| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Missing the pointMissing the pointPosted Oct 22, 2008 14:24 UTC (Wed) by dwheeler (guest, #1216)In reply to: Lock In? by Xanadu Parent article: Why OpenOffice.org Failed - and What to Do About It (ComputerWorld UK)
Yes, the key point is that by using proprietary formats/interfaces, EVERY time you want to switch to another program, you pay huge costs. In contrast, using open standards, the switching cost is tiny (ideally zero). Which is why proprietary formats and interfaces subvert the usual role of competition: Normally, competition would force suppliers to continuously lower costs and improve quality, because customers would otherwise switch, but if they cannot effectively switch, suppliers can have high rents and low quality with near impunity.
(Log in to post comments)
Missing the point Posted Oct 22, 2008 14:29 UTC (Wed) by frankie (subscriber, #13593) [Link]
That also motivates 3000 pages of standard description for OpenXML and many obfuscated details: a huge ramp for a truly OXML compatible third party product, resulting in an another lock-in format but blessed as a standard one.
Missing the point Posted Oct 23, 2008 12:56 UTC (Thu) by hmh (subscriber, #3838) [Link]
And, when that fails EVEN after it did become an standard, take over the other one (ODF) which is not of stellar quality either. I shudder to think of what the already hideous ODF will become in five years.
The more I see of it, the more I am convinced that SGML or a human-usable restricted set of it (say, Docbook, and nowadays DocBook XML and XHTML strict) is the only thing we can really trust to endure for 20+ years.
That, and TeX (and LaTeX) documents without too many obscure extra modules. Go figure!
|
|
||||||||||||