Everytime I see someone recommend a special interest group or consortium… I think of Bluetooth and it’s literally thousands of pages spec.
Then when they have the chance to almost completely start over… the make BLE with approximately 1/2 of what people want and spend years bloating the spec on that too.
I’ll take a talented lunatic with autonomy over 20 different voices in a bureaucratic community every time.
so your argument against consortiums (bluetooth) is that they work?… but at a higher cost (lengthy specs)?
the historic alternative is a slightly lower cost (most of BT complexity is of the plumbing type, not the PhD type) and much more significant market risks (due to incompatibilities: smaller addressable market and less ability to pivot from one market to a different one).
from the engineer PoV, i agree with you: i’d love for these specifications to be simplified. from the business PoV, i don’t think it actually matters that much.
A consortium of nations interested in maintaining access to reliable compute and innovation might be interesting. As in not bought out explicitly but some kind of direct and regular investment
Then when they have the chance to almost completely start over… the make BLE with approximately 1/2 of what people want and spend years bloating the spec on that too.
I’ll take a talented lunatic with autonomy over 20 different voices in a bureaucratic community every time.