Introduction
‘Multimedia’, as the term suggests, refers to the use of multiple media and content. The different content forms like “text, audio, still images, animation, video” (IET 1) and interactivity are combined into a structured form in multimedia. Multimedia communications are often defined as
The electronic means by which multimedia content (voice, text, image, data and video) is created and distributed in the fields of government and public services, business and commerce, education and entertainment (IET 1).
One of the more prominent examples of multimedia communications nowadays is the combined use of computer and videoconferencing technology in making long-distance presentations.
With the rapid expansion of markets, the need to develop and implement standards related to multimedia communications has been felt more acutely. It is generally believed that standardization of multimedia communications helps in maintaining uniformity, specifying the modes of interactivity and defining the levels of performance, quality and compatibility. However, there are strong objections to the implementation of standards in the field of multimedia communications (Very 593-614).
This essay seeks to emphasize the fact that ‘Standards related to Multimedia Communications are necessary to ensure functionality, compatibility and efficiency. Standards should be developed cooperatively and all developers should adhere to standards.’ The next section presents suitable arguments in favor of the above statement.
Arguments in favor of standardization
The primary aim of specifying standards for multimedia communications is to ensure interoperability. Interoperability refers to the situation where a product or a system can smoothly operate with other products and systems in the absence of any special Endeavour on the part of the user. Standards not only help in achieving this objective but also create the necessary support for current applications as well as future applications. Furthermore, it facilitates the development of a number of implementations (Bozios 243-261). This helps in ensuring the functionality and compatibility of multimedia communications where the main purpose is to deliver the content to the end-users via a combination of media.
However, it is often argued that the stress on interoperability reduces the scope for innovation and experimentation which is necessary to address the challenges of the rapidly evolving environment of multimedia communications. Standardization, according to many, impedes the development of functional and efficient multimedia communications by stifling creativity (McFarlane 201-212).
The above argument against standardization becomes invalid if the objective behind the formulation of standards becomes clear. While interoperability is crucial in this context, it does not mean that there would not be enough scope for creativity. The underlying principle is to define the basic norms/ standards necessary for facilitating interoperability while leaving enough scope for the compatible products to develop uniqueness and efficiency in the market. Additionally, standards are not something cast in stone. These need to constantly evolve and modify with time which in itself is a creative process (Miraj-E-Mostafa 335-357).
Another argument against the implementation of standards is that standardization affects competition which is important for growth and development. The very spirit of competition, according to many, works against the collective formulation of standards (McFarlane 201-212).
In this context, it may be mentioned that in the field of multimedia communications which is widely popular, competition is basically price and service-driven. Standards help commercial organizations to expand the market collectively. Moreover, standards also help the new entrants get a foothold in the market which otherwise may prove to be difficult for them. This is because, in the absence of standards, the market would be dominated by a select few who would not allow the entry of more competitors (Bozios 243-261). Furthermore, the standard is just a guideline, and the companies can implement these by putting ample use of their innovation and efficiency. This helps in increasing competition.
It must be understood that the primary intention of standardization is to achieve commonality and uniformity in the use of interfaces. This is because, in multimedia communications, there is a constant overlapping of multiple media and content. Standardization supports competition but at the same time, believes in creating a market that would benefit everybody in the long run (Miraj-E-Mostafa 335-357).
Along with interoperability, standards also help in enhancing connectivity in the field of multimedia communications. Interoperability and connectivity are the two important services the users expect in this context. Hence, better and effective connectivity would make the users satisfied and this can be done by the formulation of effective standards. This also reiterates the fact that standards do not deter the progress and efficiency of multimedia communications. Rather, the efficiency and functionality of the products and services are increased manifold (Very 593-614).
It is often alleged that standards are “the product of compromise” (Caplan 1) and can be tailored to act as a possible solution only to a specific application. It cannot be developed for all applications in general.
The above issue can be addressed by taking into account the extent to which the standards are generalized. Usually, the standards/norms that are developed by combining a set of widely tested and verified tools prove to be effective in providing technical solutions to a wide variety of applications. This depends on the approach of the implementer (Bozios 243-261).
Standards prove to be effective only when these are developed collaboratively and all the developers abide by them diligently. This is because, in the case of multimedia communications, there is a combination of media and content.
If developers are left free to formulate their own mechanisms, without any coordination among themselves, the standards would turn out to be application-specific. It is not possible for a single developer to formulate multiple solutions. On the other hand, if developers work collaboratively, it would prove to be more effective as this would lead to the development of multiple application solutions. Thus, a free market without the existence of any standards will give rise to an utterly chaotic situation (Very 593-614).
Moreover, the implementation of standards can be successful only when these are adhered to by all the developers. Fragmented use of standards reduces interoperability thereby deterring growth and development in the field of multimedia communications (Miraj-E-Mostafa 335-357).
Conclusion
There is an ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of developing standards related to multimedia communications. However, the importance of developing and implementing standards becomes all the more pronounced with the rapid expansion and usability of this field (McFarlane 201-212).
In other words, it may be reinstated that in the present scenario, standards have emerged as the most viable means of maintaining compatibility and ensuring interoperability in this highly complex field. This calls for a concerted effort on the part of both government and commercial organizations to appreciate the principle underlying the formulation of standards and emphasize the need for effective implementation. Moreover, standards are not rigid and need to be constantly evolved in keeping with the demands of the rapidly changing world of multimedia communications (Miraj-E-Mostafa 335-357).
Works Cited
Bozios, Helen. “Experiences from the Implementation and Use of Multimedia Synchronization Mechanisms.” European Transactions on Telecommunications 11.3 (2000): 243-261.
Caplan, Priscilla.“Oh what a tangled Web we weave: Opportunities and challenges for standards development in the digital library arena.” First Monday. 2000. Web.
IET. “About the Multimedia Communications Network.” The Institution of Engineering and Technology. 2010. Web.
McFarlane, Alex. “Assessment and multimedia authoring – a tool for externalising understanding.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 16.3 (2000): 201-212.
Miraj-E-Mostafa, Atif. “Improved implementation solution and general mobile network architecture for the interworking between MMS and streaming.” International Journal of Communication Systems 19.3 (2006): 335-357.
Very, Paul. “Multimedia Communications: Relative standing and the performance of US firms.” Strategic Management Journal 18.8 (2008): 593-614.