When going through the arduous process of selecting a name for my blog about a year and a half and ago when James and I subdivided our single eponymous RedMonk blog into our own individual spaces, I toyed with any number of different designations, discarding some as too cute, some as too obscure and some as just plain dumb. As is obvious, I ultimately settled on the somewhat problematic [1] (and possibly still dumb) tecosystems as a hybridization of technology – my industry, and ecosystems – what I increasingly view as the lifeblood of said industry. I chose the term ecosystem as a base rather than community not only because the alternative hybridization of ‘tecommunity’ doesn’t exactly roll off the toungue, but also because I think ecosystem is in some respects a more apt description for the complex web of interactions than the more general community, though I freely use the latter as well.
As a result, it was with interest – and mostly agreement – that I read John J. Sviokla’s piece in FastCompany entitled “In Praise of Ecosystems.” In the essay, Sviokla makes the argument that the iPod is doomed primarily because it’s a closed system – which we’ll come back to in a moment – and that it would ultimately be outdone not by a single competitor, but by an ecosystem of suppliers working on a common platform. I’m an iPod owner and fan, but I pretty much agree with that conclusion. The only reason, in fact, that I’m still comfortable owning an iPod and purchasing music through iTunes is the work that Jon Lech Johansen has done in providing me fair access to my music. Even if I don’t use it, knowing it’s there gives me a worst case option.
I actually ran across the FastCompany article via Charles Fitzgerald’s (of Microsoft) blog, when he linked to it and asked the logical question given the above:
The interesting question is whether you can plausibly make the transition from a closed/vertical industry model to an ecosystem/horizontal industry model. It is hard to think of examples of companies successfully making that transition (got any candidates?).
Great question, and off the top of my head I can’t think of a good example. I attribute this in part to the fact that such the prospect of such a transition – a voluntary and explicit or at least tacit ceding of a dominant or monopolistic position in favor of a smaller part in a more diverse, vibrant community – is anathema to many if not most software businesses. Run as they are by executives trained in a century of American business dominated by the likes of Carnegie and Rockefeller, that shouldn’t be a surprise. Technology businesses in general are ruthlessly, unrelentingly Darwinian in their competiton with one another, such that exceptions like Ludicorp not only are noteworthy, but shockingly so. Businesses are seemingly not designed simply to be meet customer needs’ anymore (assuming, of course, that they ever were), they’re constructed to eradicate and annihilate competition in the process.
But the point here isn’t to comment on the relative merits of the system that produces such businesses; it’s not only not my place, I’m not really equipped to do so. Instead, I’d like to return the focus to Fitzgerald’s question: who’s successfully made the transition from market leader to lesser player in more diverse (and possibly higher volume) market? As I admitted previously, I don’t have a case study to point to assure all those businesses facing such an issue. Given that I’m on the record as saying that I don’t believe Microsoft’s marketshare – or more importantly, profit margins – are indefinitely sustainable, however, you might not be surprised to hear that I don’t believe that the question matters much. I share Sviokla’s belief that closed systems such as Apple’s iPod are ecosystems with limited lifespans for reasons that are instinctively if not consciously grasped by most technologists. While I certainly would not put the Office or Windows franchises in the iPod category in terms of closed v open, they are in my mind more closed than some of their respective competitors (e.g. OpenOffice or Linux, or maybe even Google). Whether or not enterprises have successfully made the transition from market gorilla to mere market participant successfully, I think it’s possible, maybe even likely, that Microsoft will be forced to do so in at least one of their critical markets and should therefore plan accordingly. Innovator’s Dilemma indeed.
I believe this not only because dominance of any type is a temporary phenomenon, historically speaking (a fact that we in the US would do well to remember, as Stephenson alludes to in this interview), but because it’s a point proven out in other contexts. Consider the second law of thermodynamics, which states that “all work processes tend towards a greater entropy (disorder/lower energy density) over time.” In other words, energy in any given system runs out. As Wikipedia points out, though, this problem is more evident in closed systems than open ones.
