|
|
Re: [xml-dev] Good Times Ahead for "Sharecroppers"? (Was: [OT] Tim Bray
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 14/07/2003 16:28:24 GMT Daylight Time, snowhare@nihongo.org writes:
>It follows, therefore, that MS sharecroppers ... and sharecroppers of other
>corporates .... are in a healthier position than, perhaps, they have ever been.
>Why? Because there is some ... lots of? .... new land out there to go to if
>the corporate "landowner" becomes too demanding.
Two Words: Proprietary Extensions
Two and a half more: Vendor Lock-In
True, but only if firstly you use the proprietary extensions and secondly if you don't understand how to achieve the same or similar effect by more standard techniques.
Microsoft (and numerous other vendors - I am not just picking on them)
has _ALWAYS_ played the standards game when behind, and proprietary
extensions when ahead.
I have heard these words played many times as seeming searing indictments.
But what else do you expect from ANY company?
If they are behind the game then surely it is an obvious first step to catch up to at least equality with the standard of the time?
Equally, if they are ahead of the game do you seriously expect a company to always wait for everyone else to catch up?
So, I don't see your comments as valid accusations. Any company in a competitive marketplace will likely behave in that way.
There is a _reason_ web browser releases slowed
from every 6 months to every 2 years and why Microsoft has shown little
interest in implementing _new_ XML related standards (or even in bringing
their browser into strict compliance with the existing standards) in the
last year.
There are several factors playing out in that space.
For example, XML was much less well-thought out as "SGML on the Web" than initial "propaganda" led many of us to believe.
Second by giving away Internet Explorer Microsoft removed the financial incentive ... for them or anyone else ... to produce better browsers. Yes, there may be indirect financial payoffs but "free" browsers has meant a reduction in development compared to what it might have been.
Third, Web "standards" are not uniformly well-thought-through.
They don't have to - they are the industry leader by a
substantial margin as a consequence of their uncontested monopoly on the
desktop and have no need to enhance their customer's ability to 'switch'
to competing vendors.
I don't get that point. What is stopping anyone installing Mozilla or Opera for example on a Windows desktop?
Also what "uncontested" monopoly? Isn't Linux contesting it? Only it isn't (so far) making much impression? And isn't the Mac also contesting it, but also in quantitative terms failing too?
Sharecroppers _remain_ sharecroppers because, just like a 'company town',
the system is deliberately rigged to make it nearly impossible to escape.
Wealth accumulates with _owners_ of property - not _renters_.
Nobody is stopping anyone leaving MS's or anyone else's products are they?
It's like a teenager wanting to leave home but not daring to. They want "freedom" but they want their mum to do their washing, and provide a car. It's a trade off of "freedom" versus "support".
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|