
Tech’s Two Philosophies - techrede
https://stratechery.com/2018/techs-two-philosophies/
======
skybrian
This article is making strategies out of tactics.

For example, Gmail's new autocomplete apparently helps people write email
faster. It doesn't write the email for you. Why isn't that a bicycle for the
mind? It's partially helping you do something you could do anyway, but faster.
(And maybe better, if you're still learning English?)

Maybe someday, for some emails, Gmail will be able to ghostwrite the entire
body of an email for you? But that's just a matter of technical competence,
not a change in strategy. Tech companies will change tactics based on what's
feasible.

But maybe the big change is when you let the machine take full, mostly-
unattended responsibility where safety is on the line (real driverless cars).

~~~
hyperpallium
Yeah, automation vs. amplification is a perennial issue, not sure it maps that
well to companies.

The difference is control, whether the task is sufficiently predictable and
well-understood. Similar to how much of a task can be hidden behind an API -
the specific usage determines acceptable performance metrics.

autocomplete/suggest is a T9/Clippy offspring, the latter by MS, and closer to
automation.

BTW: to be fair, when Steve Jobs demoed the iPhone, he used it to prank a cafe
for 2000 lattes. Whereas Google pranked a business automatically.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _automation vs. amplification is a perennial issue_

How is that even a difference? Amplification is done by automating
subcomponents of what you're trying to do. If you automate away the entire
task, it means you amplify the human working one level up.

------
scarface74
_The business model follows from these fundamental differences: a platform
provider has no room for ads, because the primary function of a platform is
provide a stage for the applications that users actually need to shine._

Please tell Microsoft this. Windows 10 and Skype are both littered with ads.
But I guess this is what happens when operating systems become commoditized.
All of the other major operating systems are either free for anyone to install
(Linux) or freely avallable to OEMs (Android/ChromeOS) or bundled with
hardware (Apple's operating systems).

~~~
skrebbel
> Windows 10 and Skype are both littered with ads.

I keep reading this on HN, from a Windows 10 box with no ads. And I've
searched! Where are the ads?

Either I accidentally installed Windows 10 No Ads Edition, or you're spreading
baseless FUD.

~~~
scarface74
They are constantly trying to sell subscriptions to O365 and One Drive.

They also sell third party ads in Skype - their included messaging app. Can
you imagine Apple selling ads in iMessage?

~~~
mrcnkoba
> They are constantly trying to sell subscriptions to O365 and One Drive.

There is exactly the same argument against Apple trying to sell iCloud.

WRT ads in MacOS Skype. I can't seem to find them (I am not a seasoned Skype
user though). Is it Windows+Skype specific?

~~~
scarface74
Straight from Microsoft....

[https://support.skype.com/en/faq/fa10942/why-are-there-
adver...](https://support.skype.com/en/faq/fa10942/why-are-there-
advertisements-for-other-companies-in-skype)

 _Occasionally, you may see advertisements for other companies in Skype (if
you 're using the free version of Skype). Advertisements help keep Skype free
for millions of users, and these advertisements will not disrupt your Skype
experience in any way._

Skype is bundled with Windows as _the_ default messaging platform just like
iMessage for the Mac.

------
oflannabhra
The attempt to create a dichotomy between the two philosophies is a bit thin
when you frame the question around products instead of "computers"

All four companies care deeply about creating compelling and useful products
for users. That gets spread across many different domains for all of those
companies.

Someone can love and find value in a piece of software just as easily as they
can a piece of hardware.

------
arthurjj
Interesting that the author didn't mention Intelligence
Augmentation/amplification[1] in the article. IA is often contrasted to AI
that it makes humans more able to do their job.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_amplification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_amplification)

~~~
empath75
I think that’s the Apple/Microsoft philosophy.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I don't think so. IMO, Apple and Microsoft are just less aggressive in taking
all the agency away from their users. They do that too, but they don't put as
much focus on it as Google does.

------
dfgdghdf
Those who have watched Halt and Catch Fire might be reminded of the
competition between Rover & Comet, which are two companies with different
philosophies in a similar space.

------
mc32
So, on the one hand one approach is to replace the mind (take it out of the
loop and "let the robots take over". The other is to "augment the mind and
enable it to do more". One sounds better then the other.