And that’s where the Belgian mathematician (he was actually Russian born) comes in. While on vacation last week, I came across the following bit in a John D. MacDonald book I was reading:
“[Ilya Prigogine] used the analogy of the walled city and an open city. The walled city, isolated from its surroundings, will run down, decay, and die. The open city will have an exchange of material and energy with its surroundings and will become larger and more complex, capable of dissipating energy even as it grows.”
While MacDonald was himself stretching this oversimplified analogy and applying it to individual behavior, I think it’s equally applicable to questions of open versus closed when it comes to software. It’s fundamentally a question of how vibrant an ecosystem is or isn’t. That, in turn, is determined by the dynamics of interaction – primarily the ability to encourage new infusions of energy from parties outside the system in question. Open source is by no means a guarantee of energy and effort – witness the countless dead projects on Sourceforge – but it does ensure that a project will not succumb to because of the immutable laws of thermodynamics and entropy. [2] For that alone, it’s a methodology worth considering – and a methodology difficult to compete with on a long term basis (less so on the short term, however, and indeed I think we’ll see short term proprietary / long term open source become even more mainstream than it already is).
Anyhow, while I think Fitzgerald’s correct when he says, “the revenue hit when you move from owning the whole pie to accepting a smaller part of what you expect to be a much bigger pie is not a leap many companies are willing or able to make,” I do believe that the better long term viability of open ecosystems verus those that are closed – hyperaccelerated by the lowering of bandwidth and integration barriers – will lead to more companies actively contemplating just such a move than ever before. Call it the Long Tail of marketshare dynamics – where mass markets become masses of markets, but I’ll settle for better and more diverse choices at buy time.
Update: Corrected sentence (struck) above and added footnote.
[1] I’ve been told several times – most recently at JavaOne – that the introduction of a name like tecosystems introduces some significant branding issues as it sounds too much like a company name in its own right. For the record, this is because I’m not a marketer and just plain didn’t think of it.
[2] In the comments on this point, Anthony dissents and points out that open systems are by no means immune to entropy. This is a fair criticism, though I would contend they are less prone to it.
Craig says:
August 1, 2005 at 2:16 pm
The “outside energy source” is a good call. In an industry not continually scoured of competitors, there’s a continuous influx of small businesses and innovation. Most fail, enough succeed to keep the industry hopping along.
But when big corporations work to keep their market share high, they end up making it difficult or even flat-out impossible for small businesses and innovation.
Your closed-system vs open-system analogy is absolutely perfect, with the strange fiat that these kinds of systems tend to become more and more closed-system as time goes on.
There’s a really great insight inside that, I’m sure.
Jaime Cardoso says:
August 1, 2005 at 2:26 pm
An example of companies that migrated from proprietary to Open communities? I must be missing something in the question because, the answer, to me, is kind of obvious.
All the companies that killed the ancient mainframes to go with Unix, all the Sun’s JDS wins (and all the Linux wins against Windows).
Changing fields completelly, what is your trousers number? Do you know? But, 60 years ago, everybody that had suites had them tailor made. Even in the most proprietary industry today – automobile, my car’s tires have a measure and I can buy from any supplier I want. Even in Nations, every time a nation develops isolationist ideals, it fails.
I may way out of context (and I’m sorry if I missed the point) but, IMHO the examples are way to many and present at any level you look at.
sogrady says:
August 1, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Craig: spot on. the one pushback i’d make is that is the tendency to progress towards closed systems. while i think this *was* true, i’m not sure it is any longer. not that open standards have won the day, but i think systems like the iPod are – or will become – more anomalous as time goes on.
Jaime: good insights, but i think perhaps some of the context was lost in my translation (my fault). the question isn’t really can an enterprise open up something proprietary: as you note, it’s been done any number of times before. the question rather is can a truly *dominant* player in a given market – like the iPod or Windows – make the transition from dominant player in a closed ecosystem to mere participant in an open one. there may well be examples of that too, but i’d guess it’s far more rare than a simple proprietary to closed transition.
opening a product isn’t the difficult part (generally speaking); letting go of a controlling position in a market is.
