[Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player
jankowski at bigwhoop.org
Fri Jul 11 14:29:18 CDT 2003
In my example, you're not Microsoft. Let's say you're "Ben Schumacher,
Inc." In your market research prior to entering the "distributed web
authoring and versioning" market you learn that there is a technology
called webdav that you might want to use, but there is also a company
called WebDAV, Inc and a community that calls themselves "webdav".
Would you donate money to an organization promoting your competitor's
name? Would you allocate staff to contribute to a community that promoted
a competitors name?
OR...would you feel more confident of yourself in a market where you were
competing on the quality of your "Webdav software" against a company named
"microsoft" who, despite being much much larger than your company, were
genuinely interested in seeing the protocol succeed and welcomed you with
open arms into their neutrally-named "Webdav community" that was funded
through donations from both microsft, inc and ben schumacher, inc - and
thus, did not implicitly endorse either of your products, but just focused
on improving webdav in general?
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Ben Schumacher wrote:
> Frankly, if I was Microsoft (seeing as how they have one of the most
> widely used WebDAV implementations), I don't think I'd care either way.
> And should Microsoft decide to drop SIMPLE in favor of Jabber, I don't
> think they'd bat an eye.
> Matt Jankowski said:
> > Ben, great example.
> > Let's say you were a commercial entity considering using WebDAV in one of
> > your products and donating money to the "webdav community" -- would you be
> > more or less inclined to do so if there was a company named "WebDAV, Inc."
> > that you would be competing with?
> > -Matt
More information about the Members