Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric L who wrote (44021)	7/1/2001 6:46:07 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Eric, Let's get to the really important stuff first. When my wife came home, she advised me that she had made the stereo settings yesterday and suggested that I turn up the volume control within reach of my computer. It's a funny thing about how effective the volume control thingy is. Okay, now the unimportant stuff ... :) 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. Knowing your command of this stuff, I probably misunderstood the essence of your point. When I wrote that it's the marketplace and/or the standards committess that determine "standardization," you responded with the fact that committee involvement isn't necessary. We're in agreement. I think my "and/or" conjunction allows for that. no harm going back over the ground so we can talk about Intel again. <g> Please don't. :) Regarding "open" architectures, you're right, of course, that there is no distinction between connectivity details being available at cost or free. I must have had something else on my mind when I wrote that, maybe my volume control. :) Apologies to the novices who might have become confused by my wrong statement. I'll get back to you after I listen to the Christensen presentation. --Mike Buckley

To: Eric L who wrote (44021)	7/2/2001 10:06:18 AM
From: Judith Williams	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Eric-- standards...de jure as well as de facto While it's easy to slough off CC's view of a closed architecture for, say, iMode as one way a discontinuous innovation becomes introduced and disseminated, that makes the initial difference between open/closed one of timing and where the innovation is in the TALC. What confused me in CC's presentation was what came later--after initial acceptance. He seemed to imply that DoCoMo could later operate within a closed system quite effectively since that self-containment was elastic--tempered by growing alliances/partnerships. This would make it a de jure standard, I suppose, when the numbers of partners reached critical mass. But I have been working under the assumption, perhaps wrongly, that for an architecture to be open, it had also to be a de facto standard. So you've hit the crux of my confusion with CC's 3G remarks. --Judith