Anthony says:
August 1, 2005 at 3:35 pm
“Open source … does ensure that a project will not succumb to the immutable laws of thermodynamics and entropy.”
I really don’t think that’s at all true. You can’t say that lack of community is independent of project entropy: large projects often lose community as the engineering slowly collapses under its own weight (due to entropy). Sometimes there’s a fork that succeeds, other times the project dies. Furthermore, projects that can be classified as open source often collapse because the steering group closes themselves off to outside thinking.
I really don’t think the issue has anything to do with open source, per se. The issue is encouraging a vibrant community with a compelling product. The presence of such a community is not at all tied to the availability of source code, it has to do with what people can do with the product.
If Apple can open up an iPod API without killing the synergy between iTunes and the iPod, then I hope they will, but I really don’t see a need for them to open source anything.
sogrady says:
August 1, 2005 at 3:48 pm
Anthony: great comment. taking it point by point:
“I really don’t think that’s at all true.”
actually, i don’t either. that was supposed to read as follows: “but it does ensure that a project will not succumb because of [rather than to] the immutable laws of thermodynamics and entropy.” my bad, and will update it now. but based on the rest of your comments, i think you’d still disagree.
“You can’t say that lack of community is independent of project entropy”
given your examples, i agree. my point was made concerning entropy as it pertains to closed systems versus open systems, but you are correct to point out that while entropy may be more of a risk is closed systems, open systems are by no means invulnerable.
“I really don’t think the issue has anything to do with open source, per se.”
this, i don’t agree with. it’s not that they are inextricably tied together – there are absolutely methods for achieving open systems that do not involve open source (open APIs and the like) – but i do believe that open source tends to be an ideal platform for open systems.
“If Apple can open up an iPod API without killing the synergy between iTunes and the iPod”
see above. do i believe that Apple needs to open source iTunes to have a more open system? nope. do i believe that an open sourcing of iTunes could lead to a really interesting community – a more cross-platform community – built on top of iTunes and its AAC format? sure do.
i’m not trying to say that open systems require open source, rather i’m saying that open source is a pretty good foundation for open systems.
Anthony says:
August 1, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Stephen,
“open source is a pretty good foundation for open systems”
On this, we are actually in complete agreement. I think I just hear open source bandied about as the panacea for all the world’s ills too often, so I’m a bit sensitive when I think it’s being leaned on too hard 🙂
Jaime Cardoso says:
August 1, 2005 at 5:49 pm
Stephen, I continue to feel like I’m out of sync.
What you describe feels much like IBM’s transition from the Only IT vendor to a very big IT vendor or what pretty much all the *Telecom companies in Europe have been doing since the telco market openned up in Europe (France Telecom, Portugal Telecom, etc, etc). All those companies had monopolies but were forced to play with the other kids.
The focus here is motivation. Apple will not open up control until they are forced by the market (fact of history seen over and over again every time someone is dominant) but, some companies / countries are able to do the opening in time to survive while others fail in doing so.
I’ve believed in the ecosystems analogy since I remember and, what Darwin talked about the evolution of the species based on necessity and adversity, still applies to XXI century corporations. Isn’t that what you and James were talking about when you say Eclipse made Netbeams better and (vice versa) while monopolyes lead to the dead of evolution?
Frank Hecker says:
August 1, 2005 at 8:30 pm
No need to cite a "random Belgian mathematician"; Clayton Christensen has cogent things to say on these questions. On the question of "closed" vs. "open", in "Seeing What's Next" Christensen et.al. point out that integrated solutions will prevail when products are not yet good enough along the dimensions that matter to customers; once products overshoot the "good enough" point then the way is open for commoditization, "dis-integrated" solutions, and migration of profits to other parts of the value chain. (Dell is Christensen's classic example.)
