On MovieTome: R2D2 was in Star Trek?
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 24 of 38:
Next »
« Previous
You raise a worthwhile point.
Not ActiveX, the one about the many devices used to browse.

You've heard of the network effect. As recorded in the anti-trust case and elsewhere, it's the idea that a single standard is needed for an industryu like computing to grow. On pc's, it was Windows. Because everyone had Windows, people doing applications could write for a specific and growing set of capabilities. Saved time, trouble, expense.

Now, if the network effect is to continue into these new devices, the issue becomes, can the netwrok effect arise from a committee, any committee, or does it require a single dominant agent, as Microsoft was the dominant agent earlier?

Because I am familiar with committees, I tend to believe the standard will be set by a company. That company might not be Microsoft. But one of the ways to identify the eventual winner, committee or competitor, is speed and flexibility of response to other technological changes. Microsoft has done well in this type of situation before, so I definitely would not count them out in this situation.
Posted by: Anton Philidor   Posted on: 03/17/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

I might add  rapson | 03/16/05
And in fairness, Acid2 should include ActiveX controls...  Anton Philidor | 03/16/05
contradiction there Mr. Microshill  Jeff Spicoli | 03/16/05
Okay, subordinate Microsoft to 90% of browsers...  Anton Philidor | 03/16/05
There is NO SUBORDINATION! Get over it!  Jeff Spicoli | 03/16/05
If "most everyone" is the standard of measure...  Anton Philidor | 03/16/05
Anton, you let your worship of the almighty dollar ...  Judas I. | 03/16/05
Time to Cry Monopoly  nucrash | 03/17/05
Standards and progress.  seosamh_z | 03/16/05
Oh..  Jeff Spicoli | 03/16/05
You really are a t*t.  seosamh_z | 03/17/05
ActiveX  Harry Bardal | 03/16/05
I disagree  rapson | 03/16/05
Difference  Anton Philidor | 03/16/05
But ActiveX  IT_User | 03/16/05
If you choose to leave out ActiveX...  Anton Philidor | 03/16/05
Are there other aspects  IT_User | 03/16/05
Nice Troll...  Patrick Jones | 03/16/05
I prefer, hoist with their own petard.  Anton Philidor | 03/16/05
Simple answer to clear up your delusions  Jeff Spicoli | 03/16/05
Ah, ActiveX...  Yen_z | 03/16/05
Sorry, Anton  Update victim | 03/16/05
ActiveX is a security nightmare!  B.O.F.H. | 03/16/05
You raise a worthwhile point.  Anton Philidor | 03/17/05
so they've already got our money  bthomasmo@... | 03/16/05
Yup  Jeff Spicoli | 03/16/05
Read As...  BitTwiddler | 03/16/05
Ouch!  Yagotta B. Kidding | 03/16/05
Maybe MS will finally get a nightly build team  FilledOut | 03/16/05
A major misstatement  Roger Ramjet | 03/16/05
Good catch  rapson | 03/16/05
Why does MS have to be open compliant  osreinstall | 03/16/05
We have been.  nucrash | 03/17/05
Not That  osreinstall | 03/17/05
Nothing more or less?  rapson | 03/17/05
Nope Maybe  osreinstall | 03/17/05
I guess I don't see it  rapson | 03/18/05
I read more into it  osreinstall | 03/18/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
Premier Vendor Content Whitepapers, webcasts & resources from our Power Center Sponsors