The robotic choice unfortunately has a very authoritarian or centralist vibe.
That is, it's taking over for the person with but with central tutelage. The
other the tutelage is in the person using the augmenting tech.

Obs it remains to be seen how things pan out.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Both approaches are really equivalent on the technical level. Augmenting the
mind is done by automating and abstracting away lower-level stuff - taking the
mind out of the loop and letting the robots take the details over.

And the problem with _all_ those companies is agency. It seems they all try to
minimize user's agency, by making it purposefully impossible to control or dig
into underlying automation. They differ by the effort put into taking control
away from the user, with Google being the leader in blatantly dumbing down and
isolating everything.

~~~
mc32
Thanks for framing the issue more succinctly. Yes the issue is removing agency
from people coated in the sweet nectar of convenience.

------
dredmorbius
An interesting and thoughtful exploration. I'd like to add Jack M. Balkin an
Jonathan Zittrain's notion of information fiduciary to the pot:

[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/infor...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/information-
fiduciary/502346/)

Also very interested in Hans Jonas and his work. Any recommended readings?

------
jpfed
This appears to be saying that some companies want to be your framework (and
so own the problem); other companies just want to be your library.

~~~
real-hacker
Nice analogy. We want tech to help us only when we need them, not to tell us
how to live our lives.

------
bambax
> _In Google’s view, computers help you get things done — and save you time —
> by doing things for you. Duplex was the most impressive example — a computer
> talking on the phone for you_

But who is "you"? Obviously, "Duplex" talks on the phone on behalf of people
needing an appointment, ie, not everyone. And specifically, not the people
tasked with answering the phone, who are duped into thinking they're having a
human interaction when in fact they're talking to a machine. It's even worse
than that. We're used to telling machines to do things for us. But the people
answering Duplex calls are being told what to do, by a machine.

When GPS became popular I had a friend who absolutely refused to get one
because, she said, she "wouldn't take instructions from a machine".

At the time, I thought that was the silliest thing ever.

Now I completely get her point.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It is a silly example, because GPS (or rather, GPS-based nav systems) really,
99% of the time, is better than you at navigating. Also, the technology itself
is pretty much purely informative - a map with a path displayed. Voice
instructions are optional and something implicitly understood as friendly
directions, not orders.

I think most examples of machines telling people what to do still happen in
context of paid work, and even there, quite often there's a good reason for
that.

Personally, my worry with Duplex is all the abuse - er, growth hacking - that
will happen.

~~~
aserafini
There are good, honest use-cases for this technology though: for example a
food ordering platform that needs to gather holiday openings hours for
hundreds of thousands og restaurants globally. These restaurants are not tech-
savvy: so the only alternative is using people to call them.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I don't disagree. I'm not condemning the whole product right now. I have only
two primary worries:

1/ Huge increase in amount of robocall spam.

2/ Given the discussion on the Duplex HN thread, I'm starting to seriously
worry people will try and do machine-to-machine communication through Duplex,
which is something completely idiotic and wasteful, but might also become
easier than doing the right thing (agreeing on an API).

------
hefeweizen
The "bicycle of the mind" platform vs aggregator argument is a bit contrived:
the author is conflating features built on top of platforms with the platform
itself. Most of the examples listed (Google Photos auto-edit, Maps
suggestions, Gmail compose) are typically features built on top of platforms
that can be (and are) used without these features.

Instead, I would think of these tools as an electric bicycle of the mind (to
borrow from the article): the purpose of the motor is to help you on steeper
hills. It is inherently still a bicycle.

Maybe stop trying to shoe-horn multi-decade companies with thousands of
employees into ill-fitting philosophical silos? I'm all for arguments
for/against companies but retro-fitting them into narratives and then
proclaiming A is better than B is disingenuous.

------
sanatgersappa
“Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which
we can perform without thinking of them. ”

Quite sure that automation is closer to this than bicycling.

~~~
sah2ed
That's an especially apt quote from 1911 by Alfred North Whitehead.

[https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead](https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead)

------
hndamien
Is there a third philosophy of decentralisation which has different incentives
and new constraints that are more to our liking in avoiding a dystopian
future.

