Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Jan 2013 21:17 UTC
Permalink for comment 549803
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
EAS is proprietary, from an end-user point of view it results in lock-in to a single supplier, and introduces requirement for the consumer to have to pay royalties. To retain such a standard as the only means of access is to reduce consumer functionality. To get rid of such a lock-in to a proprietary pay-per-access "standard" is by far the best thing to happen, from a consumer perspective.
I put the word "standard" in italics here, in relation to EAS, because a true standard is mean to enable inter-operability of different products. See here for a definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_standard
"A software standard is a standard, protocol, or other common format of a document, file, or data transfer accepted and used by one or more software developers while working on one or more than one computer programs. Software standards enable interoperability between different programs created by different developers."
EAS constrains consumers to MS products only. If anything, it is an anti-standard.
This is a self-evident truth. How could you have possibly got it so backwards?