Chapter 7 Industry by by David G. Messerschmitt David G. - PDF document

Understanding Networked Applications: Understanding Networked Applications: A First Course A First Course Chapter 7 Industry by by David G. Messerschmitt David G. Messerschmitt Components Examples of components Component: A subsystem • Computer Why is a component purchased “as is” • Disk drive from an outside implementation vendor • Network encapsulated? • Network router A component • Operating system implementation is encapsulated • Integrated circuit (although often • Database management system configurable) 3 4 Outsourcing Interoperability Outsourcing: A • Components are interoperable when they interact subsystem design is contract to an properly to achieve some desired functionality outside vendor • Increasingly component interoperability cannot be dependent on integration, or is dependent on end- user integration – PC and peripherals – Enterprise, inter-enterprise, consumer applications Responsibility is – Role for standardization delegated 5 6

System integration Why system decomposition? Architecture ➙ subsystem implementation ➙ • Divide and conquer approach to containing system integration complexity • Bring together subsystems and make them • Reuse cooperate properly to achieve desired • Consonant with industry structure (unless system functionality system is to be supplied by one company) – Always requires testing • Others? – May require modifications to architecture and/or subsystem implementation 7 8 Components Examples of components Component: A subsystem • Computer Why is a component purchased “as is” • Disk drive from an outside implementation vendor • Network encapsulated? • Network router A component • Operating system implementation is encapsulated • Integrated circuit (although often • Database management system configurable) 9 10 Two ways to design a system Interoperability Available components System • Components are interoperable when they interact Requirements requirements properly to achieve some desired functionality • Increasingly component interoperability cannot be dependent on integration, or is dependent on end- user integration – PC and peripherals – Enterprise, inter-enterprise, consumer applications – Role for standardization Assembly from available Decomposition from components system requirements 11 12

Outsourcing Three types of software Outsourcing: A subsystem design Application is contract to an outside vendor •Components and frameworks: What is in common among applications •Infrastructure: Basic services (communication, storage, Responsibility is concurrency, presentation, etc.) delegated 13 14 Understanding Networked Applications: A First Course Outline • Motivation for standards • Elements of a standard Standardization • Types of standards • Process to develop a standard by David G. Messerschmitt 16 Network effects Lock-in • The value of a product to the adopter • Consumer: depends on the number of other adopters – Switching costs make consumer reluctant to adopt a new product – Direct • Supplier: • e.g. fax machine – Indirect, through common content or software – Switching costs or cannibalization of existing • e.g. Windows, CD music products make supplier reluctant to pursue new product opportunity 17 18

Consumer lock-in Purpose of a standard • Prevalence increases as the industry fragments, • Infrastructure: and consumer has to purchase complementary – Allow products or services from different products to get a “complete solution” suppliers or providers to be interoperable – Switching costs discourage moving to complete new • Application: solution – Enable applications to run across uncoordinated – Supplier with a “better mousetrap” can’t penetrate market unless product is compatible with existing administrative domains complementary product 19 20 Scope of a standard Reference model • Included: • Decide decomposition of system – where interfaces fall – architecture (reference model) • Defines the boundaries of competition and – interfaces (physical, electrical, information) ultimately industrial organization – formats and protocols (FAP) – competition on the same side of an interface – compliance tests (or process) – complementary suppliers on different sides • Excluded: – hierarchical decomposition at the option of suppliers – (possibly) optional extensions at option of suppliers – implementation – (possibly) extensions 21 22 Some issues Types of standards • Once a standard is set • de jure – Sanctioned and actively promoted by some – becomes possible source of industry lock-in; organization with jurisdiction, or by government overcoming that standard requires a major • de facto (~10x?) advance – Dominant solution arising out of the market – may lock out some innovation • Voluntary industry standards body • In recognition, some standards evolve • Industry consortium – IETF, CCITT (modems), MPEG • Common or best practice – backward compatibility 23 24

Examples The changing process • de jure • As technology and industry move more quickly, the global concensus standards activity has proven too unwieldy – Ada, VHDL • de facto – e.g. ISO (protocols, SGML) • “New age” standards activities are more informal, less – Hayes command set, Windows API, Pentium instruction set, consensus driven, a little less political, more strategic, Ethernet smaller groups • Voluntary industry standards body – OMG/CORBA, IAB/IETF, IEEE – e.g. OMG, IETF, ATM Forum, WAP • Industry consortium • Programmable/extensible approaches for flexibility – W3C/XML, SET – e.g. XML, Java • Best practice – Windowed GUI 25 26 Old giving way to the new Reasons for change • From government sanction/ownership to market forces – Increasing fragmentation – Importance of time to market • Greater complexity – Less physical/performance constraint for either hardware or software 27 28 Lock-in Question • (Particularly open) standards reduce consumer • What are some examples of open standards lock-in that reduce consumer lock-in? – Consumers can mix and match complementary – Intranet applications products • WWW, newsgroups, calendar, etc – e.g. IBM (in their day) and Microsoft are perceived to – Linux be lock-in problems, other agendas in addition to pleasing customers – PC peripherals • Increase supplier lock-in • ISA, serial/parallel port, etc – Innovation limited by backward compatibility – Others? – e.g. IP/TCP, x86, Hayes command set 29 30

Network effects Question • Standards can harness network effects to the • What are examples of standards that serve industry advantage to tame network effects? – Revenue = (market size) x (market share) – Internet protocols • Increases value to customer – XML – CORBA • Increases competition – DVD – Only within confines of the standard – others? – But forces customer integration or services of a system integrator 31 32 Why standards? Voluntary standards process • de jure are customer driven to reduce confusion and cost • de facto standards are sometimes the result of positive Sanctioning organization(s) feedback in network effects • Customers and suppliers like them because they Ongoing – increase value committees – reduce lockin • Governments like them because they – promote competition in some circumstances Participating – May believe they can be used to national advantage companies 33 34 Approaches Why companies participate • Consensus • Pool expertise in collaborative design – ISO – e.g. MPEG • Collaborative design • Have influence on the standard – MPEG • Get technology into the standard • Competitive “bake off” – Proprietary, with expectation of royalties – ITEF – Non-proprietary • Coordination of vendors • Reduced time to market – OMG 35 36