Comments on: Standards and Interoperability http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/01/15/standards-and-interoperability/ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:25:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Stefano’s Linotype » Blog Archive » Interoperability by Friction http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/01/15/standards-and-interoperability/#comment-741 Stefano’s Linotype » Blog Archive » Interoperability by Friction Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:40:48 +0000 http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=185#comment-741 [...] Joel Spolsky and web standard advocates (read, for example, Sam’s reply). This reminded me of a question that Mitch Baker asked on her blog about “standards and interoperability” that I had in my to-do list to [...] [...] Joel Spolsky and web standard advocates (read, for example, Sam’s reply). This reminded me of a question that Mitch Baker asked on her blog about “standards and interoperability” that I had in my to-do list to [...]

]]> By: Andre http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/01/15/standards-and-interoperability/#comment-585 Andre Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:21:31 +0000 http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=185#comment-585 I think it is the regulatory environment that matters and to achive for "interoperability" what GATT achieved for free trade. A political review process that pushes the standards of standards higher. I think it is the regulatory environment that matters and to achive for “interoperability” what GATT achieved for free trade. A political review process that pushes the standards of standards higher.

]]> By: Marco Trevisan http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/01/15/standards-and-interoperability/#comment-584 Marco Trevisan Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:23:50 +0000 http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=185#comment-584 I found standards dramatically important for a good health on web and web application in the future. Yes, I agree with you, standards mean interoperability, to me too. Even if I found frustrating the low speed from W3C in evolving web standards. Yes, I know the big effort they have to do... but... you know, the real world can't wait too much long. My wish is project "one to many", spending my time to find good solutions on communication, usability, design, functional tools. In conclusion, standards matter, deeply matter. I found standards dramatically important for a good health on web and web application in the future. Yes, I agree with you, standards mean interoperability, to me too.

Even if I found frustrating the low speed from W3C in evolving web standards. Yes, I know the big effort they have to do… but… you know, the real world can’t wait too much long.

My wish is project “one to many”, spending my time to find good solutions on communication, usability, design, functional tools.

In conclusion, standards matter, deeply matter.

]]> By: David Bolton http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/01/15/standards-and-interoperability/#comment-583 David Bolton Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:20:55 +0000 http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=185#comment-583 Standards reduce bloat Standards reduce bloat

]]> By: Olivier http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/01/15/standards-and-interoperability/#comment-582 Olivier Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:57:47 +0000 http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=185#comment-582 My view is that standards allow de-centralization. In a world without open standards, networks are created in which one node controls it all. Such is the case of Skype, Blackberries, MSN or Facebook-mail for example. The Internet is fundamentally de-centralized. No single node will affect the Internet if removed. This is what made the Internet stand out and what makes it unique, interesting and fun. So to me the key is to not create "centers" to the Internet. This is what open standards (through interoperability) are all about. My view is that standards allow de-centralization.

In a world without open standards, networks are created in which one node controls it all. Such is the case of Skype, Blackberries, MSN or Facebook-mail for example.

The Internet is fundamentally de-centralized. No single node will affect the Internet if removed. This is what made the Internet stand out and what makes it unique, interesting and fun.

So to me the key is to not create “centers” to the Internet. This is what open standards (through interoperability) are all about.

]]> By: Christopher Blizzard http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/01/15/standards-and-interoperability/#comment-581 Christopher Blizzard Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:54:04 +0000 http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=185#comment-581 I think that it's important to put standards in their context and understanding the goals behind the actual standard. For example, I think that many people call for "open standards" to break monopolies (recent MS document standards, for example) or to unite an otherwise split market (WHATWG, W3C.) Standards often are also a tool for companies to share risk and intellection property. (MPEG and DVD.) And sometimes standards are put in place to spur a market to be created. (See Chris Andersen's video at Nokia for that context.) I'm the kind of person who wants two things: 1. Competition to create great products and prevent monopolies from emerging. This is one of the best ways to improve the human condition, IMHO. (Although certainly not the only one.) 2. I want to see standards for communication that allow anyone to create on top of them. The best way to get to great products (#1) is to make sure that no one is restricted from exploring and building on top of them. That explosion of creativity is predicated on open standards. So I think that when you're talking about standards you need to talk about the context and the goals. And why things like interoperability are important and how that relates directly to competition and creativity. Because our big goal is to improve the human condition, and that's what we're really talking about here. I think that it’s important to put standards in their context and understanding the goals behind the actual standard. For example, I think that many people call for “open standards” to break monopolies (recent MS document standards, for example) or to unite an otherwise split market (WHATWG, W3C.) Standards often are also a tool for companies to share risk and intellection property. (MPEG and DVD.) And sometimes standards are put in place to spur a market to be created. (See Chris Andersen’s video at Nokia for that context.)

I’m the kind of person who wants two things:

1. Competition to create great products and prevent monopolies from emerging. This is one of the best ways to improve the human condition, IMHO. (Although certainly not the only one.)