Now in the case of the iPod I submit that a primary dimension that matters to customers is simplicity ("it just works"). However far from iPod-like devices and iTunes-like services getting more simple (overshooting the "good enough" point) the music industry's desire to impose DRM and similar restrictions is in fact making things more complex for customers, not less. This makes an integrated solution even more appealing, and in my opinion means that the iPod's position is likely secure for the foreseeable future, especially if Apple can introduce further product capabilities (e.g., podcasting, satellite radio, video, etc.) while maintaining and extending the simplicity currently enjoyed by iPod users.
Similar arguments would indicate that Apple has a good shot at introducing successful products into the broader home entertainment space as well as into the telephony space, both of which are also swamps of complexity for the ordinary user, again in large part due to efforts by incumbents (including most notably movie studios and telcos) to exercise control over what users can do (not to mention what products independent vendors can offer).
Apple's main problem will be avoiding entanglement with the existing value networks controlled by incumbents in those markets; hence, for example, the plausibility of the rumors about Apple establishing its own cellular network and service (e.g., by piggybacking on networks from existing providers like Sprint).
As to corporations transitioning from a "closed/vertical industry model to an ecosystem/horizontal industry model", Christensen addresses this in "The Innovator's Solution", and concludes that corporations will fail to do this (ceding the new markets to competitors) unless they can do it in a context (e.g., a subsidiary or spinoff) that allows a different business model more suited to an "ecosystem" approach.
james Governor says:
August 2, 2005 at 1:23 am
tounge – is that like a tongue lounge or something?
james Governor says:
August 2, 2005 at 7:04 am
I am with Jaime on this. I think we need perhaps to further parse Charles question – has anyone made a *voluntary* decision to open up and become just a participant?
I can’t help but see IBM as an exemplar here, either way.
For better or worse, for richer or poorer, and Charles F believes IBM still stands for “I Build Mainframes”, the PC ecosystem was…. “created” by IBM. IBM made a decision to build an ecosystem. Obviously it thought it could dominate that ecosystem, and has regretted it ever since. But it was IBM’s initial decision to use other people’s components that led to Wintel’s success. It used to be called the IBM PC remember?
Of course IBM ended up selling its PC business, so its not the greatest example of success in transition, but it is an element in a broader transition of IBM from completely vertically integrated to something more horizontal.
Charles F would likely claim IBM has built no successful new software businesses. OK.
But the folks building the new Xbox evidently think IBM has some components worth using… And so do Sony and Nintendo. IBM isn’t in the console market, but its certainly a participant. This is another element in IBM’s transformation.
And what of Eclipse. IBM went from vertical integration of app server to dev tools, and created an ecosystem that its now just a participant in, to great affect. Charles should probably pay attention to Eclipse – that is some platformonomics that should be worrying Redmond more each day.
sogrady says:
August 2, 2005 at 9:50 am
Jaime: we may still be out of sync, but I actually think your IBM example may be one we can agree one. in more than one market they’ve made the transition from big fish (or only fish) to competitive player.
while i think the telecom examples in Europe – or here for that matter, along with utility companies – are indeed companies making that transition, i’m not sure quite how much they map to these arguments simply because if the transition in Europe is anything like it was here (i worked with a deregulating energy company several years back) it was not only a mandated change, but a tightly controlled and regulated process in and of itself. what i’m looking for is this process occuring naturally, rather than as a top down mandate.
on the motivation part: i totally agree. the important notion here though, i think, is that the natural inclination of corporations is to cling to a market dominant position for too long. if Apple waits until they are forced to open the iPod, it may well be too late. if they voluntarily open their ecosystem as a competitive measure, it might stave off the doom that some predict by fostering a more competitive ecosystem at the expense of a dominant market position.
on the ecosystem point, in no way am i arguing against that: competition is good, as you note that we’ve stated numerous times. i’m arguing in fact that opening oneself up to competition by fostering an ecosystem is in fact the best approach for continued success.
