Opensource Economics is still new for many people. Here, Law professor Yochai Benkler explains what it is and how it is shaping the human society.
Reuven Lerner makes an excellent case against OOXML at OStatic
Unfortunately, yesterday’s adoption of OOXML as an ISO standard fails on all three counts. To begin with, it seems that the OOXML standard was poorly defined, leaving a huge number of ambiguities and undefined terms. That’s not surprising, given the fact that it is 6,000 — yes, six thousand — pages long, a size which makes it nearly impossible to ensure internal consistency. The large size also ensures that it will be difficult to create alternative implementations; would you like to be the programmer charged with checking that a particular program adheres to all 6,000 pages of the standard?
Moreover, parts of the standard require a programmer to deviate from many other, correct standards. For example, 1900 was not a leap year, as is the case with three out of every four “00″ years. (Thus, 1900 was not a leap year, but 2000 was.) Microsoft got this point wrong when they first implemented Excel, and as a result, the OOXML standard requires that implementers make this same error, for the sake of consistency.
There are also serious questions regarding some Microsoft patents that any implementer will need to use. Microsoft has promised that it will not sue OOXML implementers for patent infringement, but the Groklaw site points out that this statement might be meaningless.
I posted this comment in one of the ReadWriteWeb posts. Since the topic fits well into the theme of this blog, the concept of open web, I thought I will also post it in my blog.
The death of Readburner brings into focus a very important question. How can we rely on a web service offered by a small startups whose longevity cannot be ascertained. Readburner is a different kinda web service where we do not upload huge amounts of data. What about those two people web services where we invest our time and upload all our data? How can we rely on such companies with our valuable data? Should we wait for some big companies like Google to acquire the service before we start investing our time?
These questions bring to forefront two of the important ideas in the technology world, Open source and Data Portability. All the web services should offer a way to take your data with us using open standards. This will ensure that we will have our data in the event of a web service shutting its shop. The second important point is that these web services should consider releasing their code in one of the open source licenses. Right now, some of the web services release their code under open source licenses. For example, if wordpress.com or wikidot.com or wik.is is going to shut the shop tomorrow, nothing will happen to me except a few hours of downtime. I can take my data from these web services in an open format, use their released source code to install the software on one of my servers or somewhere in the cloud and, more importantly, my life will not get affected. How cool is that? I hope that all the mom and pop web services startups take the option of data portability seriously and consider releasing their source code to public, at least, when they shut their shop.
Technorati Tags: Dataportability, Data Portability, Opensource, Open Source, Open Standards, Readburner, Web 2.0
I am going to write a series on Facebook-Scoble fiasco. Scoble has an issue with facebook on a personal level (his account got disabled and he was on the verge of losing all his social data) but I have an issue on a more philosophical level. There are so many misconceptions about the issue and I have tried to convince people of their misconceptions on twitter and also on some blogs. I thought I will take each and every point offered in support of facebook and discuss it here. I will try my best to publish my first post by tonite. If not, I assure you that it will be up tomorrow. In a way, I am upset about Robert Scoble losing his account but this is much more than one person getting kicked by some company. It is more about a philosophy and this is an opportunity for me to create an awareness about a fundamental right of each and every user in this world. I will be back soon with my first post.
During Scoble’s early days of facebook evangelism, I voiced my concern about data being locked up inside the walled gardens of facebook (in one of his kyte.tv sessions). At that time, he said he doesn’t care about getting struck inside a walled garden. I wanted to argue with him about the consequences of such a thinking but didn’t do it for some reason. Later, probably due to the influence of people like Marc Canter, he started embracing the notion of open standards. He even signed the Bill of Rights for Social Networks. I wrote about Scoble’s change of heart in a positive direction sometime during Sept. 2007. Today, his facebook account is disabled because he tried to take his own data with him. I am pretty sure he has fully understood why I tried to convince him long back about data portability. I am sure he has understood how dangerous it is to put the data behind a walled garden. Now, I am calling on him to become the champion of data portability in social networks. He has a huge following and he can use his position to create an awareness about the dangers of having your data behind walled gardens and the importance of data portability. If he takes up this call, he can get back at facebook, by forcing them to change their ways because of pressure from the users (remember beacon?) and he will also get a satisfaction that he played a role in creating a civilized world where users are empowered rather than greedy companies. Will you be the champion for openness, Robert?
When Google announced Open Handset Alliance and the release of Android SDK under open source license, I was pretty excited. In fact, few people like Robert Scoble even questioned my excitement during a twitter conversation. Some of the arguments put forward by pundits against my excitement towards Google’s strategy were
To all those who were skeptical about Google’s open wireless strategy, I had argued that it is a welcome move, even if their skepticisms turns out to be true. It was my hope that an open source kinda approach is the only way we can break the monopolies of the giant wireless carriers. The open source approach put a dent on the Microsoft monopoly, even in the not so competitive areas like desktop software. Also, the open source revolution moved the industry from its dark ages to the current Web 2.0+ era, where the market place is opened up so much that new players are emerging every day. It was my hope that if the open philosophy is introduced into the wireless market place, the free markets will then take care of everything else and we will easily move into an open standards based wireless world. Google’s Android effort just did that. It brought in the concept of openness to the marketplace. Now only a more and more open approach can survive the free markets. Today’s announcement by Verizon just proves this philosophy. Now, the competition will drive more and more openness and we will soon have an open standards based wireless marketplace, empowering the consumers.
