3 ms·
>But in the end the benefits of open standards and interoperability made public networks more useful than a walled garden. The world has swung the other way.
by basch 8y ago
>But in the end the benefits of open standards and interoperability made public networks more useful than a walled garden.
The world has swung the other way. If I want restaurant reviews, I need yelp/tripadvisor/googlemaps/facebook to access each database of reviews. To order a delivery meal I need ubereats/doordash/grubhub/postmates/amazon. To compare taxi prices, I need to open uber and lyft, and to rent a scooter I need a new app in each city. To send a message I need fbmessenger/whatsapp/skype/hangouts. Even Match Group keeps its subsidiaries as silos, instead of allowing interop. It probably actually INCREASES peoples desire to hop around the different products, knowing they dont work together. If gmail and outlook didnt work, id be more likely to have both. Open standards and interoperability made public networks more useful, but now that the networks are in place, and access is ubiquitous, walled gardens can spring up and dominate MUCH faster than distributed protocols.
- rayvy 8y ago> Open standards and interoperability made public networks more useful, but now that the networks are in place, and access is ubiquitous, walled gardens can spring up and dominate MUCH faster than distributed protocols. And personally, how do you suggest distributed protocols work to keep up with their centralized alternatives? Obviously one could build a walled garden (UI, API, Database) much quicker than its decentralized alternative.
- basch 8y agoI dont. Consensus and standards take some time to develop. It's about an attitude, where companies willingly allow 3rd party clients to access their data, or allowing services to interop. The quickest to market car isnt always the best or safest product. Consumer safety laws even the playing field a bit. Im not advocating regulation, but it is one way to achieve more parity between products.