Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Alternatives to the W3C
 Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > At Thursday 1/20/00 03:47 PM -0500, Tyler Baker wrote: > >directly. A lot of people complain about why it has taken so long for > >Netscape to include > >XSL support, and all I can say to them is "you get what you pay for". One > >browser or two > >browsers or three browsers or four, it really does not matter because the > >incentive to > >innovate with web browsers is no more. > > "Free" browsers aren't guaranteed to last forever, any more than "free" > razors or "free" salt pretzels in a bar. They're marketing "giveaways" > designed to sell products. Given that Microsoft may or may not be here in a > recognizable form in the fairly near future, it doesn't seem safe to count > too many chickens based on continuing Microsoft dominance of the browser > market either. IBM used to *own* the computing world, and it's now quite > possible to spend months or years as a computer programmer without even > hearing their name mentioned. Very true. But I know of several restaurants who went down the tubes because their happy hours were wayyyyy tooo extravagant and when they stopped giving out all the free stuff, everyone got mad and stopped going to the restaurants altogether. Once you start giving something away for free, you can basically never charge for it again as it has been commoditized to such a low value. > The most recent competitive strategy of giving away browsers was based on > the fact that they have the potential to eliminate most or all of the > operating system user interface and sell back ends based on their > integration with back end products. Both Microsoft and Netscape used to > charge for their browser products, remember? Netscape was targeting the > Windows GUI as well as the NT Server market and Microsoft reacted with free > and then "integrated" browsers built into the OS. There are still browser > makers selling browsers (e.g. Opera) based on feature sets, even within > standards and in the face of "free" competition. Well I applaud the folks making the Opera browser, but any success they will ever have will be severely limited because no average internet user will ever expect to pay for a browser again, let alone any internet application. This culture of free stuff on the web is what is destroying a lot of the internet companies out there as they find that once they get their market share at an extraordinary cost, their users expect their services to keep being free forever. ICQ before they were eventually bought out by AOL was constantly trying to figure out a way to charge for ICQ, but the user revolt at the rumors were so great that they found it impossible to even suggest charging a small monthly fee for the service. And of course there are the web content sites whose entire income is based on banner advertising. This well as everyone knows is quickly drying up as click-through rates for banner ads are next to nothing these days, and many advertisers are pulling banner ads from their marketing budgets altogether. It is no wonder the internet software industry seems to have hit a point of stagnation, even though the user base of the internet is growing exponentially. > Have you looked at the future plans and developments documents at W3C > lately? There really does seem to be a grand and powerful vision there and > the various XML-related standards have the potential to supercede *much* of > the proprietary stuff the browser makers have done in the past and will do > in the near future. Whether anyone agrees or not, hand-held devices will be > browsing the Web in great numbers in the near future. XML and related > standards make that possible. Look at the history of radio, which is almost > a non-issue nowadays except in portable devices. Not everyone has no life > away from their 17 inch monitor and really wants to surf the Web like early > radio listeners spent hours glued to their custom consoles by headphone cords. Everyone knows the TV manufacturers make little or no money and often lose money on TV's these days. The only reason they keep selling them is because making TV's helps keep a lot of people employed as well as the fact that they are a gateway to selling other gadgets. As for surfing the internet on cell-phones and other hand-held devices? Give me a break. Maybe for checking a few sports scores or some stock quotes or a few text messages, but browsing web sites? Perhaps when VR helmets and similiar technology becomes cheap enough to manufacture at a profit for the web masses will we see people actively surfing the web on something other than a notebook computer or PC. > Standards don't mean that innovation stops any more than standardizing on > using SAE (or metric) bolts, four rubber wheels, a gas pedal, and a > steering wheel as the basis for an automobile means that we're all still > driving Model T Fords. The Model T was made possible by standardization, > and quickly surpassed custom-made cars within a few years. That doesn't > mean that custom car makers are out of business; there are probably more > custom car makers now than there ever were. But how many people do you know > who own one? Well, that was because Model T's were dirt cheap compared to everything else. The Model T eventually almost drove Ford out of business because Henry Ford was too stubborn to try and manufacture anything else. > The problem with browsers has been that heretofore the browser makers have > been inventing their own nuts and bolts, so the tool kits of every designer > have had to include tools to deal with all of them at great expense. While > this is typical of an immature industry, standardization quickly drives > custom solutions to the edge of the marketplace rather than the center. Standardization also somtimes is synonymous with stagnation. Once something is standardized, by definition it is not supposed to change. I am not so sure standardizing applications is a great idea. Yah it might benefit some people in the short term, but in the long term you end up with applications like Navigator and IE that have no incentive to improve. Does anyone ever remember to the term "internet years"? Whatever happened to that concept? Did the computing world just totally burn out? > If you look at the history of tools, *real* innovations and improvements in > productivity have followed quickly on standardization. When SAE (and > metric) nut and bolt sizes were agreed upon, socket sets and air wrenches > followed because they were newly possible. Before that you had the choice > of adjustable wrenches or custom wrenches designed for the particular item > and that was it. A socket was too expensive to build when it only fit one > nut and an air wrench needs sockets to be practical. In some industries this is often the case. But comparing software to nuts and bolts is a little too primitive a comparison I think. The software industry as everyone knows operates by a different set of laws in rules in how it operates. > Programming languages have the same history; the first were designed to fit > one machine and one machine only. The current software industry owes > everything to standard languages which hide the details of the machine and > enable the designer to concentrate on function and real innovation, not how > many registers are available and whether a conditional branch can be made > within the limits of a near jump. I completely agree. But web browsers are not akin to a programming language. Web browsers are an application I feel even though their interface is somewhat defined by the content coming from a web server. Many people may disagree but I really think that the web browser had a lot more potential before certain mergers and acquisitions killed the corporate culture over at Netscape. > There are an enormous number of innovations that a browser maker can make > *within* the parameters of standards processes that can make life easier > and more fun for users, just like automobile manufacturers compete on the > basis of style, power, image, economy, and the hundred other tangible and > intangible benefits that the customer sees in choosing a BMW over a Lexus, > or a Jeep Cherokee over a Hummer. Of course. But what is the motivation to do so other than for the sheer public good. Why should AOL care at all whether people use Netscape or not? Why should MS care whether people use IE now that Netscape is a defunct company? Where is the motivation among developers and companies to build a better browser? > But one of the many things a user *doesn't* have to decide is whether their > local auto mechanic has a wrench that will fit the spark plugs, whether > they prefer a steering wheel or a tiller, and whether they're able to use > the highways designed for Fords or Chevrolets. Cars are not the same thing as software. But you illustrate my point exactly in that users do have a clear choice between a Ford, Chevrolet, or something with a little more resale value like a Honda or Toyota. In the software industry, users have the choice between two stagnant browsers that will likely see few if any innovations in the years to come. Tyler xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 Unsubscribe by posting to majordom@i... the message unsubscribe xml-dev (or) unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email@your-subscribed-address Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