Some people are more worried about the lost subsidies from the wireless carriers for the handset. This is an unwarranted skepticism. Open source mobile software like Android and mobile linux software will drive down the costs of the handsets. Heavy competition among the handset makers will also drive down the prices. I wouldn’t be surprised if we get a decent handset for $25 (I have seen $35-40 handsets in India when I visited the country few months back). In fact, even a sophisticated handset offering capabilities equivalent to a low end windows mobile phone might just cost around hundred dollars. I wouldn’t subscribe to any FUDs regarding high handset prices. I am pretty convinced that it is just a matter of time before we are bombarded with low cost handsets. Low cost handsets with complete freedom to choose any network and install any applications is the ultimate empowerment of consumers. When it happens, we will turn back and thank Google for the first step taken in this direction.
The best quote I have seen about Google’s mobile initiative comes from Forrester Analyst Charles Golvin through GigaOM
The impact is broad across all players in the mobile environment, driving innovative developers to craft new applications that leverage both the mobile networks and the Internet, and helping to change the way consumers behave when on the go. Google is far from the only beneficiary, as competitors like Yahoo (YHOO) and even Microsoft (MSFT) stand to benefit should they embrace this approach; the impact will build slowly over time as initially the devices using this platform will form a very small percentage of the market.
I would extend the same quote to Google’s Open Social initiative too. We are seeing pundits wondering about the lack of any open social apps or user experience. In order to really feel the impact of open social, we may have to wait for quite a long time. It will slowly build over various social networks and eventually into the user’s psyche.
PS: Please don’t get me wrong on my posts. I am not supportive of any of Google’s business strategies. I am only supporting their efforts to open up both the social networking world and the mobile world. These two strategies are going to be the first step towards achieving a future based on open standards.
Josh Catone has written a post on RWW titled “Why facebook shouldn’t fear open social“. His arguments run as follows (roughly).
He develops his story based on these two premises. I do agree with him that users are important part of social networks. Without users, the term social has absolutely no meaning. However, he tries to portray as if users don’t care about open APIs and data portability and they only care about user experience. I do not agree with his argument. His post is similar to the arguments put forward by supporters of Microsoft Windows OS against open source. Users may not care about portability of apps across various social networks. But they do worry about the portability of data from one network to another. It is very important for people to realize that an open standards based approach is not a business model. It is about freedom offered to users of the software/service. If pundits are getting excited, it is not because Google has come up with a business strategy to beat up facebook but due to the fact that some company has taken the first step towards open standards and, thereby, empowering the users. If Google uses this to whip up facebook, it is not a problem of the users. The important thing for users is the portability of their data. The way to achieve portability of data is by adapting open standards. This first step towards the open standards by Google is what makes this announcement important than user experience or anything else. Any experience of the user with a software or a service becomes totally meaningless if their fruits of the labor (time spent on the software/service) are held hostage by the company offering the software/service. Letz say I go to a brewery near my house to socialize with people. Suppose if the brewery says that I can only talk to those people inside the brewery and nowhere else because the beer in that brewery gives me enough kick to socialize with them, does it make any sense? No. Same is the case with social networking sites that tells the users that they can only have their social graph inside their site and nowhere else. In the case of brewery, the beer could enhance my social experience but the brewery cannot tell me that I can only socialize with my friends drinking only that particular beer and in their bar. I have the complete freedom to take my friends wherever I like in whatever way I want. It is this freedom that gives me the ultimate experience in my social life. If a particular beer in another hangout makes me sick, I should be the one to determine where I should take my friends next time. The freedom should be in the hands of users and this freedom is the best user experience anyone can ever have. Any argument that puts any other “user experience” over this freedom is plain “Microsoft talk” and nothing else. Josh, users might stay with facebook because their friends are still with facebook. But it is not permanent. The cost of switching from one social network to another is zero. Under such a scenario, it just takes one trigger to move the users from one social networking system to another. It is in the interest of facebook that they should embrace open standards. It is not necessary that they have to embrace open social. In fact, I would be more than happy if they can open up much further than open social that it looks like a walled garden. The bottom line is they need to open up if they want to stay competitive. They need to empower the users and allow them to control their data, if they really want to be the company of the future. Any attempts to discredit the opening up of standards is pure “Microsoft talk” and it is time to wake up to a reality where users are in control of their information than the company hosting it. We have moved from dark ages into a more civil society where open standards are the way of life. If data portability is built into the platform, developing a great user experience is just a child’s play.
Tags: ReadWriteWeb, Josh Catone, Facebook, Open Social, Social Networks, Social Networking
Microsoft says “Write a web application using Silverlight and you can get desktop integration”. Adobe says “Write a web application using AIR and you can get desktop integration”. Mozilla says “write a website *without* doing anything special, and *we* will take care of desktop integration.
Source: MSDN Blogs
I am still not convinced about Prism. It appears more like a me too app than of any innovation. It could be due to my own ignorance about Prism. I hope my opinion changes as I dig more about it. Any takes on Prism?
