5 ms·
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
by grellas 16y ago
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.
- DanI-S 16y ago"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.
- shadowflit 16y agoI 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.
- nika 16y agoApple 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 16y agoIt's like the parent said "blah, blah blah, blah, I may (blah) not like Apple blah, blah, blah".