
I have seen the future and I am opposed - cwan
http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/i_have_seen_the_future_and_i_am_opposed_18532.asp
======
grellas
This 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 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.

~~~
nika
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's control. If you want a native app, you
can get a developer account and install whatever software you want.

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.)

~~~
rfrey
It's like the parent said "blah, blah blah, blah, I may (blah) not like Apple
blah, blah, blah".

~~~
coderdude
You'll notice he's updated his about: "Don't participate anymore due to the
hive mind, intolerance and lack of quality discussions here."

------
Create
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 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...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman)

[2] <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html>

~~~
sedachv
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 "open source" became unfashionable because it
made Eric Raymond go away.

~~~
OO7
<http://michael-wheeler.org/2011/01/29/leaving-the-cloud/>

------
nick_urban
Does 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.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
Should we discard our clothes harden ourselves for the weather to become less
dependent on clothing manufacturers?

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.

~~~
grammaton
False analogy. There is a big, big difference between clothes that keep you
from perishing due to exposure, and your shiny new smart phone. The real
problem here is that the author is, apparently, incapable of thought without
an array of instant-access resources at his disposal.

~~~
amouat
Clearly he is capable of thought without "instant-access resources", given
that he drafted the article without them.

Internet access is becoming a fundamental human requirement; this need should
not be overly exploited by corporations.

~~~
grammaton
Food, water, shelter, medical care. These are fundamental human requirements.
The internet is not. Sorry, but it's just not.

------
joblessjunkie
This piece is short on big-picture thinking. None of its complaints hold up
under scrutiny.

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.

~~~
contextfree
"Over and over, new technologies lead to incredible profits for a few,
controlling corporations, but inevitably these situations aren't permanent."

It's not inevitable. It's because people work to spread awareness and change
the situation.

~~~
joblessjunkie
...and a thousand other reasons. Perhaps a government steps in to break a
monopoly. Perhaps a new technology arrives to subvert the control. Perhaps a
competitor simply offers something a little better or cheaper.

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.

------
zeteo
"as the business potential became obvious to corporate warlords, they struck,
[...] getting willing governments to enact rules, regulations and laws to
protect corporate interests"

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_ ).

------
retube
One of the joys of travel is the disconnect. Frankly, the more connected we
become, the less time we have for ourselves. I hate it that now I can go to
just about the most remote place on earth and no longer have a good reason not
be answering emails or phoning home.

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.

------
hammock
What worries me about this post is that the most salient solution to one of
the main complaints (roaming fees) is to have one giant worldwide provider of
mobile broadband. And it's not hard to imagine why that might not be so good.

------
wybo
This is basically the main thesis of Zittrains 'The Future of the Internet:
And how to stop it'

<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...

------
scelerat
I agree with many of Norman's concerns.

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.

------
zokier
I 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.

------
jamesaguilar
1\. Buy a SIM card in your destination country. 2. Profit.

~~~
watmough
Unless you have an unlocked (i)phone, I believe this will probably fail.
Sadly.

Highly likely to be the case if you are American.

~~~
technomancy
So pay attention before you buy your phone. It's not hard.

------
keiferski
_My phone translates foreign languages, provides maps and directions,
recommends restaurants and tells me the news of the day. It lets me
communicate with friends around the world and in general, allows me to
function. All my knowledge depends upon access to communication services: my
email, my calendar, my maps and guidebooks. But all of this is at the mercy of
the service provider._

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.

------
pnathan
This reminds me of McLuhan's thesis on technology: for each advance, something
is effectively lost.

That said, I recommend the author bring a paper book along whenever he
travels.

------
zecg
To quote: "My intelligence is in the cloud. My life is in the cloud. My
friends, photographs, ideas and mail. My life. My mind. Take away my cloud and
I am left mindless.

Mindless, unattached, not clinging... a proper Nirvana.

------
tjmaxal
What about consumer responsibility? caveat empetor and all. Capitalism only
works when we the consumer are willing to buy what is out there instead of
holding out for better offers.

------
Synaesthesia
Wonder why he writes his column in Word, I can think of no tangible benefit.
In fact writing in Word on a Mac is really annoying because you get no spell
check access.

------
joubert
_Exorbitant roaming_

Why not get a local pay-as-you-go GSM SIM with a data bundle, pop into your
phone, and voila?

------
cletus
It'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 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...](http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/19/dave-mcclure-open-is-for-losers/)

~~~
rtperson
> 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.

~~~
smallblacksun
>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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_country)

<http://www.economist.com/node/16636101>

------
PonyGumbo
>...18532.asp

I can see that you are.

