David,
I believe that NRI produced NRI just to get a standard out there to get biometrics rolling. You see, some companies wanted to use biometrics, but did not want to be "locked in" to the hardware provider. With an API language underneath, companies could buy any hardware they wanted and not have to worry about compatibility issues. That said, NRI now has a bigger audience it can tailor it's software to. As to why it took so long; negotiations.
The agreement to merge efforts came out of a unification discussion between the two organizations sponsored by the
Information Technology Laboratory of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Biometric
Consortium. As part of the agreement, BioAPI will support current HA-API customers through the inclusion of function calls
from HA-API version 1.03 in the BioAPI Specification.
Also, Don't forget NRI was a "contributor" long before too; this event can hardly be seen as unforeseen. Finally, there was no "standard" released (albeit announced) until recently, so NRI continued with HAAPI as it was a released standard as it was trying to sell hardware at that time. Seeing as it could be made compatible, it seemed a reasonable idea.
NRI was holding out HAAPI to put hardware providers on the same page. That way, biometrics would be viable for corporate purchasers: they would not be locked into whatever hardware provider they wanted. Additionally, as NRI's software would be compatible, they could potentially sell their software with the hardware that was sold. It was a win/win. It still is a win/win; there is just a bigger market for NRI's stuff.
I do not see a bigger market for NRI's product as bad. DOD money? Exclusive relationships? I see none of these things. What I do see is a company saying "let's all get on the same page." Today, I see an industry agreeing. Let the best software win.
Regards,
Bob |
