I have seen the future and I am opposed
core77.com
core77.com
The unstated premise of the piece seems to be that, as technology matures, control over it becomes consolidated in fewer hands, each of whom has a proprietary interest to limit its ultimate use in order to serve its short-term profit interests. Thus, service providers charge high roaming fees and structure their charges to serve their interests at the expense of consumers while apps that are offered come increasingly within walled gardens where proprietary overlords dictate all terms.
I believe this is all true but disagree as to its alleged threat to our future as tech consumers. Human innovation in a free enterprise system tends to take on a force of its own that overwhelms individual corporate interests. If this were not the case, then our current overlords would be Barnes & Noble (for books), Tower Records (for music), Blockbuster Video (for video rentals), Western Union (for instant messaging), IBM (for enterprise computing), and so on. These were yesterday's corporate giants and they each declined in their influence specifically because they failed to anticipate key trends in technology and thus became laggards instead of leaders.
Telco service providers, of course, have incredible power and will use that power to further their particular narrow interests if at all possible. This has resulted in a variety of frustrating user experiences. Even here, however, technology will tend to outrun their long-term ability to dictate terms. Those who are old enough will readily remember the outrageous expense, while traveling, of "long distance" charges, of the scarcity of reliable phone systems in many countries, and of the difficulty often incurred while wanting to make a call of trying to find an available phone booth while on the road. We are worlds removed from that old environment today owing to amazing advances in technology, and we as consumers are far better off than before in spite of the hassles, inconveniences, and expenses we experience with our service providers.
I resist walled gardens and proprietary traps in the marketplace as much as the next guy but these too do not threaten my choices in the long run. I may or may not like what Apple does but Apple will not control the future any more than the companies listed above. Corporate control in this sense is powerful but ephemeral - absent government restrictions that give it quasi-monopoly status, it lasts only as long as a company serves important needs of consumers. Once that slips, so too does the corporate dominance (over the long term). I may be wrong about this but, given what I have observed over my lifetime, I take a much more relaxed view of it than does the author of this piece.
Your argument seems to be akin to "History shows that every tyrant who ever existed has died." Yes but if one or more new tyrants has been born for every one that died, what consolation is it? Different corporate overlords isn't the same as no corporate overlords.
Go back to the pre-industrial era, and you own essentially nothing unless you're royalty. Move forward into the mid-19th century and the picture has changed - bankers and railroad barons have grown powerful enough to assert some control over governments. By the 20th century you have a whole array of public services(water/phone/gas/electric). And today, the big discussions are mostly over information businesses.
Example: Even though Apple, Amazon and Netflix have done a lot to usurp the nature of retail and media publishing and can be seen as "tyrants" of their respective markets, they've given up control in other ways; you have considerable freedom to publish and distribute products through their services. They still curate, but not extensively. And, on balance, they offer a better profit/consumer value ratio.
The overall picture adds up to something more complicated than "new tyrants, same as the old" - the quest for profit is increasingly causing them to battle each other, as they keep stepping on each other's toes, and that's forcing a kind of competition that was unimaginable in previous eras. It's still imperfect because some elements of the system will occasionally try to take the rest hostage(e.g. banking, recently), but some amazing things are happening regardless - Twitter revolutions, anyone?
Well, a free enterprise system is just that: one in which consumers have choices. The fact that Google dominates search, or that Apple dominates mobile devices, or that Microsoft dominates desktop computing hardly limits my "freedom" in any real sense of that word and, in the meantime, I will gladly use Google over AltaVista, Apple over a Brand X music player, and Microsoft over WordStar for the benefits I derive from those offerings. In other words, I don't have a problem with a company making proprietary offerings if such offerings give me better value than what otherwise exists and, if I don't like them, I don't have to deal with them.
So, I feel I have my freedom today, just as I did years ago when IBM dominated enterprise computing, and that is why I am (as I said above) quite relaxed about the idea that private corporate interests can control and dominate their respective fields of activity. So long as no government entrenches them permanently as monopolies no matter what their virtues, the activities of Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. are entirely consistent with a free system of economic activity.
If you would abolish the idea of market-leading companies in a free enterprise system, what would you replace that with? In other words, how are you using the word "freedom" and "tyrant" in this context? These are genuine questions because, apart from your use of the term "tyrant" for rhetorical effect, I don't understand where you are going with this idea.
> The fact that Google dominates search, or that Apple dominates mobile
> devices, or that Microsoft dominates desktop computing hardly limits my
> "freedom" in any real sense of that word
Limiting freedom doesn't apply solely to the freedom to make a choice, it also applies to limiting the options one has to choose between. When AT&T lobbies the government to allow them to refuse access to their last-mile lines to 3rd-party ISPs, then AT&T is limiting my freedom b/c now I have fewer choices in ISPs in my area.
