this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
126 points (70.1% liked)

Technology

59377 readers
3042 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vxx@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

First step is to make it able to transfer DRM, second is to implement it only allowing DRM.

I don't think they would invest money into something that they wouldn't have to change if they didn't try to get control over your data transfers, and the only logical reason I can see is DRM. They're expecting a return of investment for every penny they spend.

USB protocol isn't broken, so why would they change it?

What would be other reasons that make this investment worthwhile to develop their own protocol?

[–] atocci@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Microsoft's solution above is tacked-on and inelegant, it's a bandaid to fix a problem with WMDRM that MTP devices were causing in the first place. MTP wasn't built for enforcing DRM and and Amazon would just be setting themselves up to face the same issues if that was their goal here. Also, unlike Microsoft, they don't have the advantage of being the original creators of MTP. If they did want a completely DRM controlled environment, turning the Kindle PC app into something more like iTunes where it's the only program able to communicate with Kindles would have been a much better first step than implementing an industry standard file transfer protocol. They could have jumped straight to your second step like that.

My best guess as to why they're making the switch to MTP is because USB Mass Storage currently requires them to maintain a separate partition with a fixed size formatted in ~~NTFS~~ FAT32 on a Linux-based device just so it can occasionally be exposed to a PC it's plugged into, and that's... kinda stupid. MTP provides them the option to just not do all that. MTP is the standard mobile devices use these days, it's going to be easier and cheaper for them to develop around and they won't need two different file systems and partitions on one device anymore.

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Kindles have an NTFS partition? I thought they use FAT32 so they're compatible with Linux, MacOs and windows.

[–] atocci@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Oops you're right, shame one me for not verifying that before posting. I was at work, didn't have it on me to check, and I couldn't find the answer online, so I took a guess.

It is still a separate partition from the one the OS is installed to though, which I'm guessing is ext4 since it's Linux