Eugene wrote:
> I'm rather betting on a really decent hi-res headup. Anything you have
> to haul around physically and can lose is only tolerable as long as
> as augmented shared reality headups are not ubiquitous.
>
> Now here's a challenge: defining the standards before some
> johnny-come-lately
> ships something profoundly broken, and gains sufficient market share to
> establish a de facto standard.
The cruddy "standard" will always win. While you are trying to hold your
(indubitably) superior standard together, in agreements with a zillion
variously competing interests, someone who doesn't give two hoots about
technological superiority will sneak in a minimally interoperable
alternative. The politics is so much easier, and it gives everyone a lot
more room to move. For instance, the big orgs will want to subvert the
standard and own it; a minimal, cruddy standard requires (proprietary)
extensions to be workable. A solid, locked in, proper standard just makes
them look like bastards for stuffing around with it.
Good standards for interoperability only seem to be useful to the weaker
players. I think that's why they fail.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:37 MDT