4 ms·
I understand your point - the proprietary applications offered might be so vastly superior to any potential alternatives that would use an open protocol as to m
by liotier 12y ago
I understand your point - the proprietary applications offered might be so vastly superior to any potential alternatives that would use an open protocol as to make the whole idea irrelevant.
But that supposes that all user needs can be met that way, which in a resource-constrained world cannot be true: the proprietary application provider will inevitably have to prioritize some classes of users over others. Those users whose needs are not within the functional scope of the application are going to find their experience quite horrible.
Only open protocols guarantee the potential for diversity that can cover provide all users with good experience - or with an experience at all...
- BinaryIdiot 12y ago> But that supposes that all user needs can be met that way[...] No, it doesn't. Giving the user a good user experience does not mean it's the absolute best-end-all experience. > the proprietary application provider will inevitably have to prioritize some classes of users over others. Those users whose needs are not within the functional scope of the application are going to find their experience quite horrible. The problem you're outlining here completely applies to open source communities, standard bodies and companies (it has nothing to do with open versus proprietary protocols). Everyone has to prioritize things and certain priorities will not meet the needs of all users. I would also argue that users whose needs are not within the functional scope of an application...should look for an application that meets their needs as best as possible. Not everyone is going to have all of their needs met with anything.