Frank: i certainly wouldn’t question the notion that Christensen has a lot of value in such a discussion – that was the main reason i put a brief mention of the Innovator’s Dilemma in there. what i’m trying to get at however is that beyond the relatively well known structures of Christensen, there are correlaries from the natural world that bolster the arguments vis a vis open v closed systems. appreciate the insights though. i would pushback on the notion that Apple’s primary difficulty will be “will be avoiding entanglement with the existing value networks” – i think the issue is more fundamental. the trouble, i think, will be for Apple to recognize the value of openness on any macro level; it simply isn’t in their corporate DNA.
James: i agree as mentioned above with IBM as a general example. on the Eclipse front, while i agree it’s a very salutary demonstration of the power of open networks, i’m not sure it’s a good example in the market positioning sense. IBM’s tools were always popular, but not in the same way the iPod was, IMO.
sogrady says:
August 2, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Anthony: “On this, we are actually in complete agreement. I think I just hear open source bandied about as the panacea for all the world’s ills too often, so I’m a bit sensitive when I think it’s being leaned on too hard :)”
you and me both sir 🙂 i was not clear enough on this point in retrospect, so i appreciate you calling that aspect out. should be helpful to future readers, so thanks very much for the comment.
Gary Edwards says:
August 2, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Hi Stephen,
I think that for much of the technology industry, “the dynamics of interaction” have been forever changed by the Open Internet. As an ecosystem, everything else is just another layer in the rain forest.
Open Internet protocols and methods are showing up everywhere. So much so that applications and information systems are near worthless if they fail to connect and collaboratively compute in any other way.
I used to think about things in terms of platforms, frameworks, languages, and application environments. Increasingly though i tend to think about these things in terms of how well they make use of the Open Internet. For instance, SOA-ESB is just a collection of best practices and services for successfully embracing the Open Internet infrastructure. The Internet becoming the most important point of interoperability between platforms, frameworks and applications.
I can’t help but notice that portable run time engines (Java, Python, MONO, JavaScript, XPCOM-XUL, Ruby, Flash, etc.) are able to adapt platform, framework, and application specific environments to the Open Internet faster than vendors can build consensus around proprietary initiatives. How does a vendor build an ecosystem around a proprietary initiative when the participants eat and run? It’s like dealing with subatomic particles. The mere act of observing alters the behavior in response. It happens instantly. Poof poof.
The question is no longer about whether a vendor can grow an ecosystem around a proprietary system. Rather, can a vendor homestead a significant piece of the global ecosystem, and create sympathetic dependencies of a lasting and profitable nature? Can they find a layer in the rain forest and thrive?
What matters today are dynamics of interaction based on Open Internet standards. Fading fast are the days of vendors competing on the basis of platform or application ecosystems, with attention increasingly shifting to the Open Standards and Consortia Standards organizations as places to meet and arbitrate issues of Internet based interaction.
Where vendors used to meet to talk about the interoperability of their systems, they now meet to arbitrate and advance protocols and methods enhancements likely to favor the capabilities of their proprietary systems.
This isn’t “growing” an ecosystem in the traditional sense. This is more like seeking the favor and consent of the global ecosystem to advance the common infrastructure in new directions. The world having long ago chosen a common infrastructure unique in that it is owned by none, and used by all. So today we argue more about which platform, application environment, or integrated stack of technology systems makes the best use of the Open Internet, than we do about which platform or integrated stack is better.
The proof of this is that if you were to disconnect any platform or integrated stack from the Open Internet, who would want it?
The “short term proprietary / long term open source” transition model you mention is somewhat similar to what we briefly discussed at JavaONE when i asked cosmic genius Duane Nickull to comment on Bill Coleman’s prescient concept called, “running the stack”. Ever the careful politician, Duane was coy in his explanation of how Adobe plans to mesh the Adobe stack with Open Standards. But it looks to me that Adobe is doing exactly what Bill Coleman described as “running the stack”.
The basic idea behind “running the stack” is to build on a commons infrastructure where Open Standards are publicly embraced. Above the commons high water mark, a vendor innovates and extends protocols, methods, and interfaces with the promise of returning these efforts to the commons infrastructure (as Open Standards proposals). This “promise” to customers and ecosystem participants kicks in when critical mass has been reached. Critical mass being defined as that moment when interoperability with other information systems and technologies becomes as important an issue as the initiative itself. At that point the initiative is pushed down the stack into the commons infrastructure, raising the high water line. The vendor of course moves higher up the stack to innovate and enhance once again.
