Tim, what if the documents being created are subject to FOIA? It seems like almost any government document might in principle have to be shared with some citizen, and it’s a limit on the government’s accountability to put a EULA restriction on the citizen’s ability to use the document.

Tim, what if the documents being created are subject to FOIA? It seems like almost any government document might in principle have to be shared with some citizen, and it’s a limit on the government’s accountability to put a EULA restriction on the citizen’s ability to use the document.

For a long time the tech industry has tried to avoid compatibility in order to lock users into their technology. IBM did it (think both mainframe era and the IBM PC), Microsoft sure does it (monopolistic behavior), Cisco does it sometimes (EIGRP), the “last mile” service providers do it (try running your own cable line and it gets cost-prohibitive really quick). Sometimes, the technology is cheaper because of the tight vertical integration, other times it’s more expensive because the vendor knows that you can’t afford the switch costs.

It also makes sense because as a vendor/contractor, you’ll amortize the initial standup costs to average out over a period of time–say, a year. If your customers leave prior to that year, then you lose money on the whole deal.

The only people who want compatibility are users who like low switch costs and vendors who sell infrastructure that has to plug into everything else. Yes, that’s the majority of the populace.

For a long time the tech industry has tried to avoid compatibility in order to lock users into their technology. IBM did it (think both mainframe era and the IBM PC), Microsoft sure does it (monopolistic behavior), Cisco does it sometimes (EIGRP), the “last mile” service providers do it (try running your own cable line and it gets cost-prohibitive really quick). Sometimes, the technology is cheaper because of the tight vertical integration, other times it’s more expensive because the vendor knows that you can’t afford the switch costs.

It also makes sense because as a vendor/contractor, you’ll amortize the initial standup costs to average out over a period of time–say, a year. If your customers leave prior to that year, then you lose money on the whole deal.

The only people who want compatibility are users who like low switch costs and vendors who sell infrastructure that has to plug into everything else. Yes, that’s the majority of the populace.

Also I just noticed that in my first comment I said “Appletalk to USB,” when of course it was ADB to USB.

Also I just noticed that in my first comment I said “Appletalk to USB,” when of course it was ADB to USB.

Open platforms are a good idea in most cases, but open business models that allow ISPs to experiment with integrated add-on services are also a fine idea. I’m also open to the idea of exclusivity arrangements that allow more revenue to be brought into the net company, allowing it to expand and grow faster. Schmidt might feel differently.

Cord, I think it’s important to distinguish between vertically-integrated business models and proprietary architectures. Vertically-integrated business models obviously can work very well–look at Apple for a sterling example–but some of the best vertically-integrated companies nevertheless construct their products atop open standards. Here too, Apple is the poster child: the story of the last decade has been Apple’s gradual abandonment of home-grown or niche standards and protocols in favor of industry-standard ones: Appletalk to USB, PowerPC to x86, Mac OS 9 to *BSD, Appletalk printing to CUPS, and I could go on.

No one disputes that companies can create a lot of value for consumers by selling consumers an integrated widget that includes a lot of different components designed to work well together. The question is whether consumers benefit when a company designs the interfaces between those components using a proprietary standard when open alternatives are available. Generally speaking, I think the answer to that is “no.”

Now that isn’t to say that proprietary interfaces can’t be very lucrative for the company that creates them. And there may be cases where a company won’t be able to turn a profit unless he’s able to capture some of the rents that come with controlling a popular proprietary interface. Obviously, consumers don’t benefit if a product never gets created at all, so I don’t think the government should prohibit companies from creating proprietary interfaces.

However, I think it’s important to keep in mind that the primary reason proprietary architectures are profitable is that they allow companies to limit competition and charge consumers higher prices. Therefore, from the consumer’s perspective, proprietary architectures will almost always be at best a necessary evil. They might benefit consumers indirectly by allowing companies to finance the development of products they wouldn’t otherwise be able to finance, but the proprietary-ness in and of itself is almost never beneficial to the consumer.

Open platforms are a good idea in most cases, but open business models that allow ISPs to experiment with integrated add-on services are also a fine idea. I’m also open to the idea of exclusivity arrangements that allow more revenue to be brought into the net company, allowing it to expand and grow faster. Schmidt might feel differently.

Cord, I think it’s important to distinguish between vertically-integrated business models and proprietary architectures. Vertically-integrated business models obviously can work very well–look at Apple for a sterling example–but some of the best vertically-integrated companies nevertheless construct their products atop open standards. Here too, Apple is the poster child: the story of the last decade has been Apple’s gradual abandonment of home-grown or niche standards and protocols in favor of industry-standard ones: Appletalk to USB, PowerPC to x86, Mac OS 9 to *BSD, Appletalk printing to CUPS, and I could go on.

No one disputes that companies can create a lot of value for consumers by selling consumers an integrated widget that includes a lot of different components designed to work well together. The question is whether consumers benefit when a company designs the interfaces between those components using a proprietary standard when open alternatives are available. Generally speaking, I think the answer to that is “no.”

Now that isn’t to say that proprietary interfaces can’t be very lucrative for the company that creates them. And there may be cases where a company won’t be able to turn a profit unless he’s able to capture some of the rents that come with controlling a popular proprietary interface. Obviously, consumers don’t benefit if a product never gets created at all, so I don’t think the government should prohibit companies from creating proprietary interfaces.

However, I think it’s important to keep in mind that the primary reason proprietary architectures are profitable is that they allow companies to limit competition and charge consumers higher prices. Therefore, from the consumer’s perspective, proprietary architectures will almost always be at best a necessary evil. They might benefit consumers indirectly by allowing companies to finance the development of products they wouldn’t otherwise be able to finance, but the proprietary-ness in and of itself is almost never beneficial to the consumer.