[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
The ad in today's USA Today from IBM describes
e-business as the new "utility", and similar to
other utilities, should just be a system that
one hooks up to and gets services. It doesn't
note that:
1. Most utilities are publicly regulated.
2. They provide a service based on the going
availability (eg, power, gas, etc)
3. They are sometimes publicly owned but
where not, should have competitors and when
they don't, abuse their customers.
We are in for a weird time here. I don't have a
good feeling about a "utlity" that has a monopoly
power over business processes that I need to survive
and more than I feel "love" for the local electric
and gas service vendors who raise rates to make
us pay more if we use less.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven R. Newcomb [mailto:srn@coolheads.com]
According to my theory (Perspective 1 vs. Perspective 2,
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200202/msg00832.html),
the reason why is that these things put the Perspective
1 guys in control of Perspective 2's assets. It's not
surprising that MS and IBM can agree on things that are
designed to keep the balance of power on the side of
the system vendors. UDDI and SOAP do not threaten the
hegemony of Perspective 1. Quite the contrary, in
fact.
When considering these system-vendor-originated
proposals, it's important not only to examine what's
there, but also to figure out *what's missing* -- what
would be there if the information owners were designing
these things, but isn't, because they're not.
|