Although Adobe doesn’t have a “public” promise to run the stack, they are pushing important proprietary technologies into the Open Standards commons. Shortly after JavaONE, Duane presented a key Adobe Stack technology, the XMP-RDF Metadata model, to the OASIS OpenDocument TC for consideration. He has also submitted the critically important Adobe XFA method of extending XForms to the W3C for consideration. Adobe routinely describes PDF2 and the Adobe LifeCycle model as a XML framework, broadcasting loudly the importance of Open Standards across the entire stack.
At our JavaONE meeting you asked Duane where Adobe will draw the line. Personally i don’t think there is any answer to that question, other than the Bill Coleman response. His answer was that BEA is committed to running the stack faster than any of their competitors. Meaning, they would push initiatives into the commons faster, raising the high water mark ever higher, and moving up the stack further with innovative enhancements.
Besides, when working with a commons infrastructure like the Open Internet, drawing the line is as much determined by competitors as it is by proprietary business interests. For instance, both IBM and Adobe are rushing to convert their proprietary systems to be fluidly interoperable Open XML frameworks. (I say “Open XML” because not all XML initiatives are open, unencumbered and unrestricted). They agree on Open XML technologies below the line, and compete above. They agree on things like XForms, OpenDoc XML, XBR, and Web Services. (Adobe used to agree on SVG, but that may have changed with the Macromedia acquisition).
With Adobe’s support for WorkPlace, IBM’s cross platform application environment, they’ve even agreed on a common end user interface into their applications and server side systems.
Where they compete though is higher up the stack where Adobe’s LifeCycle initiative truly threatens the heretofore untouchable Lotus Notes collaborative “intelligent” document platform.
From a customers point of view, this new found interoperability between IBM and Adobe is great news. That it all takes place within a common XML framework is something that should get everyone’s attention.
For IBM and Adobe, i think they have much more to gain from this interoperability than they have to lose from otherwise competitive challenges. Determining and forever reevaluating where this balance lies is the answer to the question of where the line is drawn. It’s also the reason why we are seeing more people like Duane Nickull. He represents a new breed of vendor executives able to first construct out of existing services highly integrated stack models embracing common infrastructures, then navigate the Open XML – Open Internet forums to present key interoperability initiatives, and finally to successfully arbitrate the differences in ways that fully validate and return the investment and trust of an anxious customer base.
There is a difference between “interoperable” and “integrated”, and i think it’s here that the importance of Open Source truly comes into play. Open Source communities provide highly interoperable components. Community friendly vendors like Novell, IBM, Red Hat, Sun, Progeny, Xandros, Lindows, TiVO and Spike Source provide integrated solutions based on interoperable components.
Microsoft, IBM, Adobe, Novell, Oracle and Sun all provide integrated stacks. The Sun integrated stack starts at the lowest level of binary compatibility and extends to the top of enterprise heap. Microsoft starts at the OS level and is just now leveraging the desktop monopoly to work it’s way up into enterprise stack. IBM is making an extremely flexible if not galactic integration model. What separates all integrated stack offerings is the measure of open interoperability at the component level. Integrated stacks built on Open Source components have an extremely high level of open interoperability, including for some components the future proof, forever open guarantee of the GPL. In contrast, the Microsoft XP stack is based on a cascading entanglement of interfaces, protocols, applications, developer tools, frameworks and server suites bolted together is ways unseen, unknown, or partially known to those with permission. This approach works very well for Microsoft, but is high risk to everyone else caught up in the Windows ecosystem.
Given a choice, everyone would choose some variation of the Open Stack model. What’s surprising is that even when not given a choice, and in the face of mounting barriers, outright intimidation, and even legal threats, the marketplace is moving to Open Source. And if they can’t make the leap to Open Source, then they are demanding at the least, Open Standards.
