I've waited a long time to respond on this thread but after Jay Martin's
excellent re-cap of Host-to-Device protocol development history, I
feel the time is right. I known many of you hear me at various PWG
meetings
when an issue comes up that needs to be addressed, I often chime in
with something like "TIPSI does that" or something to that effect. Many of
you may think I am attempting to interject a little humor but the reality
is
that I'm being factual.
Please don't be confused about the following and think it is coming from
Geoff (from down-under) but the bottom line is that too many companies
in the printer business are not listening to their customers! Get this
right -- my customers never told me they wanted TIPSI in their printers.
Maybe that's the problem with conjoint studies and focus groups --
we hear the words of the customers and don't really understand the
root source of those words. We hear customers say they "want SNMP
management for their printers" or some other technology. Why?
Because that's what was on PC-Week, or InternetWeek or some
other industry periodical they read last week. Does this mean they
really want SNMP and think that it will solve all their printer
management and job submission problems. No way! The customer
is saying they want control and the only way they can say that so
technical marketing people will listen is to say "SNMP." Maybe
it is because of some internal religion. We too often filter
what we hear based on the current religion. A few years ago
SNMP was the religion. When we started IPP, HTTP was the
religion. Now, maybe XML is the religion. It doesn't matter,
the bottom line is that we are hearing but not listening.
*** Warning self-serving horn tooting ahead ***
Here's the bottom line:
Customer's wanted control. Customer's wanted to know what
was going on with their printers (instantly -- not some SNMP polling
period away). Customers want GUI. Customers wanted ease
of use. As a result of these needs, several of us began working
on what started as Network Printing Alliance Protocol in 1991
and eventually became IEEE Std 1284.1-1997 last year.
*** End of self-serving horn tooting ***
I've seen several lists of requirements on this thread and have
considered them seriously when compared to the attributes
and features of TIPSI. With the exception of security, I believe
TIPSI as it exists today meets the vast majority if not all of them.
Do I think the industry needs a robust host to device protocol? My
answer is no -- we already have one. If the rest of the printer companies
of the world would deliver what their customer's needed and not just
a clone of what HP has, we wouldn't be having this conversation and
HP wouldn't have 60% market share. The bottom line is that we all
had a choice. Many of you participated in the development of
TIPSI but you and your companies decided not to develop and
ship using it. Now you want to clear the slate and start this whole
thing over again. Give me a break! I'm tired of re-inventing
the wheel every couple of years.
If the group "discovers" that TIPSI is a good starting point for a
robust host to device protocol, it won't be a surprise to me. If there
is a real effort (with HP and Microsoft in the boat) to add security
and update the protocol, I'm all for it and I'll help lead the effort to
open 1284.1 for revision. But if the decision is that we need to
start all over again with another clean slate then good luck -- I'm
really getting tired of this.
Jay was right on. His list of 4 excuses was just that "excuses."
Don Wright
Product Manager, Strategic Alliances
Lexmark International
- and -
Unashamed TIPSI Advocate