Dave was discussing his attendance at an identity conference when he made the statement that:…the reason I was able to make RSS 2.0 stick was that for a brief period I controlled all sides of the technology and could create consensus over a cup of coffee, with myself….¬† Seems there’s no equivalent opportunity in identity, which was already a contentious, fractured and divided world, before the Internet even existed.I don‚Äôt think anyone could argue that the introduction of RSS 2.0 wasn‚Äôt a good thing for the Internet and it‚Äôs users….¬† Being open creates opportunities for companies like Apple, it allows them to coexist with monopolies like Windows, to develop a superior product, even though another company has dominant market share.¬† Maybe someday Apple will dominate, but that day will likely be a bad day for open interfaces because while Apple benefits from the openness of others, they themselves aren’t willing to leave the door open for others.How is the conflict resolved between; it was a good thing when Dave had complete control over the technology and could quickly and efficiently create the standards for RSS 2.0, thereby giving the public a superior product; but it‚Äôs a bad thing when Apple has complete control of it‚Äôs technology in order to deliver a superior product that just works?I know there is a huge difference in scale here but is not the principle the same or am I totally off base?
{ 0 comments }
