Choice to Choose

With the surprising surge of interests in the popular press on the geeky subject of Document File Formats, some issues are spun to promote certain point of views. The most popular of course is the issue of "Choice" in that Malaysians must not be denied the ability to "choose" between two different standards; OpenDocument Format (ODF) and Microsoft Office OpenXML (MSOOXML) as a document file format standard.

Choice, undoubtedly is a wonderful thing. It is important that consumers have choice. What is interesting is that lately in the articles published, a subtle redefinition of this word and what it really means to us consumers is being promoted. Take for example, an article published by Tech&U, the technology pullout from The New Straits Times of Malaysia, published on the 26th of March 2007 [online link unfortunately not available]

This blog post will address the difference in the meanings, and will define what choice SHOULD actually mean, with the interest of Malaysian citizens at heart.

Mr Michael Mudd, Director of Public Policy for CompTIA, has the notion that two standards to promote competition:

"competition among multiple open document standards will enhance innovation ... and increase flexibility and interoperability, all to the benefit of software consumers"

The premise that competing standards promote interoperability and subsequently choice, is flawed. For example, how can the "choice" of two competing standards promote interoperability? Instead, standards are created to promote interoperability, if and only if everyone agrees to stick to just one standard!

Common sense dictates that if the number of standards proliferate, interoperability becomes a futile exercise.

Choice - One Standard, Multiple Applications

So in reality, one standard promotes interoperability, and with interoperability, you get healthy competition and innovation between competing applications, and ultimately choice and a better marketplace for consumers like Malaysians.

We must not confuse "choice of standards" with the "choice of applications" which support the standard. There should just be one standard and multiple applications implementing that specific standard.

Vendors like Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba, JVC and Pioneer can create multiple implementations of video players based on the VHS standard. Betamax lost out because it was a license encumbered and a single vendor defined standard controlled only by Sony. But during that time, over a period of about 8 years, there was significant market confusion and inefficient use of consumer funds.

"The VHS format's defeat of the Betamax format became a classic marketing case study, now identified with the verbal phrase "to Betamax", wherein a proprietary technology format is overwhelmed in the market by a competing format allowing multiple, competing, licensed manufacturers. ... By 1984, forty companies utilized the VHS format in comparison with Beta's twelve. Sony finally conceded defeat in 1988 when it too began producing VHS recorders"
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax ]

History is repeating itself, with the case where two competing standards exist. The current Blue-Ray and HD format fiasco is evidently bad for the consumer, and the industry. The marketplace will delay migrations, and prefer a wait and see approach. This hurts the manufacturers as it delays revenues, causes opportunity costs and subsequent slowdown of innovation.

With the case of documents formats, it would be extremely simple to avoid this confusion. If Microsoft adopts ODF, which they are completely free to do so, they can compete with the free OpenOffice.org office suite and other ODF-based applications through real product innovation and value. Malaysian IT users benefit with the increased choice they have in purchasing the applications and the interoperability between the different vendors.

Choice to choose Nothing

The other definition of choice comes from Mr Teh Tiong Keen of IASA Malaysia where he suggests we should choose not to choose:

"... there should be no preference for one standard over another. Let the industry decide. It should be about choice and market neutrality".

This interesting definition of choice and "Market Neutrality" seems to indicate "Market Indecision" or "Market Inaction", where we just refuse to decide for "fairness" sake. The real demands from the market, if Mr Teh truly believes in choice for the consumer, is the standardisation on one format  thus providing choice to the market with the different applications which conform to that standard.

To use yet another analogy, suppose that electronic documents were light bulbs.

Suppose that every manufacturer had different sockets for their light bulbs so that if you bought a light bulb, you needed to make sure you got it from the right manufacturer. Wouldn't this be inconvenient? Suppose that the manufacturer forced its users to "upgrade" their light bulb sockets because new "versions" of light bulbs only worked with the new sockets. Isn't this unfair to end users?

To solve this problem, suppose that the government chose to standardise on a specific light bulb specification so that end users would never have difficulty when buying light bulbs from different manufacturers. Is this standardisation a bad idea for the millions of users? How should we consider the appeals of manufacturers when they tell us that we should "Let the market decide"?

The correct application of Standards, to consumers as well as innovation in the market place, must always supersede the interests of the manufacturers and vendors.

Choice - The consumers' definition

It is easy to understand how these representatives of CompTIA and IASA can have definitions to the word "choice"  which are contradictory to what we consumers have come to known it to be. The reason for this is simply because they come from a vendor or IT providers' perspective.

The reality is that the "consumers definition of choice" is what will define the market.

When file formats are standardised and ODF becomes a lingua franca for all, Malaysians would then have the opportunity to choose between the free (RM0.00) OpenOffice.org, the web-based and currently free (RM0.00) applications like Zoho Office and Google Docs and Spreadsheets, the affordable (RM380) StarOffice, or pay premium rates (RM1700) for Microsoft Office.

This is the real "choice" which the market demands, and we must make it clear to vendors that this is the only direction Malaysia should head towards if we intend to claim back the ownership of the data and documents we create.

Remember, consumers demand choice.

1. Choice is only possible if there is high interoperability between competing applications
2. Interoperability can only occur successfully if vendors conform to only one standard
3. The chosen standard must be inclusive, vendor neutral and free of licensing limitations
4. Competing but interoperable applications can vie for market share through pricing, innovation and ease-of-use
5. With choice comes true market and technology neutrality

Thus, adoption of one standard is the only way to promote choice.

yk.

Comments

[Captain Europe]

About video format, you can add, in your list, the V2000 format developed by Philips and Grundig in 1979.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V2000