Freedom means you do what you like with things you own. It does not mean every market should (or will) organize itself so as to maximally benefit you.
As for AT&T: of course. Behind every good monopoly is the government (and then they're protected by law -- and the threats of murder, blackmail and kidnapping for violation).
But I think that one can articulate the problem of abusive monopolies as being narrower than simply companies leading the market.
The distinction between rent-seekers and profit-seekers is rough but it's a little closer to the original complaint. We can define abusive monopolies as companies which have acquired not just a strong position in the market but also a legal or force-based cudgel to drive off all serious competitors. Telcos having a monopoly on civic rights-of-way is an example of this. Companies using software patents to scare-away competitor are another example of this.
One problem in dealing with this situation is that in a fair, "commodity" market, margins tend to become "paper thin". Thus there's a lot of capital out there chasing opportunities to get a choke-hold on one or another markets. I don't have any idea what to do about that.
Yes , we live in time of rapid technological change , but how soon do you see an internet level change affecting the industry ? and aren't today's companies more aware of the innovator's dillema and can handle disruptive change somewhat better(microsoft has done quite a good job at this)?
Furthermore, it's almost without exception that these technologies have weakened big companies, especially in the software industry. Cheap computing power that you don't even have to manage, a massive ecosystem of open source code, and powerful communication tools are available to anybody now. Big companies rely on economies of scale to offset the costs of organization. It's becoming increasingly difficult for them to win in an industry with almost no barrier to entry.
You can look at netflix , amazon , google and apple and the ISP's. each have a huge competitive barrier : wheter it's huge customer base , big data , big "relationships" , huge brand , huge brain trusts, large manufacturing volume, network effects, large costly infrasturtuce or a very very efficent logistical system. those are things that costs alot of money and are not easy to scale.
And if all that doesn't work , in many cases you can just buy your future disruptor.
Amazon operate in every one of those markets, and they dominate in a couple.
And yet it is also true that the end-users can have a significant amount of influence in how quickly the marketplace provides more choice and more open solutions. Most immediately they can choose the more open solution instead of the one that provides more of a walled garden (such as selecting android over the iphone). They can, at least in less capital intensive fields, choose to enter themselves and provide a more open solution (as certain Linux providers have done). In the extreme, they can lobby for legislation or regulation to require or at least support openness and choice. While I generally support a very light regulatory touch, there are some rare and extreme cases where it is appropriate.
While everything you say is true, those who wish to resist walled gardens and proprietary traps can choose to do so in an active and conscious way, rather than merely waiting for the inevitable (yet sometimes slow) march of technology to bring this openness.
Apple does this for two reasons. The first is, giving developers these tools outside of Apple's control, is beneficial to the platform. Apple wants as much developer focus as it can. The second reason, and probably more important, is that by having unrestricted app access, Apple provides the best solution for all of its customers. More apps means happier customers.
The app store doesn't let you make malicious or pornographic apps. The former doesn't benefit anyone, and the latter while a silly restriction is easily circumvented by using the web based platform.
Apple's walled garden is more a marketing slogan of Apple's competitors than anything else. Apple really doesn't care, because what apple does, is focus on the users. (which is why iOS is an open platform.)
Frankly, if your ideas were superior, you wouldn't need to rely on lies and censorship to propagate them.
This tells us everything we need to know about the lack of integrity of the average HN poster.
I find the level of dishonesty quite disgusting.
How could Apple possibly prevent a sufficiently covertly malicious application from entering the app store?
"One reason you should not use web applications to do your computing is that you lose control," he said. "It's just as bad as using a proprietary program. Do your own computing on your own computer with your copy of a freedom-respecting program. If you use a proprietary program or somebody else's web server, you're defenceless. You're putty in the hands of whoever developed that software."[1]
He dismisses GNU/Linux right off the bat, even though the very reason why GNU was even born[2] is the very same problem he is starting to admit (given where he worked, I think he saw this ...but now that he no longer seem to profit from it enough to even get his blackberry roaming payed for him by The Company Overlord -- welcome to the reality of the majority).
Just visit http://www.debian.org/ and download http://www.libreoffice.org/ and do something about it, instead of musing and whining (I am awaiting a functionality he would need that is missing).
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.compu...
IMO that is a great sign that it's a good time to be getting into Free Software. The Affero GPL is probably the only thing that can realize the potential of cloud computing, and keep the cloud bubble from popping and a major swing back to locally hosted IT systems.
PS - Also, I am very glad that "open source" became unfashionable because it made Eric Raymond go away.
An obvious way to avoid becoming beholden to service providers is to retain some independence from our devices. It's not like people didn't travel before the invention of the iPhone.
