Emlyn wrote:
> The cruddy "standard" will always win. While you are trying to hold your
Not necessarily. It is much easier and quicker to release a shoddy
standard
providing a minimum functionality and get people to use it. See Napster.
However, people will pick up and use a good standard just as
indiscriminately. The question is rather: can you be early enough?
Mainstream is a decade away before picking up AR. I'd say we're early
enough.
We're not gas molecules. You can shape the larger scale phenomena by
knowing the rules, and being early.
> (indubitably) superior standard together, in agreements with a zillion
> variously competing interests, someone who doesn't give two hoots about
Good standards are written by a single person. Maybe a team of two or
three.
> technological superiority will sneak in a minimally interoperable
> alternative. The politics is so much easier, and it gives everyone a lot
So you keep the politics out of it. There's not much politics going on
within a single person's head, unless she's got MP syndrome.
> more room to move. For instance, the big orgs will want to subvert the
> standard and own it; a minimal, cruddy standard requires (proprietary)
So you make 1.0 fit the bill, get people to use it in an avalanche
process
and brand it. Sign the source tarballs and the binaries. Patent it to
you,
only allowing noncorporate use. There are probably other mechanisms
> 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.
I think the weaker players would dominate the place if they'd realize
how
much power concerted action wields. The problem is they're not only
weak,
they're stupid (uncaring).
Masses produce nothing, it's the individuals. Has everybody smart sold
out?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:37 MDT