Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (IE) dominates the web browser market in terms of users, commanding a market share of over 60%. But there is an increasing trend towards alternatives such as Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome. These alternatives, which in according to some measures offer superior technical performance and standards compliance, have gradually been eroding IE’s lead.

In September last year I reported on the struggle that the Goggle Chrome web browser had faced in gaining a market foothold despite superior technical performance, standards compliance and emphasis on Open Source, compared to market leader Internet Explorer. (The original post can be found here). At the time of writing, Sony had recently announced that all Sony branded netbooks would begin shipping with Chrome pre-installed.

Since then Chrome’s market share has more than doubled from 3.17% in Sept 2009 to 7.24% in July 2010. While still a fraction of Internet Explorer’s market position, Chrome has grown almost exponentially since late 2008.

Similarly, IBM’s Bob Sutor recently blogged upon his company’s official shift to the Mozilla Firefox browser. While admitting that many within the company (400,000 employees worldwide) already prefer the browser, he reports that from now on the official policy will see that “all IBM employees will be asked to use it as their default browser”. (Although legitimate as corporate policy, one can question the efficiency of top-down mandating the use of a particular browser rather than merits-based choices by users.)

While IE continues to command a 60% market share, this has been declining. Presented below are market share estimates from December 2007 and July 2010 (source). Within the two and half years between estimates, IE’s market share has fallen almost 20 percentage points (a 24% reduction) of which almost half has accrued to Firefox. This is a significant decrease within a relatively short period of time.

Over a longer timeframe, presented below (source: Wikimedia Commons, user arichnad), we see that within the last 5 years the market has evolved from essentially a single browser with a few fringe players. Despite antitrust authority concerns, the market accordingly shows a healthy degree of competition.

The increased focus on open source and standards–compliant application will in many regards make alternative browsers a reality. This will further spur competition and innovation, improving the user experience.

SYNOPSIS

There is a curious paradox which we are seeing increasingly. We see closed systems built on open standards and open source. I illustrate the phenomenon giving three instances below (Apple and Facetime, Open source and the Cloud and SPDY – the proposed new protocol from Google to replace HTTP). I seek comments on these.
Read More…

This is Part 6 in a series of articles in which contributor Stacy Baird presents and in-depth analysis of the role of governments in standards setting initiatives which is released on a bi-weekly basis. For previous instalments see here: Part 4, Part 5 – Editor

PART 6: The Well Developed Range of Standards, both Proprietary and Open, Reflect a Sophisticated Standards-Setting Ecosystem

Previously I described the several forums and market characteristics that can develop an IT standard: SDOs, patent pools, market driven de facto standards and consortia. As further evidence of the sophistication of the IT standards-setting marketplace, there are numerous and highly differentiated types of standards that can achieve interoperability

Read More…

This article is co-authored by Laurent Liscia, Executive Director, James Bryce Clark, General Counsel, and Dr Carol Cosgrove-Sacks, Senior Advisor on International Standards Policy at the OASIS Secretariat

How should European standardization policy be reformed to enhance efficiency? Should transparency be a key priority or could alternative measures more effectively improve the current European standardization system?

OASIS, one of the largest and oldest open standards consortia in the Internet and e-commerce field, participates actively in global and European standards coordination efforts. OASIS standards projects have long been initiated and implemented by a variety of European regional and national governments and enterprises.

We have been active in the recent EC projects to re-examine standards policy, and are keen to contribute to this conversation. Our views generally on how EU standardization policy ought to evolve have been circulated widely, and shared with the official policy bodies giving careful consideration to these issues in 2009-2010, especially in response to the ICT standards process – THE WAY FORWARD and participation in the high level EXPRESS process.

In summary, OASIS advocates that government policies and practices should more clearly address the fait accompli of pervasive use of consortia standards at every level of European public and private sector enterprise; and provide tools to welcome and leverage these cooperative industry innovations. Where EU Directives are thought to be ambiguous about “ESO” standards versus industry standards, they should be clarified to address and manage the obvious widespread adoption of both, and the continuing desire of industry participants to use them. De jure organizations should promote interorganizational cooperation, and be careful not to style themselves as competition to marketplace efforts.

Transparency can be an important tool in improving open standards, and promoting cooperation among standards sources, though it is not the exclusive approach to be applied.

Transparency may refer to several facets of the operation of standardization projects:

- One is visibility into the products. End-user implementers, as well as regulators, are better able to assess the evenhandedness and influences on a specification when the draft work and debates that produce it can be accessed openly. Restricted access impairs that ability to evaluate a standard’s quality and any biases. Impaired visibility also is an obstacle to work on interoperability that may come from cooperation or independent reviews.

