>> I would rather they differentiate on features that really are a value-add rather than simply proprietary lock-in that provides little to no value except for the fact that all the vendors’ products are compatible with each other.
That's a given, but I actually think much of the time now when attempts at vendor lock-in are claimed it were actually honest attempts to add value that didn't work out. Adding value depends on certain projections and assumptions, some of which will turn out to have been accurate ones and others not. Assuming that knowing how that is going to turn out in advance is rarely as easy as the more cynical would have it. Not that anyone here is of course, but just generalizing. On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Peter P Morrissey <[email protected]> wrote: > The vendors absolutely need to differentiate their products with > “value-add.” The issue in my mind is how they differentiate. I would rather > they differentiate on features that really are a value-add rather than > simply proprietary lock-in that provides little to no value except for the > fact that all the vendors’ products are compatible with each other. I would > argue that standards provide consumers leverage by giving us the ability to > switch vendors more easily. This compels the vendors to be even more > innovative and more price competitive to retain customers than if they are > relying upon high switching costs. > > > > And while I agree that standards often involve frustrating political > posturing by vendors, and often take too long, many useful standards have > evolved out of this process that have served us quite well. I’m sure we > could all name a couple of dozen pretty easily. The more consumers demand > standards, make noise, delay purchases or switch vendors until there is > true compatibility, the more likely it is that vendors will respond and > provide more than simply lip service and political posturing. > > > > Pete Morrissey > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mark Duling > *Sent:* Friday, January 23, 2015 11:49 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Trying to get the Wi-Fi Alliance's Attention > > > > My thoughts too. I'm not sure how much we an complain about vendors > seeking ways to differentiate their products with a unique "value-add". > Because a vendor's value-add is nothing other than their reason for being. > If there is nothing they bring to the table that everyone else doesn't, > then they should find something else to do. > > > > I think it was Donald Knuth that once said the great thing about standards > is there are so many to choose from. Expecting vendor interoperability > beyond a certain basic level seems to me to be a form of idealism. Not > actually desirable in the real world as we know it, and only so in our > minds. We wouldn't like it even if we got it. Isn't there an old joke about > looking for a woman with intelligence, beauty, and money? > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Bruce Boardman <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is no different from any interoperable standard (SNMP is 20 years old > and still doesn't manage much). It's always the lowest common denominator, > leaving the vendors 'value-add' out. When an advanced feature gets added, > it's advanced only in age. Vendors participation in standards bodies is for > the marketing check box, not Kumbaya and World Peace. But don’t fret, that > sort of SOP is job security man! > > Bruce Boardman Networking Syracuse University 315 412-4156 > > -----Original Message----- > From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Julian Y Koh > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:45 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Trying to get the Wi-Fi Alliance's Attention > > On Thu Jan 22 2015 13:47:18 CST, Lee H Badman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I know self-promotion is in poor taste, but wanted to share this > > > > > http://www.networkcomputing.com/wireless-infrastructure/the-case-for-wlan-interoperability/a/d-id/1318718? > > > > > I think you’ve earned the right for a little self-promotion, Lee. :) > > Although you also deserve a bit of mocking for the use of “Class C > subnet.” :):):) > > > -- > Julian Y. Koh > Acting Associate Director, Telecommunications and Network Services > Northwestern University Information Technology (NUIT) > > 2001 Sheridan Road #G-166 > Evanston, IL 60208 > 847-467-5780 > NUIT Web Site: <http://www.it.northwestern.edu/> > PGP Public Key:<http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html> > > > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
