One of the guys I respect most in this business — indeed, one of the guys I learned the most from just by reading his excellent blog, MLS Tesseract — is Brian Larson of Larson, Sobotka. Brian was a key player in the creating of IDX back in the late 90’s and probably has forgotten more about the subject than I ever knew.
So when Brian takes me to task on a set of views related to IDX… well, I have little choice but the perk up the old ears, pay attention, and see where I might have gone wrong. He writes:
Rob Hahn has said there is no meaningful difference between IDX and syndication and that he thinks brokers pulling out of syndication are a harbinger of IDX’s demise; but I think he’s dead wrong. I’ll try to make my point here in a post considerably shorter than one of Rob’s Notoriously long ones You can see Rob’s post claiming (erroneously, I think) the equivalence of IDX to syndication here; regarding the Austin “kerfuffle” as evidence of the impending demise of IDX here; and offering further comments about Austin and IDX here.
He goes on to point out a few things where he disagrees with me. For example, he writes:
But Rob has suggested that VOWs are just as good. I disagree: VOWs are not a satisfactory substitute (so far) for IDX.
Upon further review, I don’t believe we have any disagreement here. What we might have is a failure to communicate — namely, the difference between describing something vs. advocating for something. There are a few errors of interpretation on Brian’s part — such as the statement above about IDX being just as good as VOW — which I am happy to correct.