Bruce Schneier Weighs in on IT Lock-in Strategies 186
dhavleak writes "Wired has an article from Bruce Schneier on the intersection of security technologies and vendor lock-ins in IT. 'With enough lock-in, a company can protect its market share even as it reduces customer service, raises prices, refuses to innovate and otherwise abuses its customer base. It should be no surprise that this sounds like pretty much every experience you've had with IT companies: Once the industry discovered lock-in, everyone started figuring out how to get as much of it as they can.'"
Symantec (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Build-your-own systems are starting to look goo (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is true, but on the other hand (Score:5, Insightful)
There's not a single new thing about lock-in (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone wants a revenue stream not a revenue pond.
That doesn't justify boorish behavior, but it explains how companies want to stay in existence, and few other models exist that allow them to do this. Once again, Bruce thinks we were born yesterday.
Re:There's not a single new thing about lock-in (Score:2, Insightful)
Power connectors. There's a perfectly good international standard but your manufacturer chooses to modify the connector making it 1mm smaller than it should be, so you have to buy their power supplies.
Batteries. There are scores of standard sizes for ever possible device. But your manufacturer decided to create one that doesn't fit anything else and nothing else will fit in its place.
The list goes on forever of course, gas connectors, plumbing joints, lamp fittings...
Each time a manufacturer decides to deliberately use a non-standard and incompatible device they seriously reduce the value of that product. Landfill sites are full of obsolete proprietry power adapters, they function perfectly well, but nobody wants a Sony XYZ from 1980 for any other use, so it goes in the trash.
That product had to be designed (to be unique) where great sums of money could have been saved by using an ISO standard.
If you over-manufacture, nobody wants the stock. You can't resell to a generic market.
These idiots cut off their nose to spite their face. The big guys understand the value and security in commodity markets, in generics and
standards. Products manufactured to standards can be resold on any market, rebranded or adapted.
The reason software can be designed for lock in is that it costs zero to (re)produce. This is why open source code is so very valuable, not because of it's functionality, it's functionality is almost irrelevant compared to the value of reuse and standards.
Re:There's not a single new thing about lock-in (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As in... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, granted, that's unlikely to be the case. However, it is the inability to move your data to a competing system which creates the lock-in. The subscription aspect has nothing to do with it one way or the other.
Re:Build-your-own systems are starting to look goo (Score:2, Insightful)
I do agree with what you said when it comes to smaller companies/non-monopolies -- they don't have much reason to lock-in customers, because they don't have very many customers to lock in, and because it's much more beneficial to look like the consumer-friendly guys. And even though Dell makes a lot of computers, they're not the only PC manufacturer, and any edge over their competition helps.
Re:This is true, but on the other hand (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As in... (Score:2, Insightful)
One more reason that Free-Market Theology is nothing but a scam to keep most people poor and working hard, and to make rich people richer and increasingly powerful and protected.
The operative word is "protected". Note that "lock-ins" are said to "protect market share". The world is uncertain and nothing bothers the rich and powerful like uncertainty. They believe that if God was good enough to make them rich and powerful, then it's unfair that they should be subject to the same rules of uncertainty as the rest of us.
It's why they hate things like Universal Health Coverage, Social Security, Minimum Wage, etc. If you have to be just as vulnerable to fate as the poor, then what good is being rich?
Re:Be Creative! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Windows, like a newspaper, only has value in context and for a limited time. Your old copy of MSDOS is worthless today as are most of every copy of software you have released before 2001. It only had value in context and the sooner you lose that context the better off you are."
It still does whatever you had to do in times past. For example, SimCity 4 runs fine on Windows 98. A lot of places refuse to dump their Win2k setups, or they have software that still requires DOS.
Heck, I know one place that runs their financials on a Win 3.1 program. Its been doing everything they need for 15 years, and they're not going to change. It works, it runs fine under xp, and why fix what ain't broke?
Re:As in... (Score:2, Insightful)
Comfort zones and insecurity. Speaking as the "computer guy" for about 15-20 friends and family members, the idea of registering a domain name and then paying a very small monthly fee (less than $5, sometimes $0) to permanently own your own domain name and e-mail is uncomfortable when they can just keep their free 5-10 year old AOL/LocalISP address. Only my Mom owns her own domain name (which she really likes).
Chuck
Re:As in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everyone who wants a free market is doing it for the evil reasons you paint, and not everyone who doesn't want the programs you mention is a greedy bastard who wants to be better than poor people.
Re:Symantec (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh! so you are one of those that still own in operating conditions half-inch open-reel tapers?
Or else, your argument is moot, you know...
Re:Symantec (Score:2, Insightful)
You do realise that backup and archiving are two entirely different things, don't you?
Re:Monopoly is the goal of capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Another contradiction of capitalism that is an observation in Marxist theory is the desire of an individual firm to pay its employees as little as possible, but that depends on well-paid consumers having enough money to buy their products.
All that is is negative feedback. If you want to create a system capable of optimizing itself to changing conditions without a very complicated model and detailed control system (with attendant long, involved tuning process), be it an economy or a simple industrial process, you'll probably find it best to put multiple forces in place that oppose each other in such a way that they balance at an equilibrium point that's near the optimum. There is nothing "contradictory" about market forces being in opposition. One can argue about how well it works (imho, it clearly does a near-perfect job in some cases and an awful job in others), but as part of a design of an economic framework it's not at all clear it's a bad route to take.
Seriously, try creating a *good* control scheme for a simple system that doesn't involve a negative feedback loop. Then consider how amazingly not simple an economy is.
Re:They said the same thing about cell phone numbe (Score:5, Insightful)
When you use an @domain symbol your dns server directs the query to the server that is responsible for that domain. ie, the server operated by (or on behalf of) the owner of the domain.
If you want email portability then you can register your own domain . It's really quite simple.
If you don't want to do that then guess what, you can get an email address on somebody elses domain. If you choose to move from their domain you don't retain any rights to continue using a domain name that you don't own
How is that difficult to understand?
Honestly, sometimes I think we need a better class of geeks on slashdot. Is Digg down at the moment?
* Yes, I realise that you can do a temporary mail redirect but this costs money and is very resource intensive. If *everyone* tried to do this in perpetuity then the system would be completely unworkable, both logistically as well as inuitively.
Re:BUSINESS = LOCK-IN (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They said the same thing about cell phone numbe (Score:3, Insightful)
The domain system is much different. There are hundreds of thousands of domains owned by almost as many individuals and companies. It is not politically or technically feasible to force some sort of email portability across domains without changing the fundamental nature of how dns currently works.
Why should I (as an email admin) be forced to allow people to use the domain name that I legally own for free? Am I required to maintain some sort of forwarding list on my mail server of all the people for which I am required to forward mail to? Do I do this for free? If my server crashes and the list is lost am I held legally liable? Who is responsible for tracking where email for my domain should go? Me? The government? Which government?
Should the entire planets email-address-to-ip-address-cross-reference-table be stored in some central servers somewhere? Where? Who pays?
It's a ridiculous idea.
Re:Monopoly is the goal of capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)