Oh dear. Don Norman has discovered why free software is about freedom and what the cloud business model is really about. "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 w…
Recently I keep hearing pundits opine that the "open source" movement hasn't gone anywhere and is basically irrelevant. 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 "op…
I have seen the future and I am opposed
51–60 of 77 posts
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#52Does it strike any one else as at least a _bit_ disturbing that he thinks his "mind" is in his smart phone, and finds no problem with this other than that service providers are greedy? 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.
Actually, it goes deeper than that. Given the positions he held, it is fair to say, that he has to have manipulative skills: put simply, he is a manipulator.
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.
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#53It's an interesting post. A few points: > 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…
> 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.
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.
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#54This is a thoughtful piece written by a tech-savvy author who expresses concerns about the idea that we, as tech consumers, will be subject to the greed-driven restraints placed upon the technology we use by various corporate interests. 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 ul…
I'd greatly prefer if my freedom coincided with me being alive. "The long term" may or may not allow for that. 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.
The main difference is that each time we go through this cycle it becomes easier to forget that we have overlords, because each one controls less and less.
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?
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#55I for one think that (reasonable) asymmetrical internet connections are mostly a good thing. I mean, could you imagine a residential internet connection that really would handle eg slashdotting? On the other hand, you can get cheapo VPS or a piece of cloud for a fraction of a cost of a actual server, and includes internet connection, probably at least 100M, but likely a Gigabit. And because of high download speeds, you can actually put eg HD videos on your VPS and people will be able to actually consume them.
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.
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#56It's an interesting post. A few points: > 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…
> 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. 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 geograp…
>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.
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...
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#57This is a thoughtful piece written by a tech-savvy author who expresses concerns about the idea that we, as tech consumers, will be subject to the greed-driven restraints placed upon the technology we use by various corporate interests. 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 ul…
I'd greatly prefer if my freedom coincided with me being alive. "The long term" may or may not allow for that. 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.
I'd greatly prefer if my freedom coincided with me being alive.
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.
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#58This is a thoughtful piece written by a tech-savvy author who expresses concerns about the idea that we, as tech consumers, will be subject to the greed-driven restraints placed upon the technology we use by various corporate interests. 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 ul…
Apple allows you to run any software you want on your device. If you want something that isn't in the appstore, then you can have a webapp that works as a native app, that can be downloaded from the web, appear as an app on a page of apps like all the other apps, and operate like an app with access to the sensors of the device. Apple provides a complete platform for development of these apps, completely out of apple'…
> The app store doesn't let you make malicious or pornographic apps
How could Apple possibly prevent a sufficiently covertly malicious application from entering the app store?
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd greatly prefer if my freedom coincided with me being alive. "The long term" may or may not allow for that. 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.
I'd greatly prefer if my freedom coincided with me being alive. 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 p…
I'm not sure what the solution is.
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.
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#60This is a thoughtful piece written by a tech-savvy author who expresses concerns about the idea that we, as tech consumers, will be subject to the greed-driven restraints placed upon the technology we use by various corporate interests. 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 ul…
"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), IBM (for enterprise computing), and so on." Amazon operate in every one of those markets, and they dominate in a couple.
I believe that's the point. These companies did not anticipate the direction they would be dragged by technological progress, and other companies have filled the void. I'd really only say Amazon is a valid example for books though, as other companies currently have a larger presence in the rest.