International Call for Open Standards 177
tengu1sd writes "The New York Times is carrying a report urging nations to adopt open-information technology standards as 'a vital step to accelerate economic growth, efficiency and innovation'. Sponsored by The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, it also points out that 'open technology standards - the digital equivalent of a common gauge for railroad tracks - are not the same thing as open-source software. Open source is a development model for software in which code is freely shared and improved by a cooperative network of programmers'. This leaves room for companies willing to accept standards, but closes the door to companies unwilling to play nice."
Was that... (Score:5, Funny)
No it was Balmer heaving his desk out the window... er... windows...
Re:Was that... (Score:3, Funny)
I was expecting the article to say, "this effort is being driven by [head of something] at Microsoft".
Re:Was that... (Score:2)
For instance, Microsoft claims that because MSXML is based on XML it is using an open standard. Or because Active directory is based on LDAP and Kerberos that it is using open standards. The Microsoft version is entirely proprietary but politicians and CTO's miss that point.
Re:Was that... (Score:2)
The way it should be! (Score:3, Insightful)
Standards just wont happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:5, Insightful)
EU standards (Score:5, Funny)
Not sure about your driving example.
The EU was suposed to bring about many common standards for trade, but dispite EU harmonisation
The British still drive on the left,
the French still drive on the right, and
the Italians still drive on both.
Re:EU standards (Score:2)
It just makes life easier (Score:2)
Syntax meta-language (EBNF)
Consistent binary codes and endianness (EOF etc.)
Plain text system (UTF)
Compression/archive schemes (gzip/tar)
Interpretable/compilable scripting language (Java/Javascript?)
Behavioral framework (Flash/scripting)
Network protocol (IPV6)
Wireless and wired specifications
Font system (TrueType) and common universal generic fonts (unicode serif, sans-serif, mono)
Database/framework format (XML, SQLite, tar-directory)
Reference system (UML and DOI)
H
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:2)
How can you create an open standard when pattents are designed to prevent the use of key design aspects in open projects?
There should be a kind of coherency between political decisions (suggested by lobbies), and reality...
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:2)
It's not a bad idea to only play with people that play nice with you.
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:2)
Well, we've seen proposals for patent encumbered standards rejected by some governing bodies before now. That's a good thing, and as awareness of the problem increases, I think we can expect to see it happen more and more.
It doesn't help against submarine patents, but really, it is the patents that are unrealistic here and not the idea of open standards. It just means we have two se
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:2)
How about 19" racks? Surely you don't use 16" racks.
Do you use PCI-based computers, or did your company want to make its own bus technology?
SVGA or DVI-based monitors, or did you guys make your own display technology?
Do your computers understand ASCII?
Admittedly, those are all computer-based questions, so here's one that applies pretty much everywhere. Does nothing in your workplace use mass-manufactured bolts or screws?
I don't know where you work, but if it has no
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:2)
As an American- I wish we would get over it and go to metric. They were on the right track for a while (when street signs had Km as well as Miles) but they seem to be fading.
Really? (Score:2)
So you don't use TCP/IP to connect computers together or to connect to the Internet, you don't use standards like SMTP/POP3 to send/receive e-mail, you don't use standards like HTTP to access the Web, your networking hardware doesn't use 802.3 or 802.11 standards, your storage hardware doesn't use IDE/SATA/SCSI, your computer mouse doesn't connect to your computer with USB or PS/2, your sound card output, telephone etc. don't use standard jacks, your doors aren't a standard size, etc. etc.
Standards are eve
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:2)
In the hardware world, this doen't get you very far. There are a great many standards out there that are followed as well as any standard ever is. There are also a significant number of software standards, especially for languages.
The big computer-related industry standards body in America is INCITS [incits.org], which has technical committees which define many inter
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:2)
Subtitles for the acronym-apple challenged:
BSD openness is good, because it is a viable platform for big tool developers. Not a new platform, but an open, proved platform.
MP3 is crucial to ipod, of course, who would buy a WMA only player? few people. The whole idea is open standards there.
AGP, well, NVidia doesnt' have a great cost for developing great video cards for them, in some licensed bus. Thats a sensible idea, and another
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's an open standard, where is the specification authorized and published? That, my friend, is what it means to have a standard for something, like for example the definition of what a meter is, or a thread gauge, or a signalling protocol. The word "standard" isn't just what you want it to mean from moment to moment, and it isn't someone's current best guess at reverse engineering some undisclosed mechanism.
