5 ms·
This doesn't seem right to me. It is often in companies' best interests to adopt standards, but that is because it allows them both to have an optimized supply
by _heimdall 1y ago
This doesn't seem right to me. It is often in companies' best interests to adopt standards, but that is because it allows them both to have an optimized supply chain.
Car manufacturers today have a lot of standards that I expect would make competition from any new contenders harder not easier. Tesla would be an example of that, they did survive but the industry thought it was never going to work precisely because of all the standards and regulations required.
On the other hand, early car manufacturers didn't have standards and shared technology stacks. At that time new car makers popped up everywhere and we had a ton of competition in the space.
Open standards are good for the consumer and good for any features that require interoperability. It has nothing to do with competition though.
- lwhi 1y agoSorry, but you're incorrect. If a particular product is tied to a specific proprietary tech stack, then the consumer is also tied to specific suppliers. This is known as vendor lock in. Microsoft used this approach with Internet Explorer back in the old days; ensuring that it provided proprietary elements and implementation, that would encourage developers to provide websites that only functioned using their browser. Open standards allow choice.
- _heimdall 1y agoThat can be one aspect of it, though I would argue that doesn't mean open standards are always better for competition. I think you're also assuming the only competition that matters is long term. In the short term the potential for locking users into your own ecosystem can incentivize short term competition. Long term competition seems like a good goal, but that assumption wasn't part of it at the beginning of this chain.
- fsflover 1y ago> that doesn't mean open standards are always better for competition Yes, they are. Show us a counter-example.
- king_geedorah 1y agoThe web is open and is famously very competitive. We have three whole browser engines and only two of them are implemented by for-profit corporations whose valuations have 13 digits. I mean other ones exist, but the average modern developer claims it's your fault when something doesn't work because you use firefox or safari and also demands the browser rewrap all the capabilities the operating system already provides for you because they can't be assed to do the work of meeting users where they are.
- lwhi 1y agoIn a world with over 3 billion people we have 'three whole browser engines'. I don't want to be mean, but this isn't a great counterpoint.
- king_geedorah 1y agoI'm not sure what the number of people in the world has to do with whether an open standard does or doesn't promote innovation. The user asked for a case where an open standard didn't do that and I provided one. Whether you think it's a great counterpoint is entirely irrelevant to me.
- lwhi 1y agoBut browser engines are entirely functional based on open standards!!!!! This is the core proposition! The benefit of open standards here, is to the consumers of these standards .. not the engines. Open standards allow the consumers (websites / apps) to be able to benefit.
- _heimdall 1y agoThe presumption that started this thread is that open standards are always good for competition. I think browsers are a good counter example where open standards led to three browser vendors, we have less competition rather than more.
- lwhi 1y agoIf we don't think about long term competition we end up in the scenario we are in now. Two main players. No choice.