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: Mike Buckley who wrote (44022)	7/1/2001 7:04:51 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

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 -