Speaking of standards:
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't share your interpretation of a standard, And at best it's a self-proclaimed standard. And most definitely it's a standard for paying members of a private club. The reverse engineering efforts you mention are not the way one goes about interfacing to a "standard" for interoperability.
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:2)
There is a difference between open standard format, proprietary format, and popular format. An open standard format has specifications that are widely available, and also have a process that allows changes to the standard. A popular format can be an open standard format, but it can also be a proprietary format.
Windows
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:2)
That's like saying that if I own a car that I drive but rarely, the car has no function. Just because a thing is underutilised, that does not mean is it without use.
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:2)
A: Incorrect!
I'll remember that the next time my daughter turns in an assignment she completed with Open Office and output to Power Point format. Ya see, she was pissed at me at first because she didn't realize OO.o is set by default to it's own format. She turned in her assignments and the teacher couldn't read them. But when I set her OO.o to default to *.ppt she was able to turn the assignments in without a hitch.
Now that
Re:Standards just wont happen (Score:2)
That's a heartwarming story, but it doesn't turn a closed proprietory format into an open standard. Sorry.
You can call my definition incorrect, but my incorrect definition is allowing me interoperability.
Your incorrect definition doesn't allow you to do anythi
closed standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:closed standards (Score:2)
Re:closed standards (Score:2)
Re:closed standards (Score:2)
That's a separate issue, that has to do with market regulation closing a market or keeping a market closed. Data standards also require a FREE MARKET to work their magic.
Re:closed standards (Score:2)
Magic vs. Science (Score:5, Insightful)
The big change that permitted science to flourish was the willingness to share information. Because the information was shared, progress was not limited to what one person could create.
The failure to use Open Standards won't send us back to the dark ages. But it will slow progress down as each proprietary standard sets up a roadblock.
The failure to follow standards should be punished in some way. Using basic economics isn't fast, but it will work in the long run.
Re:Magic vs. Science (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really, the big change came mainly out of stealing information & ignoring patents (The last one because of differences in laws between countries and some wars). Those two inspired more companies to license their inventions to others so that they at least would earn some money, and set a minimum productprice which due to the license was hopefully equal or higher to what they sold themselves.
I think reforms in the educational system of basic science (Darwin, math, economics) made the changes possible. At this moment there are still limits on information causing lots of reinventions just to get were a company or country wants to go, for example nuclear technology.
So far the economics of closed standards worked pretty good, but only for companies which license their standards to others. The ones who did not and became to powerful, have been hit by lawsuits (IBM, Microsoft ea). Still those are the ones who set industry standards with their closed products. Licensing it in a more fair way would most likely have prevented the MS lawsuits, while they could (they still can at this moment) control the standards, and stay ahead of the curve.
Re:Magic vs. Science (Score:2)
What you're describing was an important innovation, too. I'm looking a bit more back in time, say from ancien
Re:Magic vs. Science (Score:2)
Microsft is being headed by a guy who has a paranoid delusion that 'there
Re:Magic vs. Science (Score:2)
With so many standards out there, how would you define a 'failure'? I'd suggest failure to follow an 'open standard' should be punished. Or rather, failure to publish a standard, protocol, format, whatever.... not the implementation of these.
Re:Magic vs. Science (Score:2)
I may not know what failure looks like from somoene else's viewpoint.
Of course, I do keep thinking of MS' IE and it's failure to follow standards. I used to design web pages to accomodate IE, but any more, I think that if IE doesn't work right, tough. That's their fault, and I shouldn't waste time correcting their mistakes.
A new trend? (Score:2, Insightful)
It pleases me to see that the good intentions of open source standards are taking a more aggressive approach to defending the open source development method of software.
As all of us
~tim
Re:A new trend? (Score:3, Insightful)
"open technology standards - the digital equivalent of a common gauge for railroad tracks - are not the same thing as open-source software."
Did you miss something here? This isn't about OSS.
Open Standards != OSS ? (Score:2)
Open Standards != OSS.
However,
OSS uses Open Standards. Proprietary software rarely uses them *cough* MSWord *cough*. What this call does, is pushing companies to support open standards in their proprietary products. This means companies will have to actually compete and make better products instead of just keeping the market because the public has no other choice.
Either they do that, or face extinction.
Open standards and competition (Score:3, Insightful)
If you run a small grocery, you will typically be outpriced by the large grocery chain down the block, but can keep business by offering your customers other services that keep them coming back. If you make widgets, it's better to be either the cheapest widget provider or the widget provider with the highest quality. In a competition where price and quality are the deciding features, it's best to pick one extreme and go for it.
