About my comment on universal DB:

Even with a strong market demand for it, I don’t think a single universal DB would exist. Imagine that someone would create a big DB that would include all the possible information about the users, which is already a miracle. Well, it would still be a provider. And why would another service provider use that DB while he can create its own DB fitting perfectly with what he needs?

A Universal DB means that every provider agrees on a storage place but also on a universal format.

While the universality of the format of information might know an evolution with projects such as DataPortability, I don’t see it evolving further than the basic info around the person.

About Innovation and Freedom:

Yes, you can innovate and have a certain freedom while using a platform with many lock-ins. Still, on such a platform, you need to make quite a lot of compromises in terms of technology to fit with the environment.

You were free to choose for the platform, but then you loose a part of your freedom and innovation because of your first choice.

My point was that if everybody goes on the platforms with lock-ins, who will then create the new technologies, and bring new ideas outside of all barriers … ?

If there is a market and demand for something like that, I am sure that some vendors out there would have already thought about it or intend to produce a product that does those things. In an economic system, a producer can’t produce for the sake of fun or simply produce because they think there is a small portion of the population that is going to buy the services of product. So, in the end if there is no demand for it, producers won’t produce products with such capabilities.

Yves said…
…I strongly believe that innovation is about freedom of choices and diversity; and it’s something that can only be achieved by embracing that diversity and not by creating lock-ins.

Umm! I have a different definition of innovation and freedom. One can have freedom and innovate as long as that person has a right to his own independent life, that his/her life and property belong to him/her, not to others to use as they see fit. The business anti-competitive laws of today (most western governments) violate this very basic principle. This law enforces that the owner of a property (intellectual) gives up his rights to what is his/hers in order for someone else’s product/s to be able to compete in the market (not his own innovation). A clear example here, was the anti-trust case against Microsoft. Microsoft was forbidden from bundling its own product (Internet Explorer) with its Windows operating system for the purpose that Netscape somehow, can innovate & compete in the market. Netscape demanded this right to stop Microsoft (the property owner of Windows) from deciding of what it can or can’t do with its own property and this is completely wrong.

One can still innovate and free on his own and not to do so upon the notion or requirement that someone else’s be enslaved by law (taken away their rights to choose of what they can or can’t do with their own property ) in order to fulfill this purpose of innovation.