Comment by lwhi
1 month ago
Sorry, but you're incorrect.
If a particular product is tied to a specific proprietary tech stack, then the consumer is also tied to specific suppliers. This is known as vendor lock in.
Microsoft used this approach with Internet Explorer back in the old days; ensuring that it provided proprietary elements and implementation, that would encourage developers to provide websites that only functioned using their browser.
Open standards allow choice.
That can be one aspect of it, though I would argue that doesn't mean open standards are always better for competition.
I think you're also assuming the only competition that matters is long term. In the short term the potential for locking users into your own ecosystem can incentivize short term competition.
Long term competition seems like a good goal, but that assumption wasn't part of it at the beginning of this chain.
If we don't think about long term competition we end up in the scenario we are in now.
Two main players. No choice.
> that doesn't mean open standards are always better for competition
Yes, they are. Show us a counter-example.
The web is open and is famously very competitive. We have three whole browser engines and only two of them are implemented by for-profit corporations whose valuations have 13 digits. I mean other ones exist, but the average modern developer claims it's your fault when something doesn't work because you use firefox or safari and also demands the browser rewrap all the capabilities the operating system already provides for you because they can't be assed to do the work of meeting users where they are.
12 replies →
Did you see my earlier comment? Car manufacturing for decades or so years didn't have open standards with regards to parts used or how they were built. We ended up with a huge number of competing car manufacturers compared to what we have today.
2 replies →