IMHO, the Open Internet spawned and made possible the digitally collaborative communities known as Open Source. And although the idea of the Internet preceded by four years the invention of UNiX, many would argue that it is UNiX that made the Internet possible. Perhaps the more important point to be made here though is that the Open Internet and Open Source share the UNiX model of piping together loosely coupled components.
Command line piping may be the tradition, but there is reason and ecosystem logic as to why Open Source components are so highly interoperable and easy to integrate. On their own, the efforts of Open Source communities are useless. It is only when they are piped together or professionally configured into integrated stacks that they make sense. The law of the Open Source jungle is interoperate or else. No community is an island. Cooperating with the ecosystem is the difference between having purpose or being banished.
With the Open Internet we might describe and measure this interoperability on terms of Open Interfaces, Open Communication and Messaging protocols, Open Run Time Engines and Libraries, and Open XML technologies. What the new breed of vendor executives bring to the table is the vision and skill set needed to navigate and build on these terms of interoperability.
One might argue that Microsoft trounced Apple because they brought about a platform ecosystem far more inclusive and open to participation. In selling the Windows platform to software developers, hardware vendors, and consumers, Chairman Bill made three promises. All of which needed to be fulfilled before the Windows ecosystem could form and reach critical mass. He promised an open hardware reference platform that would ease application development and commoditise everything below the OS. He promised developers above the OS ae level playing field defined by an Open Windows API. He even went so far as to assure everyone that there was a Chinese Wall between Windows OS and Microsoft Applications – Developer tools divisions. And, he promised mass distribution of the Windows OS, creating a common infrastructure for digital solutions.
The problem Microsoft now faces is that the incredibly robust ecosystem they built now finds it more important to be part of the Open Internet than subservient to the Windows API. Part of this is due to the fact that Microsoft has proved time and again that they can’t be trusted as a common carrier of a digital ecosystem much less as the foundation of a newly emerging digital civilization. Part of it is due to the fact that Microsoft ruthlessly used their developer network to grow new market categories, only to swoop in later to seize all opportunities when the category finally became profitable. And part of this is due to the simple fact that the Open Internet has such a low barrier to entry, but high level of quality participation, that it was beyond unstoppable as a universal platform of connectivity and collaborative computing.
Even though the great herd of Windows users remains tethered to Microsoft, it is the Open Internet API that developers write too. Sure you can cloak the Open Internet in .NET and MS XML garb, but they are always dancing around something owned by none, used by all. Chairman Bill pulled out all the stops to crush Netscape and Java, and yet the Open Internet invasion continues. The time tested method of “embrace, extend, extinguish” just doesn’t work well with a technology platform built exactly to route around barriers.
From the gitgo the Apple iPOD strategy has been to erect barriers, and build a marketplace within the confines. Nothing new here. At least Apple is up front about it. Microsoft’s strategy is one of deception. They hope to erect unseen barriers in hopes that by the time the great herd realizes they’re trapped, it will be to late to route around the problem. It’s worked before and it might work again. Never underestimate the great herds penchant for being deceived. The greatest threat to the Open Internet isn’t Microsoft. It’s the great herds determination to keep their heads down, their grazing uninterrupted, even while they’re being stampeded over a cliff.
And then there are those who respect the Open Internet and are willing to take their chances “running the stack”. Personally i don’t think there is anyway Microsoft can stop IBM, Novell, and Adobe from cutting into the great herd at the desktop level with WorkPlace alternatives, and moving the herd en mass to a dependence on Open Internet friendly API’s as the foundation for just about everything they do. We shall see.
~ge~
james Governor says:
August 15, 2005 at 2:17 am
holy shit gary nails it.
i suggest you repost some of this rather than just deliciousing… the content is too good not to distribute a little more widely
James Governor's MonkChips says:
August 31, 2005 at 8:22 am
Open Data is 3D data, Rich data is open data
I just came across a great take from Bill Scott on the question of data, and what makes it useful. Bill, one of the guys responsible for the Rico open source AJAX project, is working on definition of “richness”, which…