So what happens with software? If everyone implements open standards, it limits the implementation to the limits of the standard. Ideally, you'd have a flexible enough standard that implementing cool ideas is no more of a break from the standard than implementing the standard verbatim. But for a company that leads the field by a large margin, it doesn't make sense to open up to standards and thus open the doors for your customers to leave the barn. Keep them locked in, and keep providing them with superior product. They will never have the need to switch to another product so long as their needs are met, and they would have a tough time switching anyway as their current data isn't easily transferrable to a new system, no matter how open that new system may be.
I'm of the opinion that companies ought to do what they want with regards to standards. It doesn't matter what package you are using, if the one you are using satisfies your needs. Open standards hardly ever make or break a deal.
Re:Open standards and competition (Score:2, Insightful)
You want a more real-world example, make a CD that is incompatible with current CD players. Sure, we will change and get better CDs (eg DVDs, and now high-capacity DVDs) but only by changing the standards. In the case of blu-ray v HD-DVD.
Re:Open standards and competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open standards and competition (Score:2)
I'd disagree - that may be the key to doing business ethically, or nicely, but as other posters have noted, companies aren't "nice".
For all too many companies these days the key is getting wide adoption using a proprietary standard - that way you don't have to spend time or money producing versions "to do everything the user wants", since they can't go anywhere else - you've got them o
Re:Open standards and competition (Score:2)
I would argue that mitigating risk is a need. As a potential customer, I'm thinking what happens if you decide to discontinue the package that would meet my needs and leave me with no way to rescue the last 10 years of my data? Or nearly as bad (possigly worse) what if you realize my plight and start charging just slightly less money than it would cost me to hack your proprietary format and convert the data?
Keep in mind, there is a BIG difference between being enslaved to an unchanging and restrictive sta
Non-IT Companies that Rely on IT (Score:4, Interesting)
This isn't about OSS (Score:4, Insightful)
Open standards and Open Source have nothing to do with each other. There is plenty of closed source software that supports open standards.
Re:This isn't about OSS (Score:2)
Yes, but there is also plenty of closed source software that is unable to compete with open source projects on quality, and maintains an undeserved prominence within society solely on the basis of their closed standard, which creates a divide on the issue with a lot of the same players as in the OSS debate.
MS and Office is a great example. They are a bunch of usele
Re:This isn't about OSS (Score:2)
Actually, they bear a very close relationship.
It's easiest to understand this by thinking of other industries. Standards arise out of a common consensus around design or implementation. In order to get to the point of developing a standard, the industry must therefore already have gained experience through open comparison of various designs and implementations.
In most industries, these are fairly self-evident, and standardization is a
Re:This isn't about OSS (Score:2)
Support in why way?
"Embrace and extend" way so that customers are locked in a specific implementation of the standard+? Or a real support?
If we take perhaps the most used open standard: HTML. "Closed source software" support doesn't look so good..
India's been doing this for ages... (Score:4, Interesting)
Methinks after Massachusets, very slowly people in the 'First World' are waking up to this fact.
Be careful what you ask for ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The ARPA internet suite was not then recognised as a standard because no accepted international standards body (essentially ISO or CCITT) had published the standards. Eventually some of us* managed to convince the Joint Network Team of the Computer Board that TCP/IP would do what was required and the "coloured book" standards wouldn't and then within 2 years almost all the universities were in line with the rest of the world. (and we could get networking standard that didn't have to be custom written for the UK).
* Some claim that it was a document that I wrote for our JNT contact that finally forced the change.
Re:Be careful what you ask for ... (Score:3, Funny)
Dave.Mitchell@uk.ac.shef.dcs
Re:Be careful what you ask for ... (Score:5, Interesting)
In short, the important distinction is between "open" and "closed", not between "standards" and "non-standards".
So implementing open specifications is good. Insistence on Standards, as you say, can be a mixed blessing.
Re:Be careful what you ask for ... (Score:2)
If, on the other hand, you have two pieces of software that 99% meet your needs, then by all means, require that the more open one be used.
