Mike,
<< If I understand you, you're contending that a proprietary architecture that hasn't become "standardized" is by definition a closed architecture. In the case of i-mode, that's true. But it's not necessarily true for all technologies. >>.
Close. Not exactly (or completely) what I am attempting to say. If a company takes their technology, documents it (or part of it), creates specifications for it (or part of it), shares (all or part of) those specifications or documentation with others, allows it to be incorporated by others to make a whole product, there is no de facto standardization, but the proprietary architecture of that company is "open".
If a company does not do all or part of the above, the architecture is proprietary "closed".
'I-mode' makes an interesting study for many reasons, but one of them is that some portion of 'i-mode' is documented and opened up and shared, while remaining under the control of DoCoMo. In the meantime DoCoMo is under pressure to "open" the technology and will, I believe, succumb to that pressure (may already have agreed to) in the future.
<< I'll get back to you after I listen to the Christensen presentation. >>
Good. Curious to know what you or others think of it.
Best,
- Eric - |