No. It is natural and true. Intelligence Augmentation is already there, in the form of the internet and our array of portable computers, which give us access to any information or computation we know how to find or express. We are already some distance to Stross's Manfred Macx (from his novel Accelerando) - lost and slightly bemused when disconnected from our external brain. It's not so obvious yet, and most of us still have some independence, but those of us who know how to use the web are lesser people without access to it.
It sounded to me like Don Norman had already accepted that idea to the point that he didn't even realize it was a choice. He worries about a future of greedy carriers controlling our phone-brains. I worry about the fact that our minds could become so beholden to devices that, regardless of whether those devices are open or privately controlled, we diminish the depth of our experience and our tendencies towards reflective thought.
If drugs were available that increased our abilities but made us less thoughtful, would you accept that without deliberation? Would it really be better if those drugs were easy to make at home or handed out for free rather than sold in stores? This is already happening with Ritalin and "smart drugs". They improve our ability to carry out mental work but diminish our ability to reflect on what we are doing.
"Smart" drugs and phones are only so in terms of instrumental reason, not in terms of creativity or contemplation of ends.
Technology is what separates humans from the rest of the animals. As time goes by, we will become more and more dependent on our technology, and this is a good thing, because I with my smartphone or laptop can do things I wouldn't be able to do alone.
Internet access is becoming a fundamental human requirement; this need should not be overly exploited by corporations.
I'm used to crotchety old people complaining about GPS killing map reading skills.
Manipulators use phones, mails, memo-s etc. as remote control devices. And since manipulators are more often than not weak on substance, they rely on input from outside more than "creators", who have more inherent values to live off from.
I think he just got pissed by being blown out of the water because of his net-blackout.
Mobile internet access while traveling abroad is expensive and unreliable because it's new. Yes, there are commercial forces that try to maintain high prices as long as possible, but short-term profits never hold up forever. Fifty years ago, every phone bill in the US was payable to AT&T, and long distance calls could cost dollars (not cents) per minute. Thirty years ago, we gained multiple long distance carriers and prices fell quickly. Twenty years ago, we cut the cord, but cell phones charged by the minute and came with draconian contracts. Today it's common to lease a service with an near-infinite supply of minutes, that lets you call anywhere in the country for a flat rate. It's incredibly cheap compared to long distance of twenty years ago. All this, despite the evil resistance of profiteering corporations.
Sure, Microsoft laughed at Apple and Sun when they approached to develop a common standard platform. Times change, and high profits are constantly under attack. Microsoft completely missed the internet boat -- not a single protocol in use on the internet today comes out of Microsoft. Google and many other corporations offer free products that compete favorably with Microsoft's expensive products of yore. It must have sucked to compete with Microsoft in the 90's, but here we are, and where is Microsoft? Sinking billions into R&D in the race against Google.
Over and over, new technologies lead to incredible profits for a few, controlling corporations, but inevitably these situations aren't permanent. Our internet faces censorship threats from governments and exclusivity threats from corporations, but these controls, like others before, won't last.
So what is Mr. Norman going on about? Short-term profiteering? That's what covers my paycheck, and makes all this possible. Privatization of the internet? Maybe temporarily, but if that doesn't truly benefit the public then it simply can't endure against technological advancement.
It's not inevitable. It's because people work to spread awareness and change the situation.
We don't necessarily have to "spread awareness" for a problem to find a solution. In this case, especially, we're all already pretty "aware" that roaming internet sucks.
Aye, there's the rub. Corporate welfare programs are the root cause of everything he's describing, and of a lot of other problems with today's economic system. Restrictions on competition, created by the government, have been a major obstacle to everyone's welfare since at least the 18th century (Adam Smith rails against them at length in Wealth of Nations).
Anyone who NEEDS this level of connectivity must be losing all power of imagination, of self-reliance, of self-sufficiency. One of the joys of being abroad is that sense of discovery, finding stuff out for yourself, and more often than not meeting new people in the process. Where's the fun, the romance, in having your phone recommend you a restaurant?
I don't have a smart phone, and am not sure I ever will. I'm in front of the internet all day long in the office, and often at home. Being out and about is a welcome break. And if I need to find somewhere to eat, I'll go find it myself. I'll take in the city, absorb my surroundings, and discover new things in the process.
I have seen the future, and I am opposed too.
http://futureoftheinternet.org/
Agree that it is a problem. Quite brave, by the way, that he speaks out about this as a (former) Apple VP...
To the extent that connectivity and access are increasingly becoming essential to a modern way of life, commerce, education, etc. and considering the clear direction towards consolidation, oligopolization etc., ISP/cable/wireless providers increasingly look like natural monopolies. Somewhere on the spectrum of a public national highway system, public utilities, or a regulated broadcast and telecom systems, probably more towards the latter.
There are lots of good reasons for being concerned, and historical lessons abound.