Re:Be careful what you ask for ... (Score:2)
Re:Be careful what you ask for ... (Score:3, Insightful)
So maybe the word we are looking for is specifications not standards. I mean of course it's better to use a standard but in case you have to chose between open specifications and closed specificatio
Re:Be careful what you ask for ... (Score:2)
While your story is very interesting, and very applicable to many situations, I think it is somewhat irrelevant here. What the report is calling for is the adoption of open standards, not international standards. Open standards are simply standards that are not legally encumbered - ie:
Much more important than open source (Score:5, Interesting)
We need clear definitions from the Media... (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA:
An ignorant reader who was reading this article might assume that all open-source software was "free as in beer", whereas we all (should) know that not all open-source software falls into that niche. I would hazard a guess and say that most governments would probably be using OSS that included tech support, ergo not free as in beer. While OSS is a good thing (in my mind), I don't want everyone thinking they can get it without any cost, because then they'll be disappointed.Likewise, what is the definition of "standard"? From dictionary.com:
Now, I know this may cause a potential flame war, but isn't it pretty clear that Microsoft (mostly) fits that bill? Obviously many will hit me with "Yeah, except for the excellence part..." and I'll concede that Microsoft Office does not always work propertly. However, it is the most widely recognized and employed office software. Does that not make it seem that Office "is" a standard? I work at a government research lab and everything we do has to be compatible with MS Office.Sure, everyone wants to crush Microsoft into the ground, but realistically (if I can be so bold as to actually talk realistically), does anyone think we can actually get ENOUGH people to stop using Office that *.doc files will cease to be the standard? I honestly think we're better off trying to find a way to get Microsoft to give developers the information they need to develop software based on the Microsoft standard. Oh yes, I know, that's blasphemy and my karma is now lower than Lucifer's, but if you stop and think for a moment you'll realize that it's the logical and realistic choice.
Your presumption (Score:3, Insightful)
It is because of network effects, where a pile of crap, if everyone has it, is still of more utility than perfection only a few people have.
Re:We need clear definitions from the Media... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:We need clear definitions from the Media... (Score:2, Interesting)
Then your logic must be flawed. You know MS won't ever release full specs for any of its formats, it could be licensed to big clients (just like their Shared Source program) but NEVER there will be a 100% compliant free implementation. So I fail to see how it could be a standard, the definition you give from the dictionnary is the MAI
Re:We need clear definitions from the Media... (Score:2)
Re:We need clear definitions from the Media... (Score:2)
Unless you can convince everybody to save their documents in *.rtf (Rich Text Format), which is an open standard. I have not had any luck persuading my employers to switch though...
Re:We need clear definitions from the Media... (Score:2)
Article: Everyone should use open standards, here's why and how.
LexNaturalis: I read what a "standard" is in the dictionary. Did you know MS .doc is a stanadard?
Slashdot: WTF? We're talking about open standards, not standards. Did you completely miss the entire point of this article and all the comments so far?
To address one or two of your later points:
I work at a government research lab and everything we do has to be compatible with MS Office.
...and you don't see anything wrong with that? So The
Re:We need clear definitions from the Media... (Score:2)
Re:We need clear definitions from the Media... (Score:2)
They key word missing here is open. The MS Office Word document format is not open - it is very difficult to impliment (you have to reverse engineer it) in external software. Their new XML format - while more easy to parse (being a plain text format) is stymied by a patent on the format! 'Standards' that are not open are not standards an outside developer can easily adopt.
Furthermore, throughout the MS Word lifecycle their so-called 'standards' have
Re:We need clear definitions from the Media... (Score:2)
A point that a lot of folks seem to be missing here is that Microsoft sat on the standards commitee that came up with Open Document. Microsoft are the ones who are choosing not to implement the new standard the industry has adopted. If they loose out as a result, boo-hoo.
Re:We need clear definitions from the Media... (Score:2)
Well, if you're a government that controls patent enforcement, you're less worried about this aspect.
This was begun in 1969 (Score:4, Funny)
Author: Steve Crocker
Installation: UCLA
Date: 7 April 1969
Network Working Group Request for Comment: 1
There has been progress already (Score:2)
Let standards evolve, why force them (Score:2, Interesting)
Why force the standards when these can evolve over a period of time out of the need. If those are't, we won't have needed them in the first place.
I know I am going against popular opinion here at
Re:Let standards evolve, why force them (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft has a history of twisting standards until only their software can open the files.
Microsoft will beat this .... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't force a company with an anti-competitive corporate culture to play nice. It just won't do it.
Patent Pools Threaten 'Open' Standards (Score:4, Interesting)
Some 'licensing' companies (e.g. Via Licensing [vialicensing.com] and MPEG LA [mpegla.com]) will, if a standard looks like it will get some significant use in the market, make a 'call for patents', which means they ask anyone with a patent who thinks their patent would have some 'essentiality' to any implementation that used the standard to submit their patent for review. If one of these 'licensing' companies thinks the patent would apply generally to any system or application implementation that would make use of the standard, they add that patent with others of like merits to a 'patent pool' and then go after anyone using the standard to demand license fees for the pool. In this fashion, any open standard becomes a candidate for such companies to essentially leech off the standard and thereby prevent open, as in fee-less, use of the standard.