2. I want to see standards for communication that allow anyone to create on top of them. The best way to get to great products (#1) is to make sure that no one is restricted from exploring and building on top of them. That explosion of creativity is predicated on open standards.

So I think that when you’re talking about standards you need to talk about the context and the goals. And why things like interoperability are important and how that relates directly to competition and creativity. Because our big goal is to improve the human condition, and that’s what we’re really talking about here.

]]> By: mawrya http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/01/15/standards-and-interoperability/#comment-580 mawrya Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:39:58 +0000 http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=185#comment-580 It may help to think about standards in a broader sense - outside the computer industry. Safety standards, for example, do not immediately bring to mind interoperability. Standards work to balance the self-interest of the provider of a product or service with the interests of the consumer of the product or service. That is why we care about them. The base-level interests of the consumer are quality and security of life. Interoperability is a benefit built on top of the two base-level interests. Interoperability often improves both security (You can buy any Toaster and not worry if it works with your bread) and quality (because your bread works with any toaster, marketplace competition will eventually force the ultimate balance between quality and price). It may help to think about standards in a broader sense - outside the computer industry. Safety standards, for example, do not immediately bring to mind interoperability.

Standards work to balance the self-interest of the provider of a product or service with the interests of the consumer of the product or service. That is why we care about them. The base-level interests of the consumer are quality and security of life.

Interoperability is a benefit built on top of the two base-level interests. Interoperability often improves both security (You can buy any Toaster and not worry if it works with your bread) and quality (because your bread works with any toaster, marketplace competition will eventually force the ultimate balance between quality and price).

]]> By: Maxo http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/01/15/standards-and-interoperability/#comment-579 Maxo Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:57:25 +0000 http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=185#comment-579 Interoperability is pretty much the only reason it matters. Every other reasons that they matter are all a result of the interoperability. If the open document format was used in place of .doc, then do you really thing people would pay hundreds of dollars for Microsoft Word, when free alternatives that are just as good exist? Not likely. So open standards also lower prices, but that is a function of interoperability. Interoperability is pretty much the only reason it matters. Every other reasons that they matter are all a result of the interoperability.
If the open document format was used in place of .doc, then do you really thing people would pay hundreds of dollars for Microsoft Word, when free alternatives that are just as good exist? Not likely. So open standards also lower prices, but that is a function of interoperability.

]]> By: Iang http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/01/15/standards-and-interoperability/#comment-578 Iang Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:48:16 +0000 http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=185#comment-578 Interoperability was already achieved nicely by Microsoft, many times over. Their products were all interoperable, and as long as everyone had them, there was no problem. Just talking about interoperability alone doesn't explain it. Somewhere there is this hidden assumption that you, as a competitor, have a right to also play. But that's a very troubling notion: Why do you have a right to insist that Microsoft follow standards? Why do you have a right to also ship a browser that differs from "the defacto, market leading standard"? In practice, rights won't explain your position either. Competition is about the ability to fight and out-innovate the other guy, and thus deliver the better product, which is chosen by the market place. To the extent that everyone chooses standards, everyone chooses not to innovate, and therefore not to advance the product. Competition is dead, and so is progress. So, somewhere in this battle of extremes is some sort of middle position; standards are in continual battle with innovation, and the more standards are used to achieve interoperability, the more they kill innovation. One really has to then have a very clear metric that guides when one chooses standards, and when one chooses innovation. For my money, it is "when the problems are solved." HTML is solved, so standardise. Security is not solved, so innovate. Interoperability was already achieved nicely by Microsoft, many times over. Their products were all interoperable, and as long as everyone had them, there was no problem.

Just talking about interoperability alone doesn’t explain it. Somewhere there is this hidden assumption that you, as a competitor, have a right to also play.

But that’s a very troubling notion: Why do you have a right to insist that Microsoft follow standards? Why do you have a right to also ship a browser that differs from “the defacto, market leading standard”? In practice, rights won’t explain your position either.

Competition is about the ability to fight and out-innovate the other guy, and thus deliver the better product, which is chosen by the market place. To the extent that everyone chooses standards, everyone chooses not to innovate, and therefore not to advance the product. Competition is dead, and so is progress.

So, somewhere in this battle of extremes is some sort of middle position; standards are in continual battle with innovation, and the more standards are used to achieve interoperability, the more they kill innovation. One really has to then have a very clear metric that guides when one chooses standards, and when one chooses innovation.

For my money, it is “when the problems are solved.” HTML is solved, so standardise. Security is not solved, so innovate.

]]> By: Tristan http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/01/15/standards-and-interoperability/#comment-577 Tristan Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:02:15 +0000 http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/?p=185#comment-577 "Being future-proof", in the case of formats? I don't know what kind of browser/application I'll be using in 10 years time to access my documents in the future. As we put more and more stuff into electronic format, the ability to access it down the road is becoming more and more important. “Being future-proof”, in the case of formats? I don’t know what kind of browser/application I’ll be using in 10 years time to access my documents in the future. As we put more and more stuff into electronic format, the ability to access it down the road is becoming more and more important.

]]>