Comments on: Tagging Redux – Curse of the Bifurcated Standards Bodies http://www.douglasgourlay.com/blog/2009/07/tagging-redux-curse-of-the-bifurcated-standards-bodies/ Data Centers, Virtualization, and Cloud Computing Sun, 02 May 2010 01:04:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: LeitM http://www.douglasgourlay.com/blog/2009/07/tagging-redux-curse-of-the-bifurcated-standards-bodies/comment-page-1/#comment-122 LeitM Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:40:47 +0000 http://www.douglasgourlay.com/blog/?p=99#comment-122 Your summary in the comment about the vicious-cycle/race condition is very clear and accurate. Especially your point about the bodies being onerous and bureaucratic - case in point is the 48 byte cell size of ATM, which, reportedly, was chosen as a compromise between 32 and 64 bytes :-) Innovative vendors should be rewarded by customer adoption - interestingly, customers are more discerning than we often assume and can also reject solutions they don't need, independent of how innovative these are. As one of your other posts indicated, it would be great if innovation could also result in a simple solution, but that's not easy... :-) Your summary in the comment about the vicious-cycle/race condition is very clear and accurate. Especially your point about the bodies being onerous and bureaucratic – case in point is the 48 byte cell size of ATM, which, reportedly, was chosen as a compromise between 32 and 64 bytes :-)

Innovative vendors should be rewarded by customer adoption – interestingly, customers are more discerning than we often assume and can also reject solutions they don’t need, independent of how innovative these are.

As one of your other posts indicated, it would be great if innovation could also result in a simple solution, but that’s not easy… :-)

]]> By: Douglas Gourlay http://www.douglasgourlay.com/blog/2009/07/tagging-redux-curse-of-the-bifurcated-standards-bodies/comment-page-1/#comment-64 Douglas Gourlay Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:48:10 +0000 http://www.douglasgourlay.com/blog/?p=99#comment-64 Had a good debate/dialog with @daveobarry via Twitter this eve. Short version is I think we have a vicious-cycle/race condition here... 1) Innovative infrastructure vendors like to build new things in a way that creates competitive advantage, usually in the form of some lock-out 2) Followers always play the 'standards card' to level the playing field, yet in the process always try to change the specification just enough to nullify the advantage gained by the innovator 3) The standards bodies are rather onerous and bureaucratic so most end-customers aside from large SPs don't take the time to invest in attending/shaping the standardization Dave asserts that this is broken - I concur. However, I am not certain how this could be fixed. The innovator is taking the risk, there needs to be some reward for this risk. Innovation in infrastructure in a way that co-creates a standard inline with the shipment of the technology nullifies many of the reasons investors would want to bet on the innovator, thus reducing investment in innovation! Had a good debate/dialog with @daveobarry via Twitter this eve. Short version is I think we have a vicious-cycle/race condition here…

1) Innovative infrastructure vendors like to build new things in a way that creates competitive advantage, usually in the form of some lock-out

2) Followers always play the ‘standards card’ to level the playing field, yet in the process always try to change the specification just enough to nullify the advantage gained by the innovator

3) The standards bodies are rather onerous and bureaucratic so most end-customers aside from large SPs don’t take the time to invest in attending/shaping the standardization

Dave asserts that this is broken – I concur.

However, I am not certain how this could be fixed. The innovator is taking the risk, there needs to be some reward for this risk. Innovation in infrastructure in a way that co-creates a standard inline with the shipment of the technology nullifies many of the reasons investors would want to bet on the innovator, thus reducing investment in innovation!

]]>