- One is availability of licensure or legal rights. The obligations of participants and others to make legal rights available, for use of a standard, must be clear. Also, increasingly, as policymakers promote free and open source software, and open government data, some uses and implementations are prevented if standards are not clearly available free of royalty payment requirements, or in some cases, burdened by overly complex or burdensome license conditions.

- One is simple availability, in the sense of access. Standards not readily locatable via the Internet, or standards whose contents cannot be redistributed, or require payment to access, may be less likely to be widely adopted and leveraged by users. We note that there are fundamental unresolved issues with the traditional business models for standards creation, resulting, for example, in disparate standards access fees and practices among ISO, ITU and IEC.

- Finally, one is clarity of administration. The rules that affect an open standard’s development and progress, and decisions taken regarding the same, should be readily available to the public. Those with an interest in the trade-regulation and competition-law aspects of standards outcomes presumably also are better served by more disclosure.

OASIS very much appreciates the opportunity to engage in dialogue with the EU institutions. OASIS looks forward to many continued years of productive cooperation with policymakers and other standards-creating entities, in Europe and globally.

This EU standardization white paper is a weak attempt to focus on important issues. What is an ICT standard? Is a cell phone battery standard an ICT standard? Is a computer environmental disposal standard an ICT standard? Are the standards for telephone electronic components ICT standards? In fairness I do recognize this paper discusses standards that apply to the compatibility of computer or communications systems or equipment, less confusingly termed “compatibility” standards. The confused title is only preamble. Considering that the EU does not even have a reasonable (or widely accepted) definition of a technical standard proposing goals for a “quality” standard or “open” standard is meaningless.

Read More…

Last month (April 12th), Hewlett-Packard Co (HP) announced the completion of its acquisition of 3Com for US$2.7billion. HP has also announced plans to build upon 3Com’s market lead in China to challenge rival Cisco’s market leadership worldwide in the market for enterprise networking solutions. The business plan’s focus is the increased use of open standards with the explicit purpose of lowering costs to consumers and stimulating increased innovation.

Read More…

Most European patients are still experiencing the healthcare of yesterday in which the patient was patient, the doctor knew best and the technology was outdated. But the attitudes and drivers needed to push us into a new healthcare experience are coming fast. The leader of the British Conservative Party, David Cameron, has called this
Read More…

Recently, Google posted a much publicised memo called the Meaning of Open in which Jonathan Rosenberg, Senior Vice President, Product Management attempted to define Open. Attempting to define ‘Open’ is a complex task with many contradictions, and it is good that Jonathan has attempted this.
Read More…

ICT in general is both a heavy user of energy, and can be a tool to make more efficient use of energy possible. ICT and Energy in this respect are somewhat like symbiotic twins, both need the other to thrive, especially in a perspective of increased demand for energy, depletion of fossil fuel reserves and especially climate change.

In order to meet our goals of increasing the amount of sustainable energy and increasing energy efficiency, a transformation towards smart grids, including smart meters, is essential. It makes information on energy consumption available to the user in real time, which allows him to adapt his consumption patterns. Besides this, smart grids make large scale infusion of sustainable energy from various local renewable sources into the grids possible.

This transformation will necessitate smart investments in new technologies and changes in the value chain. Investments that will likely only render a sufficient return if they are monopolized and the costs for users are increased, or when there are sufficient possibilities of value added services. Value added services in particular could open up possibilities for new services and better deals for consumers and businesses. Consider for instance how domotica-services or the uptake of electric cars can be expanded in combination with smart metering systems.

In order for a broad array of services to be offered standardization is critical. It is up to the Energy and ICT industries to come up with these standards. And soon. In March of this year the European Commission mandated CEN/CENELEC and ETSI to come up with a standard for smart meters. It goes without saying that this standard should be open, needs to be as secure as possible, and sufficiently protect the privacy of consumers. We need to hurry because quite a large number of countries are already, or will soon be, investing in smart metering systems. Open standards for other parts of the smart grids infrastructure need to follow as soon as possible, but given the early stages of development, may need some more research.

Apart from the smart grids systems, it goes (almost) without saying that the ICT industry should lead by example and continue to develop ever more energy efficient applications, hardware and software. If needed regulation could help these developments along. Regulation in fact also needs open standards, although of a different kind. Standard methods for measuring and monitoring energy efficiency are needed in order to make claims of efficiency transparent.

The Internet has completed it’s 40th anniversary this fall– But how will the next 40 years look like? And by extension, which factors will influence the next 40 years of evolution of the Internet?
Read More…