Comment by openthc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by openthc | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yes. I only touched it briefly: ""we all need to share data (Lot details, Crop details, Product details, Lab Results, etc)""

Cannabis is heavily regulated, each tree, each lot, each lab-result, each everything in the system is required to have a unique identifier on it; it's a government required compliance thing. Cannabis businesses MUST do this.

But then BusinessA sends to BusinessB for toll-processing the plant-matter into oil. The lots, and associated data must be sent from one system to the others -- so they are both reporting the same identifiers (it's how the government is supposed to track inversion/diversion). And once BusinessB finishes processing, they may test it at a lab (BusinessC). Then BusinessB sells/returns some of the material back to BusinessA. A and B need the lab result data from C (it's like 170 data points, and a (signed) PDF). And when A and B package that material and sell to BusinessD (retailer) then the lot identifiers, product/package details, lab results, PDF, etc all need to be sent.

All that happens "seamlessly" (it's actually not, but a longer post) -- so for A,B,C and D it mostly "just works". And at the moment that "just works" bridge in Washington is going away. It's why we've had renewed interest in our project -- by BusinessA,B,C,D,etc -- even when they don't use our solutions. They are using competitors software, calling me asking if we've reach out to VendorM (we have, many times), then tell me they haven't discussed with their software provider, but then setup a meeting with businesses using a mix of the software and staff from the providers and those business owners say: "the fuck man, we shouldn't even be having this conversation; you guys should have figured this shit out already." (actual quote).

And at those meetings the other software vendors couldn't agree to agree; hadn't even looked at our proposal and could hardly even commit to agreeing that, in theory, interop was a generally good idea.

Because it isn't! Interop makes your job easier, and some other people's jobs, but that doesn't make interop a good idea for the businesses involved. Winning the lottery would make my life a whole helluva lot easier, but convincing other people to give me money so I can retire to a beach somewhere involves a couple more steps than getting free money.

The retort, to the business owners, is that this is figuring it out. Ask them if Cannabis is legal yet, ask them if they heard about the huge drug bust last week (last week!) in Alameda that the cops are all proud of themselves for. Ask them if they're business owners, who are willing to roll up their sleeves and do some actual work, or if they're just lazy stoners who thought they could get rich and didn't have to do any real work.

You've heard the story of the first shopping carts, I presume, and then also the black art of pricing products.

Here's an idea from that - speak the language of business people - charge money for the interop, then invite the people that actually do the work to meetings, and don't invite the business owners. (I mean, sell it to the business owners as this is what they're paying their people for, so they don't have to go to these kinds of boring meetings.)

Because it isn't! Interop makes your job easier, and some other people's jobs, but that doesn't make interop a good idea for the businesses involved, and in fact, it sounds like a losing proposition for VendorM. Vendors like their lock in, and especially in an immature industry, there's no easy hammer to convince vendors to play ball. VendorM and do zero work, lock businesses A-D further into their ecosystem, and make even more money.

Your choices are to force VendorM into taking your calls somehow - through regular business channels (which it sounds like you have), but also through regular irregular channels. Who do you know at VendorM, where do they like to play golf/etc. Amass a giant pile of capital and buy out VendorM and all their customers. I'll bet you can get them on the phone then.

The retort, to the business owners, is that this is figuring it out. Ask them if Cannabis is legal yet, ask them if they heard about the huge drug bust last week (last week!) in Alameda that the cops are all proud of themselves for. Ask them if they're business owners, who are willing to roll up their sleeves and do some actual work, or if they're just lazy stoners who thought they could get rich and didn't have to do any real work.

You've heard the story of the first shopping carts, I presume, and then also the black art of pricing products.

Speak the language of business people - charge money for the interop, then invite the people that actually do the work to meetings, and don't invite the business owners. (I mean, sell it to the business owners as this is what they're paying their people for, so they don't have to go to these kinds of boring meetings.)

If you want to be in the interop standards business, put some hubris in it. Market your service, loudly, proclaiming that you're the one true standard for the industry, charge businesses a pile of money. Let business owners's employees discover that the underlying spec is free and sell that to their boss as being worth their time. If enough customers ask VendorM if they've implemented the spec yet, they'll make time. Until then... hey, does photoshop open .XCF files created by GIMP yet?

Because it isn't! Interop makes your job easier, and some other people's jobs, but that doesn't make interop a good idea for the businesses involved, and in fact, it sounds like a losing proposition for VendorM. Vendors like their lock in, and especially in an immature industry, there's no easy hammer to convince vendors to play ball. VendorM and do zero work, lock businesses A-D further into their ecosystem, and make even more money.

Your choices are to force VendorM into taking your calls somehow - through regular business channels (which it sounds like you have), but also through regular irregular channels. Who do you know at VendorM, where do they like to play golf/etc. Amass a giant pile of capital and buy out VendorM and all their customers. I'll bet you can get them on the phone then.

The retort, to the business owners, is that this is figuring it out. Ask them if Cannabis is legal yet, ask them if they heard about the huge drug bust last week (last week!) in Alameda that the cops are all proud of themselves for. Ask them if they're business owners, who are willing to roll up their sleeves and do some actual work, or if they're just lazy stoners who thought they could get rich and didn't have to do any real work.

You've heard the story of the first shopping carts, I presume, and then also the black art of pricing products.

Speak the language of business people - charge money for the interop, then invite the people that actually do the work to meetings, and don't invite the business owners. (I mean, sell it to the business owners as this is what they're paying their people for, so they don't have to go to these kinds of boring meetings.)

If you want to be in the interop standards business, put some hubris in it. Market your service, loudly, proclaiming that you're the one true standard for the industry, charge businesses a pile of money. Let business owners's employees discover that the underlying spec is free and sell that to their boss as being worth their time. If enough customers ask VendorM if they've implemented the spec yet, they'll make time.

So if you’re one of these software vendors, why should you invest in building non-differentiating capabilities? Why should you deprioritize other features to write this one? What are your support obligations? What leverage do you have when the format lags behind and custom extensions happen that break compatibility?

Without a standard developed by an industry working group controlled jointly, it won’t happen. Otherwise you’re just making it easier for customers to avoid platform lock-in — the same lock-in that platform vendors are trying to encourage. Of course they want no part of this; I wouldn’t either. Even with a working group, it’s not clear that this technical problem is a business problem for the software vendors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com