendore or app > stores. Device vendors are obliged to have the ability to run every compliant app. They are not obliged to allow the user to install every compliant app. > > So which of the previous arguments against Surrounds are still valid? The burden placed on the device vendor to ensure that all possible external dependencies are available to every device. > > David > > > -- > "Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once..." >
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
