Re: Anti-extremism as a strategy (was: Google payment plans)

I've actually gone up against the "google wallet does it already" argument about 18(+) months ago.  Emailed the person making these statements and posed the question / statement made to Vint Cerf.  Vint was good in his reply, the person making the statements then got rather upset.  

I wouldn't be so quick as to suggest anyone is a competitor, including google; at least not in the traditional way many people remember Microsoft I guess... Javascript wars, etc.

More broadly;
People still get taught HTML(5) in universities using w3schools to source info; for sites that must validate with the w3c validator; obviously, the proprietary extensions don't validate; yet examples shown to explain "what is possible", use those extensions (properly authored for each browser, etc.); but nonetheless, providing a good example of frustrations that will likely to be an on-going feature of the innovation and stability cycles exhibited throughout the web.

IMHO - Google is potentially a massive service provider, but also one highly involved in making open standards n such.  WebRTC comes to mind as an example, and an example of an app that's currently not working for them - google wallet. 

Another good example in the rww space is GitHub.  A great alternative. 

To get these standards working, we'll need a collaborative ideology, which of course, is what it's all about. 

Challenging, certainly. But also purposeful. In a meaningful way.  Functionally, many things are impossible without standards that are vendor neutral. 

Timh.

Sent from my iPad

> On 11 Apr 2014, at 3:57 am, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 04/10/2014 06:54 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>> The W3C payment initiative has the two worst imaginable competitors:
>> Status Quo and Google. To fight this, requires more than just 
>> technology; it requires a *strategy*. ... That's what I in an 
>> off-list message meant with taking *extreme measures*.
> 
> While I appreciate some of your cynicism, the basic premise of your
> argument is off, Anders. :)
> 
> Here's why:
> 
> You're approaching this whole payments standardization process as a
> large conflict where "extreme measures" will ensure a favorable result.
> If it's one thing that your approach will do, it will be to alienate
> exactly the sort of organizations that we are going to need in order to
> make this initiative successful.
> 
> While there is certainly competition in the form of the status quo, and
> some pretty compelling proprietary products from W3C member companies,
> it would be wrong to frame the discussion where we're working /against/
> W3C member companies (or the payments industry, in general). If that
> happens, we can only hope for fragmentation in the marketplace and a
> failure of what we're trying to accomplish here.
> 
> Here are a few goals that we're trying to achieve:
> 
> 1. Build a basic set of technologies for the Web platform that create a
> level playing field as it relates to sending and receiving money on the
> Web.
> 
> 2. Bring as many of the existing financial industry players as we can
> along without causing too much disruption to their day to day
> operations. Some will refuse to join us, but it won't be because we
> didn't try very hard to bring them along.
> 
> I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what you're proposing, but
> it sounds like your "extreme measures" will destroy much of the good
> will and progress that we've achieved to date. Please be clear in what
> you're proposing we do as a community. I'm going to send something out
> in a bit outlining what we have done as a community to date, and what
> I'd like us to do as a community over the next 12 months.
> 
> -- manu
> 
> PS: Mailing list arguments are good, as long as they have a concrete
> outcome. What exactly do you want to see happen?
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Worlds First Web Payments Workshop
> http://www.w3.org/2013/10/payments/
>

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2014 18:22:31 UTC