Open standards, then, face two hurdles beyond the technical ones. First, the well-known business interest some companies have in keeping their formats proprietary so you will not stop using their systems or software. Second, the less well-known, but growing legal problems with those who want to profit from the patent system without adding any real value in terms of standard creation or implementations. Open standards remain a good technical goal and we should pursue them, but this underscores some of the challenges to keep in mind.
Re:Patent Pools Threaten 'Open' Standards (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Patent Pools Threaten 'Open' Standards (Score:2)
Also do not forget the software patents are an AMERICAN problem. Europe and most of the rest of the world have thankfully rejected this nonsense, despite the lobbying of Microsoft, IBM, Trading Technologies, and others.
Open source would eventually win (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, open standards means open source will eventually win. As word processing formats (a la what's happen in MA) become standard, then the software will become commoditized. It's the end of MS Office's reign. OpenOffice can and will quickly implement the standard, and no one would have a reason to use MS Office anymore.
Open standards are the death knell for MS's monopoly, and they know it. Expect MS to fight tooth and nail every step of the way.
Once we have open standards and everyone is coding to that standard, the consume will win. The consumer will have choice and competition will make the software smaller, faster, more secure, and more plentiful.
Good idea, but hard to apply. (Score:5, Interesting)
Mp3s have become the standard because of increased compression, but it also loses some quality in some people's minds but for the most part almost everyone can use them.
The problem with these standards is they were lucky. How many formats have been moved out of the way for Mp3s? (wav, ogg, aac just to name a couple) How many Movie Formats have come out after AVI? (ASF, WMV, OGG, MKV, and others)
See the problem is this. How do we establish a standard? The fact is standards are adopted, not created. It's great that you want to standardize the interoperability of goverments or coporations, but if the standards arn't up to snuff the standards arn't worth the time it takes to think about it.
The problem is thus, we need standards but open source standards arn't always as efficent, or even work. Standards NEED to be made by how useful the program or the protocol is, not how cheap it is to get. It's great to try to use them when we can, but there's some areas where it's not ready for prime time.
And then there's the other problem open standards tell everyone who wants to know how it works, this is a double edged sword. It's great everyone can link up with it, but someone who wants to create trouble can read it and figure out a way to get into the system itself.
I'm sorta glad we don't have certain groups relying on open formats for this reason. The groups that protect our finances, and our country. But the fact is that I've yet to see a national industry go and use only Open Source options and continue to thrive, and there's obviously reasons for that.
Open America First (Score:2, Interesting)
I know this is not exactly what this program is calling for but how do we expect other countries to follow our lead (this is an American University making the call) when we don't even open up our own doors to "standards"
No such thing as a "standard" (Score:3, Interesting)
Call something some way enough times, and you can convince people that it's so. Really, the whole idea of something being a "standard" is basically a fear tactic to say "if you don't use our stuff you won't get any customers, because everyone uses our stuff." Most people can be manipulated by that sort of thinking, which pushes home the idea of something being a standard.
If you accept that "standard" = "popular", then it becomes pretty clear that organizations that attempt to get people to use "standards" are completely going about it the wrong way. Look: certain things (file formats, products, etc.) are popular. They just are. Mindshare exists, and it's set up in a certain way, and you can't change it. At least not without wasting a whole lot of unnecessary effort trying.
The point is, if you waste all your time trying to fight what is, then you will get nowhere. This is what you do. You take what is (i.e. microsoft's popular file formats), and reverse-engineer them so that everyone can use it. You open up something that's ALREADY popular and call it a standard and work from there. That's the only way that actually makes some sense, and has the possiblity to work.
You simply AREN'T going to suddenly change everyone's mind as to what they like to use in your attempt to drive home a new standard. Sorry, but it's not going to happen. People use what they like to use, not "the best" or based upon who developed it, where it came from, how clean the code is, what monkey's it saves, etc. So in other words, the standard you create has to be something that's ALREADY popular, and NOT something some organization likes based upon it's technical merit over something else. Trying to make some new thing a standard without first making sure it is popular with people is not only stupid, it's damn near impossible.
Not using something that's already popular is the SOLE reason why "standards" hardly ever get off the ground. A standard is not a standard because some consortium weenies declare it to be, it's a standard when people actually use it (i.e. it's popular.)
