Of software ecosystems, symbiosis and co-innovation

TalkBack 1 of 2:

Next »

• Thread View
• Flat View

Blurring definitions.

At one time, symbiosis meant a mutually beneficial, often mutually dependent relationship between or among species.
Now that defintion of symbiosis has apparently become secondary, and mutualism has been introduced to cover the original definition:

From Merriam Webster:
1 : the living together of two dissimilar organisms in more or less intimate association or close union
2 : the intimate living together of two dissimilar organisms in a mutually beneficial relationship; especially : MUTUALISM

mutualism: mutually beneficial association between different kinds of organisms

The same thing has happened with other words, such as addiction.


I'll assert the reason for such changes is that a word in its original meaning had positive or negative connotations that a redefiner can use.

For example, addiction has a negative connotation unrelated to the meaning of the word.

So if one can redefine addiction as "an activity one enjoys or benefits from doing frequently", it becomes possible to speak pejoratively of "addicted to coffee" or anything else the speaker dislikes.


The same process appears to be occurring with the term "software ecosystem".

A good example is the extensive network of applications linked to capabilities in Windows. It is appropriate to speak of a Windows ecosystem because the programs involved would not exist without Windows.

There is software which is not part of the ecosystem but which can run on Windows. These are often called platform-agnostic.

If a program moves out of the Windows ecosystem to become platform-agnostic, it's worth commenting upon.

Thus, Linux has no ecosystem. There are few programs that exist because of Linux and whose existence depends upon Linux.

Unless one blurs the defintion by broadening it beyond recognition. So, any program that runs on Linux is part of the Linux ecosystem.

Change the definition, make the point.
Of course, the change in definition renders it meaningless for analysis.


The key part of the Commentary was actually the part in which it was observed that there has been a movement from best of breed solutions top suites, associated software that works well together.

That's a Microsoft advantage.
Microsoft products work very well with other Microsoft products.

Products not made by Microsoft which are fitted exclusively to Windows work almost as well with Microsoft products as do Microsoft products.
That's the Microsoft ecosystem in action.

In short, the redefinition of an ecosystem appears to have the goal of refusing to admit that Microsoft and its ecosystem have a major advantage in the way computing is now developing.


There are other points in this Commentary to dispute, such as whether open standards will be successful if they restrict the functionality of the software complying with them.

But... enough.

Posted by: Anton Philidor   Posted on: 09/28/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• Cost-Effective IT Platform Is a Welcome Guest at Upscale and Luxury Hotel Chain Dell Wyndham International is a hotel chain renowned for offering personalized ... Download Now