3 ms·

Sorry, 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 i

by lwhi 1y ago

Sorry, 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 ago
That 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      In 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 ago
        I'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 ago
        But 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 ago
        The 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.
        fsflover 1y ago
        Do you expect that browsers relying on closed standards would result in more competition under the same circumstances? You didn't demonstrate that.
        _heimdall 1y ago
        My original demonstration wasn't actually the browser question. Auto manufacturers did show much higher levels of competition before standards and shared components. Though it is worth noting that there was heavy competition in the browser space prior to the specs we have today. Part of the reason we ended up with a heavily spec-driven web is precisely because the high level of competition was leading to claims of corporate espionage, and it was expected that end user experience would be better with standards. I absolutely agree the end user experience is better. I disagree that has anything to do with competition.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    Did you see my earlier comment? Car manufacturing for decades or so years didn't have open standards with regards to parts used or how they were built. We ended up with a huge number of competing car manufacturers compared to what we have today.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      Didn't older cars rely on open standards making it possible to go to any repair shop? Or maybe it was effectively open stanards, i.e., nothing prevented you from learning how they worked and modifying them. Nowadays, all cars became hostile to users thanks to the closed software: https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/06/mozilla_vehicle_data_privacy/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/06/mozilla_vehicle_data_... I wouldn't call it "better competition".
      - _heimdall 1y ago
        Older cars could go to most mechanic shops because older cars were more simple. The fundamentals of how the cars worked were similar not because the companies collaborated on parts and designs but because they were comparatively simple and all were based on combustion engines that required certain components and physics to be similar. Well, most. There were the odd steam powered and even early electric vehicles back then. I wouldn't expect either to roll into any mechanic shop in town and get service.
- lwhi 1y ago
  If we don't think about long term competition we end up in the scenario we are in now. Two main players. No choice.

by lwhi 1y ago

_heimdall 1y ago

That 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    In 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 ago
      I'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 ago
        But 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 ago
        The 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.
        fsflover 1y ago
        Do you expect that browsers relying on closed standards would result in more competition under the same circumstances? You didn't demonstrate that.
        _heimdall 1y ago
        My original demonstration wasn't actually the browser question. Auto manufacturers did show much higher levels of competition before standards and shared components. Though it is worth noting that there was heavy competition in the browser space prior to the specs we have today. Part of the reason we ended up with a heavily spec-driven web is precisely because the high level of competition was leading to claims of corporate espionage, and it was expected that end user experience would be better with standards. I absolutely agree the end user experience is better. I disagree that has anything to do with competition.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  Did you see my earlier comment? Car manufacturing for decades or so years didn't have open standards with regards to parts used or how they were built. We ended up with a huge number of competing car manufacturers compared to what we have today.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    Didn't older cars rely on open standards making it possible to go to any repair shop? Or maybe it was effectively open stanards, i.e., nothing prevented you from learning how they worked and modifying them. Nowadays, all cars became hostile to users thanks to the closed software: https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/06/mozilla_vehicle_data_privacy/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/06/mozilla_vehicle_data_... I wouldn't call it "better competition".
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      Older cars could go to most mechanic shops because older cars were more simple. The fundamentals of how the cars worked were similar not because the companies collaborated on parts and designs but because they were comparatively simple and all were based on combustion engines that required certain components and physics to be similar. Well, most. There were the odd steam powered and even early electric vehicles back then. I wouldn't expect either to roll into any mechanic shop in town and get service.
lwhi 1y ago
If we don't think about long term competition we end up in the scenario we are in now. Two main players. No choice.