![]()
In response to the April 16 Perspectives column by John Dickinson, "So close, yet so far":
Dickinson writes: "Most venture capitalists don't think this sort of work is important. In large part, that's because it isn't very visible or glamorous. Often, it's
because they simply don't understand it. But if the products became more
useful--and usable--more would get sold."
I'm wondering how you justify this claim that venture capitalists are
ignorant of the benefits of standards. The promise of technology
integration is universally regarded as the "Holy Grail," whether you're
talking about applications of technological gadgetry in everyday life or about
the research-and-development process in the biopharmaceutical industry. The benefits of seamless
integration are quite significant.
But I must argue that at least two factors--other than
organizational resistance--do and should stand in the way of this Eden.
Standards can create constraints that hinder innovation even while
they might promote it on other levels.
Name an early-stage venture capital portfolio company with the power to
create standards and I'll sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. What incentive does
big industry have to seed the power of definition to anyone other than
themselves?
Dickinson's last sentence is very telling. If products become more useful then
more would get sold. This is of course a classic "straw man" argument, and
I concede anyone arguing differently would be ignorant. The challenge is in weighing the trade-off between
interoperability and optimal product configurations as one copes with the
constant maturation of the underlying technology.
Scott Silverman |
|
Be respectful, keep it civil and stay on topic. We delete comments that violate our policy, which we encourage you to read. Discussion threads can be closed at any time at our discretion.