On 27/11/2007, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 27/11/2007, Billy Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > It is naieve to think that a choice of providers will have identical > > > functionality. > > > > I wasn't clear - I meant common open APIs, ie. the same API with > different > > vendors behind it. That way they will offer very similar levels of > > functionality, with the choice being based on how good they run. > > Sure, and I'm suggesting that a common API will be a base that each > gatekeeper will add bespoke features too. I'll be surprised if similar > services offered with a "common open API" from Google and Yahoo and > Microsoft do not have any specialist features to differentiate them.
Does the track record of Microsoft not show that they created aparent APIs and then did not use them themselves? The main reason that Word displaced WordPerfect, Excel displaced Lotus 123, Access displaced dBase and P-P-Powerpoint was dominant was that Microsoft had secret - and faster - APIs for their own applications. I remember being at a Microsoft Developer Event where they warned the audience off from even trying to come up with a better word processor! This didn't just apply to the Windows version of the products, this was also true for MS-DOS. As I recall, Peter Norton (of the Utilities and AntiVirus fame) made his name originally by debuninking the "hidden" MS-DOS APIs. > > Freedom means more than a choice of lords. > > > > You can happily run your own things and then be your own lord, > > ...but not if the gatekeepers continue to offer software to the public > without making the source code to that software public. To be fair, I think that there is an important point missing here. A closed API is fine if the service is best run somewhere remote. For example, if I need to use a database engine, I'm really bothered about how well the API supports my SQL statements, not how they are executed. On the other hand, software that is transferred onto my own machine, I care more about. I seem to have a concept of personal rights that extends to my computer's CPU. If the code is in my machine, I should be able to know how it works, if I so choose. It's a strange concept though. The logic of the argument is that I could, if I had the time, work out how it all works from the assembler code. If it can be run on my computer, then it has to be in a published format. CPUs can't be "closed" because if the manufacturer refused to let you know the instruction set, they wouldn't sell that many. But is that an API? Where is the boundary between CPU and APIs? At the other level (and bringing it back to backstage) what about the well known API of RSS? Should I care how the RSS feed is created? -- > Regards, > Dave > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