Open Standards? Not as Easy as You Think (Score:2)
Now...
Who is going to set the standards and who will pay to keep them working on them?
Who is going to make sure the standards support new technology, new ways of doing things?
Who keeps tabs on the standard committies to make su
Railway tracks not a good example (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets hope the digital equivalent is a bit *more* standardised than railway track gauge or we'll end up with the virtual version of 2ft gauge, 2ft 6 , 3ft, meter gauge, standard gauge, irish gauge, soviet gauge etc etc etc
Re:Railway tracks not a good example (Score:2)
Before the 1960's, the standard frequency for AC railroad electrifications in the US was 25 Hz.
Why the low frequency? Because it's harder to persuade a current to flow in a coil at high frequency {look up inductive reactance}
Not quite, the main incentive was that AC series motors (AKA universal motors) worked better at lower frequencies. A good reference is CERA Bulletin B-118, which is a reprint of Westinghouse articles on electrification.
Re:Railway tracks not a good example (Score:2)
Not sure I really want to plug my wallclock into a 25Kv line!
The Star Trek Magic (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, I'm no Trekkie, but you get the point. You'll need Open Standards (and adherence to them) to make things "Just Work (tm)."
.... And then Ballmer threw a Chair (Score:3, Funny)
Their only defense is to argue that M$ needs to be free to innovate, and not forced to stick to some crappy open standard.
What would Stallman say? (Score:2)
More open, not more rigid (Score:2, Insightful)
USA (Score:3, Insightful)
i'm a web designer (Score:2, Funny)
*FREE* standards (Score:2)
What we really need are Free standards (free in a similar sense as Free software). GIF is/was an 'open' standard. The well known legal issues underline the importance of Free (as opposed to merely open) standards.
Re:Play nice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Play nice? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is that why 100% of web servers use HTML.
Open Standards are the only thing binding us together. Every time some one tries to captialize on a small but growing market segment that segment eventually folds, and then new open standards are developed.
It takes time, but gradually over time we have become a a very open society compared to the past. It's also what is responsible for the sudden growth in technology in the past Century.
Re:Play nice? (Score:4, Interesting)
"especially one driven by the need for short term profits such as ours"
My favorite example is the Internet. Go back into the 80's, and we had TheSource, GEnie, Prodigy, CompuServe, AOL, etc, all vying to be THE online provider. They were ALL trying to own the whole pie.
Yet that very act of attempting exclusive ownership is what made each of those pies rather small. Then the Internet came along, the pie that couldn't be owned, and it GREW. The only one of those early ISPs that's still around in any significant way is AOL, the one who did the best job of embracing the idea of owning it's piece of a much bigger pie.
Even after that example, American business didn't learn. I swear that they all look at the big pie called the Internet, and say, "I want to OWN that pie," and just can't realize that non-ownership is an essential property. Witness instant messaging, streaming media, or any other Internet add-on.
So perhaps you're right, and Utopian ideals of open standards just won't happen in today's society. In that case NOTHING big will happen, we'll just have a collection of little pies.
Microsoft's ownership of the PC OS is/was an aberration, and they're trying like all get-out to extend that aberration into everything they can get their hands on. But it's still an aberration, a refusal to allow THEIR products to become commodities, while driving everything surrounding them in that direction.
Re:Play nice? (Score:2)
As you said every company is trying to own the pie, and I would add to commoditize the other part that they can't own: think of Sun and StarOffice, they're trying to hurt Microsoft other cash cow, but commoditising Office suite.
So everyone is try to do it, but Microsoft succeeded and they did manage to commoditise the web browser, for example to distroy Netscape, while at the same time 'proprietarising' the web using Microsoft-HTML
Re:Standards (Score:2)
Re:Standards (Score:2)
Many of these standards and protocols are well documented and have pretty standardized implementations (such as TCP, IP, SMTP, HTTP, and FTP), some are documented but have implementations that can be incompatible (such as HTML), some are proprietary and different implementations have different levels of compatibility (such as MS Word documents), some are proprietary and have pretty standard
High time nations? (Score:2)
Sungeth Afroman: "I was gonna make a standard, but then I got high..."
Re:LeftHand( &RightHand( ) ) = null (Score:2)
Open source (or content) != open protocols.
If they were saying "all software should cost $0.00" you'd have a point. However, they're saying all software (/content) should be accessible using open standards. And, pursuant to that, they're making their pages available using TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML and CSS.
What's your point?