<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<big>I agree with </big><big>Norbert</big><big>.<br>
<br>
In most cases (domains), while companies compete in providing
products and services, the standards that their products comply
with are 'open' or 'public'. This prevents a 'lock-in' into the
product of any one company. However, in case of the tech sector,
the company that has managed to acquire a large user/consumer base
often creates proprietary standards which are owned/controlled by
it. This gives the company an unfair advantage, since standards in
some sense influence the 'rules of the game'<br>
<br>
Thus Microsoft uses proprietary formats which it changes at its
own will (.doc to .docx) and by virtue of being a near monopoly
'locks-in' consumers to its products. This is a clear barrier to
new entrants. Though in many countries, the ODF </big><big>standard
has been adopted, the progress to actually implement it is slow
due to the prior dominance of Microsoft. Microsoft also does not
implement ODF standard in its own Office product (though this is
not any technological challenge for it), simply to discourage the
use of ODF and ensure its proprietary formats continue to be seen
as the de facto standard. Similar issue with Facebook not letting
google access contact information.</big> <br>
<big><br>
In the case of Google, while android is apparently an 'open'
platform, recently there was a news item about how google is able
to influence the development of android to a significant degree
(see for instance
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.betanews.com/article/Internal-emails-show-Googles-tight-control-over-Android/1304973434">http://www.betanews.com/article/Internal-emails-show-Googles-tight-control-over-Android/1304973434</a>).
That apart the might of google (its prowess as a search engine is
as much a function of the huge superiority it has through its
large number of data servers as of its proprietary algorithm)
ensures no level playing field, an essential attribute of a 'free
market'.<br>
<br>
It seems that the market is no panacea for our challenges in IG,
on the contrary, the presence of large monopolies/oligopolies
makes the market a threat to IG goals. Enforcing open standards is
one step by which governments/IG institutions could address this
threat. India is one of the few countries to have adopted a clear
policy favoring open standards in IT in governance
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://egovstandards.gov.in/policy/policy-on-open-standards-for-e-governance/policy_doc_and_manual_used_in_printing__recd_on_Nov_12.pdf/at_download/file">http://egovstandards.gov.in/policy/policy-on-open-standards-for-e-governance/policy_doc_and_manual_used_in_printing__recd_on_Nov_12.pdf/at_download/file</a>)
though this is still largely on paper. Having and enforcing open
standards can make the field bit more level playing...<br>
<br>
<br>
regards,<br>
Guru</big><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title></title>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
On 24/07/11 05:03, Norbert Klein wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E2B5A45.3040006@gmx.net" type="cite">On
7/24/2011 4:24 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Let’s look at the details of the case.
<br>
<br>
Taipei said it wanted Android platform users to comply with
local </blockquote>
regulations regarding trial periods and refunds.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Google said, if you force us to do that, we will withdraw
Android </blockquote>
market service from Taipei.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
To me, that seems fair enough. An agreement to disagree; a
failure to </blockquote>
transact. That should be the end of the story.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Those who are complaining about this result seem to be either </blockquote>
disconnected from economic reality or, at worst, hypocritical
believers in having your cake and eating it, too. Apparently, they
want to tell Google: you CANNOT offer services here on terms that
you find necessary to meet your needs as a supplier, but if you
withdraw service we will whine about it and imply that you should
be forced to offer service in a locality you do not want to do
business in.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
There is a very simple form of governance at work here, it’s
called </blockquote>
rational mutual adjustments to local circumstances.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
The Taipei government says, “we will impose regulations on what
you </blockquote>
do.” Google says, in response, “well, those regulations are too
costly to us, we shall choose not to do business there.” This kind
of choice occurs in thousands of different industries in thousands
of different ways. You don’t want to live in a world in which that
kind of adjustment is not possible.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
This process of choice provides checks and balances on both
players. </blockquote>
If Google is too unreasonable in its unwillingness to comply with
local consumer regulations, it will be barred from many markets
and lose out to others. If Taipei is too unreasonable in its
demands on external businesses, it will only prevent its citizens
from getting access to many valuable products and services.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Please tell me what is a better alternative?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Not an alternative in the strict sense of the word - but a third
(future) option: Open Standards Hardware.
<br>
<br>
Years ago, many "experts" did not think Linux and the applications
that run on this Open Source system would achieve the development
achieved so far.
<br>
<br>
A few years ago I was in contact with a group of technicians who
were working on an Open Standards definition for the hardware for
a mobile phone and a lot of other functions which we find in
different Symbian, Microsoft etc. mobile devices.
<br>
<br>
Surely to develop Open Standards Hardware is not as easy as
developing Open Source software. And the major players at the
existing hardware markets would probably not be keen to get
involved soon - just as the mayor players on the market for
proprietary software were not keen to see the share of Open Source
software expanding. But it does.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Norbert Klein
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>