Does it matter how many formats there are?
Posted by Dave Winer, 7/9/04 at 9:47:49 AM.
Introduction 
This is one of the most frequently asked questions in the RSS world. Another format isn't such a big deal, some say. Aggregator developers don't seem to mind. When a new syndication format comes along, they seem to support it, fairly quickly.
So perhaps it doesn't seem to matter to users, but I think it should matter. Here are some questions to think about, and you can decide for yourself if it matters that RSS stay simple.
Nine questions
1. What's the best number of formats? Right now there are three basic formats, but why is three the best number, why not four or five or...?
2. So far the aggregator developers have been able to adapt. But what happens if a new format comes along that isn't so easy to adapt to? What then?
3. Sometimes developers stop updating their software. Imagine if a new format comes along and the aggregator you use isn't updated to support that format.
4. If everyone reads and writes the exact same format, then users have the power to switch at any time, which forces developers to compete on the things that matter to users: price, features, performance. People say that competition is good, and who can disagree. Of course it's great to be competitive, but if competition is expressed in terms of compatibility, almost everyone loses. It's a monopolist's way of avoiding competition.
5. Precedents matter in software. If it's okay to start a new format today, what's to stop a big company like Microsoft, or Adobe or Sun, or whoever, from starting their own formats next year or the year after, and not telling other developers how to read them? Think it's never happened? Think again. They'll say they're open, but don't be so sure. You can hide a lot of tricks in XML. One thing we know for sure is that there are no tricks hidden in RSS 2.0, because it's so simple. So when you say it's easy to support new formats, watch out, that may not always be true, once big company politics is fully in play in RSS-land.
6. People who say it's easy for aggregators to support more formats may be thinking that aggregators are forever going to stay as they are now, but it seems that wouldn't be a good bet, based on the current rate of innovation, and it would be a shame for a market that's so young to freeze at such an early point in time. Note that existing developers have a conflict of interest here, they like things to get more complicated, because this keeps new competitors out.
7. We've learned time and again, that markets die when compatibility becomes a marketing issue. When a piece of software boasts as a feature that they read a certain format, they are contradicting the idea that users don't care about formats. Users must care about formats when they need one reader for Brand A feeds, and another for Brand B, and Brand C and so on. We've certainly seen other markets get confused over formats. We're lucky that we don't have to go through that in RSS. We have a choice, it's still not too late for formats to coalesce into one easy-to-support format. Aggregator developers may say they can support lots of formats, but ask them honestly if they want to, and if so, why, and listen carefully to the answer to make sure you're not being used to create a barrier to entry.
8. RSS is simple. A developer can write code to support it in a couple of days. There is lots of support available from developers who have dealt with its difficulties, and overcome its flaws. New formats will have new problems, only specs you haven't yet written are perfect. When they say they're going to fix all the problems in RSS, you can be sure that they will create new problems. So, did you solve anything by creating a new format? Only if the new format completely eliminates all previous formats is this even possible. I think by now everyone agrees that isn't going to happen.
9. Finally, and possibly most important, any complexity we "use up" here, can't be used to create new features. People want to build things on RSS, and that's cool, and very important. But if building on RSS means carrying along with it all kinds of unnecessary baggage, we will only be able to go so high, and it will be more expensive to build, and as they say, you'll pay one way or the other.
