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?
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?
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.
So which of the previous arguments against Surrounds are still valid?
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
