Will this ruling have implications for secure booting?

[Russell Coker]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Jason White <jason at jasonjgw.net> wrote:
> I would also be interested in the implications for "locked-down" mobile
> devices: what position in the market would a mobile operating system vendor
> have to achieve before preventing purchasors from installing alternative
> operating systems on the hardware becomes anti-competitive? I don't know
> what the criteria are or whether any mobile device or software vendor
> could find itself in violation.

http://etbe.coker.com.au/2012/02/07/5-principles-backup/

It's not just the ability to install a different OS.  The above blog post was 
mostly inspired by my experiences with a Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 phone.  I 
have been reasonably happy with the OS that was preloaded and I would be happy 
to update to the new OS that Sony Ericsson are offering (Android 2.3).  But 
I'm not happy to wipe out all my data which can't be backed up because the 
Android security policy prevents me getting root access for programs such as 
Titanium Backup.

http://www.virginmobile.com.au/Shop/Rate-Plan-Details/9941/Fair-Go-19

As for what market share is necessary to be anti-competitive, Virgin is 
offering 4 different phones for a $0 fee on the $19 per month plan.  I think 
that at least 3 of those should be modable.  If the majority of the most 
affordable phones from a major telco can't be modded then it's anti-
competitive.

Also phones which offer unique hardware (EG the iPhone) or unique specs (EG 
the Samsung Galaxy Nexus) should be modable.

-- 
My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/