And that VPS will have probably far less limitations on the content you are distributing via it compared to a residential connection, partly because the higher competition. And if your VPS provider decides to shut your revolutionary website down, it's trivial to move to an another provider, compared to switching your home connection. And additionally VPS is easier to anonymize if you need/want to. Your home connection will always point to your home, and to you.
Highly likely to be the case if you are American.
While I agree with his post on the whole, nearly all of those smartphone apps are available offline. His point is more valid when it comes to content.
That said, I recommend the author bring a paper book along whenever he travels.
Mindless, unattached, not clinging... a proper Nirvana.
Why not get a local pay-as-you-go GSM SIM with a data bundle, pop into your phone, and voila?
> But what I see developing seems driven by greed and profit...
Yes, it's called "capitalism".
> For me, the future would bring forth solutions to our needs and wants...
Check.
> design that provides value in a sustainable and responsible manner...
"Sustainable" is an extremely loaded term. Basically, you get it when the market demands it. If you see it as important, it's not a failure of the producers: it's a failure of the consumers to demand or the governments to require it.
The rest of the post talks about nascent issues of balkanization, which is the natural path of progression. Consider the examples of railroads in the US and the road system in the UK. In both cases, they were initially private endeavours that were likewise driven by "greed and profit". Arguably in both cases the high pricing stifled innovation and in both cases, the systems were eventually nationalized.
In the UK's example, nationalization fostered trade (the roads were all toll roads previously). In the case of the US railroads, nationalization can arguably be seen as a disaster so there are mixed results of this.
Ultimately though the story is one of commoditization. We are still in the pioneering days of these technologies and as time goes on they will get cheaper and ubiquitous to the point where people through the instrument of governments will start to see such services as basic rights, much as is becoming the case with Internet access, which many countries are starting to see as the "fourth utility".
"Greed and profit" propelled us from an a hunter-gatherer and agrarian existence to manned spaceflight and the global Internet. Don't be quick to dismiss or disparage "greed and profit" as there has been no greater catalyst for human advancement.
As for his talk of "open standards", I refer you to Dave McClure's "Open is for Losers" [1]. We may find open desirable philosophically but it is not the natural product of a market--at least not an immature market. Open standards are the byproduct of commoditization.
As for synchronous Internet connections:
> Why would it harm companies to provide equal access?
The predominant form of broadband access in many countries is ADSL. The "A" is asynchronous in this case. ADSL2+ is up to 24M down and 1M up (2M with Annex M). Gain more upload speed and you lose download speed. So this isn't an artificial restriction: it's giving consumers what they most likely want. You can buy SDSL links. They have lower (relative) download speeds and generally higher cost, mostly because they're a business product as a general rule.
> I fear the Internet is doomed to fail, to be replaced by tightly controlled gardens of exclusivity.
I don't. I see such walled gardens as merely transitional. The "greed and profit" that drives them pulls us all forward and makes a bucketload of money for a few in the process. For a time.
> Today it is too easy for unknown entities to penetrate into private homes and businesses, stealing identities and corporate secrets.
Not really. If you run a Windows machine directly on the Internet (ie not via a router that does NAT, etc) then you kinda get what you deserve.
The fact is, the closed devices the OP bemoans are actually much safer for such things and that's almost by definition because as soon as you get a complicated mess like Windows, faults are inevitable.
TL:DR the sky isn't falling.
[1]: http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/19/dave-mcclure-open-is-for-l...
war. While war and its related technological advances are frequently connected to "greed and profit", it is still a driver of its own. For example, Manhattan project and its people weren't driven by "greed and profit".
I'll certainly agree that many technological changes owe their origins to war. Rocketry is a prime example. Another is the steam engine. The ability to make pistons was a direct byproduct of the technology developed to make cannons.
War is an interesting phenomenon. By our nature, we compete. We've competed since we climbed out of the primordial ooze. Actually before.
One can view war as the ultimate means of settling accounts but even that's an incomplete picture as many wars have their origins in culture and religion.
Anyway, my point isn't that greed and profit motivated ALL advancement. The people who invented the solid state transistor but companies who fund such research do so typically with a profit motive. It's that profit motive that also takes a scientific discovery and mass produces it into something people will buy.
Without that profit motive, many such advancements might otherwise be laboratory curiosities.
It's a mixed bag all around, this one. The railroads in the US were killed, for the most part, by the Interstate Highway system, an equally nationalized endeavor. But really, they were doomed by geographic reality. Population density in the US is such that in most parts of the country a car is an absolute requirement for every working adult. And gas is cheap enough (relative to the rest of the world) that it's cost effective to rely on trucks and airplanes to move merchandise.
If you privatized Amtrak tomorrow, you'd still see full rail service up and down the Boston-NYC-DC corridor. But running a train through "flyover" country is a waste of money from the get-go.
The US has one of the largest, most used freight rail systems in the world (both overall and per capita).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_countr...
I can see that you are.