------
mirimir
> I believe that we need to design technology to help bring people closer
> together. And I believe that that’s not going to happen on it’s own. So to
> do that, part of the solution, just part of it, is that one day more of our
> technology is going to need to focus on people and our relationships. ...

If Landmark Education (or one of its many descendants) focused on software
technology, that would arguably be a key message. I wonder if that's just a
coincidence.

~~~
throeaway
Off-topic, but:

Do you know if Landmark is a cult? Is it something to be worried about? A
close friend has recently gotten super involved with it and has done all three
courses and is evangelizing it pretty hard, he's normally not someone who gets
sucked into this kind of thing easily though.

He also doesn't seem "brainwashed". I've googled about the organization and
have my reservations, but I'm not sure if it's legitimately helpful with some
bad marketing strategies or Scientology/Waco/Jonestown

~~~
mirimir
No, they're not a cult. And unlike Scientology, their courses aren't insanely
progressively expensive.

On the other hand, the organization's mission is transforming the world. Just
as their website says. And a key aspect of that is hard-core evangelism.

Just as Zuckerberg said in that quote :)

------
bryanrasmussen
facetiously, ff a computer does things for you it frees up your time to watch
more ads on the computer, if a computer helps you to do the things you need to
do more efficiently it frees up your time to get off the computer.

------
mark-r
The ratio of articles to ads in that illustration is completely backwards.

~~~
rejschaap
A large percentage of the articles are ads.

------
jl2718
> collective action... the best form of which is bounded by the popular will

This notion is dangerous. Popular will brings fascism, authoritarianism,
discrimination, instability, and uncertainty. Popular will is not and never
has been a sustainable form of authority.

Political economists have a term, ‘institutions’ to describe sustainable forms
of authority, like laws, morality, family structure, culture, language,
literacy, technical education, career stability, and pedagogy.

Institutions like “don’t be evil”, and “we will never sell your data”, are the
entire reason why the current batch of tech earned enough trust to exist at
all. “Do the right thing”, and “bring people together”, however nice they
sound, appear to be easily manipulated by popular will, which will be either
their downfall, or ours.

~~~
andrepd
Can you elaborate how popular will brings authoritarianism? Seems like a
complete non-sequitur.

~~~
forapurpose
> Can you elaborate how popular will brings authoritarianism? Seems like a
> complete non-sequitur.

Someone once said, 'Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting
on what's for dinner'. Democracy, in its purest form, is arguably mob rule.

That's why constitutional democracy - democracy with limited government and
the rule of law, including human rights - is the ideal and the foundation of
modern government. The majority, the popular will, can't vote to take away
your free speech and other rights, no matter how unpopular you are. Remember
the foundation of the U.S. is the assertion that 'all men' have "inalienable
rights", and that governments exist to protect those rights.

~~~
kolpa
It's not proven that " constitutional democracy" is the ideal. The "foundation
of modern government" says that a Black person as no rights, but counts as
3/5ths of a person for their master's voting rights.

~~~
forapurpose
> It's not proven that " constitutional democracy" is the ideal. The
> "foundation of modern government" says that a Black person as no rights, but
> counts as 3/5ths of a person for their master's voting rights.

Great point; I agree that I shouldn't have used the word "ideal", because it's
not at all ideal. Constitutional democracy sucks; it's just much better than
any alternative. (I think Churchill said that.)

~~~
opo
>...Constitutional democracy sucks; it's just much better than any
alternative. (I think Churchill said that.)

He said something like that, but he didn't say he originated the thought. In
the house of Commons, he once said:

"...Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government
except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

[https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-
government](https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government)

------
allthenews
>Zuckerberg, as so often seems to be the case with Facebook, comes across as a
somewhat more fervent and definitely more creepy version of Google

At this point I think the difference between what FB and Google are doing is
superficial marketing. The abuse potential of their technologies grows with
every new peephole that they drill into your life.

While people become increasingly dependent on said technology for a growing
proportion of life's activities, FB and google have repeatedly demonstrated
that they do not have our best interests in mind, and serve primarily to
exploit overreaches in privacy and trust.

Not to be melodramatic, but it's like some weird kind of slavery.

