Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lost In the Cloud

Posted by Soulskill on from the stormy-weather dept.

Colonel Korn writes "Harvard Law professor Jonathan Zittrain suggests in an Op-Ed piece that the seemingly inevitable move toward the often locked-down cloud is stifling innovation and threatening our privacy: '... many software developers who once would have been writing whatever they wanted for PCs are simply developing less adventurous, less subversive, less game-changing code under the watchful eyes of Facebook and Apple. If the market settles into a handful of gated cloud communities whose proprietors control the availability of new code, the time may come to ensure that their platforms do not discriminate. Such a demand could take many forms, from an outright regulatory requirement to a more subtle set of incentives — tax breaks or liability relief — that nudge companies to maintain the kind of openness that earlier allowed them a level playing field on which they could lure users from competing, mighty incumbents. We've only just begun to measure this problem, even as we fly directly into the cloud. That's not a reason to turn around. But we must make sure the cloud does not hinder the creation of revolutionary software that, like the Web itself, can seem esoteric at first but utterly necessary later.'"

12 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Internet Hype Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or, you know, developers could still write code that runs on one computer and do whatever they feel like doing.

    Somehow, I don't think that Facebook is going to be the technology that drives computing forard...

    1. Re:Internet Hype Machine by middlemen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Somehow, I don't think that Facebook is going to be the technology that drives computing forard...

      Someone please tell that to the Facebook developers. That site moves slower than the clouds in the sky, giving a new meaning to cloud computing.

  2. So lets see here... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Such a demand could take many forms, from an outright regulatory requirement to a more subtle set of incentives -- tax breaks or liability relief -- that nudge companies to maintain the kind of openness that earlier allowed them a level playing field on which they could lure users from competing, mighty incumbents

    That is in a word, stupid. The thing about online services is, there is little requirements to entry and they are easy to change from one service to another. Its trivial for me to switch from Facebook to any number of different social networks. Same with search engines, etc. All it takes is simply replacing the URL. Regulation will only stifle innovation.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:So lets see here... by jambarama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its trivial for me to switch from Facebook to any number of different social networks.

      Really? Is it trivial to transfer all your uploaded pictures/videos, friend list, and history to your new social network provider? Now is it trivial for you, as a tech enthusiast, or trivial for a normal facebook user? Or did you mean that it is trivial to log into some social networking site other than facebook? Unless your data can follow you, or you're willing to recreate/lose that data, you're locked in.

      Services not always easy to switch away from. Switching search engines is one thing, changing your email provider is entirely another. Encouraging data portability and compatibility is not a bad thing, especially when the encouragement is relief for liability incurred by making that data portable.

    2. Re:So lets see here... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well that's misleading. In general, the switching costs for online services are relatively low, but a social networking site has higher switching costs than many due to the network effects (the more users on the site, the more useful/valuable the site is).

      Of course, that switching cost isn't as high as the venture capitalists may believe, as we saw with Friendster, then MySpace - as soon as the "cool" factor disappears, migration can happen en masse. The key is that many individuals must essentially cooperate to move to another social networking site. Or some subset of "leaders" have to migrate, creating the sense that the new social networking site is the cool, "in" place to be now and the old site was yesterday's thing.

      Now that people see their parents and even grandparents logging into Facebook, I wonder if it will eventually change the perception of Facebook and lead to its eventual replacement.

      Also, people seem to be more likely to "add" than to switch outright, at least at first, and then simply abandon the old site when they perceive that their friends have abandoned it too.

    3. Re:So lets see here... by wjousts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you just proved jambarama's point (especially for the "normal" facebook user) by giving three different links to a mess of different services in a vain attempt to show how "trivial" it is. Well done defeating your own point, it saves everybody else the time.

  3. It's actually kind of scary by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm actually surprised at how quickly some of these platforms like the iPhone have developed completely closed programming environments with barely a peep of protest from the normally pretty libertarian tech crowd. Even on /., there doesn't seem to be much of a stir about it. Every now and then someone complains, or advocates jailbreaking, but I hear more howling when MS proposes to make IE a default browser than when Apple completely locks down an entire product line to outside developers.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:It's actually kind of scary by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm actually surprised at how quickly some of these platforms like the iPhone have developed completely closed programming environments with barely a peep of protest from the normally pretty libertarian tech crowd.

      You must be...actually, some of us have been protesting, but our voices keep getting drowned out by some people black turtlenecks and artsy looking glasses. I think they may be a cult.

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:It's actually kind of scary by Bluesman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't be surprised; the reason you don't hear it is because that line of argument against Windows is silly and illogical.

      The IBM-compatible PC is about as open as you get. If you don't want to use Windows, nothing is stopping you from writing your own OS (Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, QNX, Mac OS X, etc.) It's not prohibitively expensive, requires no government sponsorship, and it's not even that difficult. All the documentation you'd ever need is free from Intel's web site, or you can order a hard copy from them.

      What Microsoft does with Windows is largely irrelevant. It's annoying when you have to use it at work or school, but irrelevant to your freedom as a citizen and your freedom to do what you please with the hardware you bought.

      Same thing with the iPhone. I can buy a different phone and write software for it to my heart's content. What Apple does with their hardware and phone is irrelevant because I'm not forced to pay for it.

      Problems only start when organizations attempt to coerce me by force to pay for something that I otherwise wouldn't have. The whole MS DRM/Palladium debacle was a concern because it had the potential to close off an entire network funded by taxpayer dollars with the expectation that it would be an open system.

      Apple and others can do whatever they want with the infrastructure they've paid for. It's only when they try to do something to the infrastructure I paid for that I have a problem.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    3. Re:It's actually kind of scary by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seriously. The people who say that it's Apple's property or that consoles are similarly locked down are missing the point. Consoles etc. were never projected to be a computing platform. We already have people hailing the iPhone as the mobile computing platform and the iTouch as Apple's version of the netbook. It is just Apple trying to get greedy by triple dipping into the jar by charging first for the phone, then taking a nice chunk of the users' monthly phone/data plan fee through AT&T, and then skimming 30% off the cost of a application in the App Store from the user/developer.

      And applications cannot use 'undocumented APIs'(determined inconsistently by arbitrary lackeys), contain political undertones, or any hint of non PG 13 content or compete in anyway with Apple's builtin programs. http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2008/09/04/apple-rejecting-applications-based-on-limited-utility/ This would be okay if there was alternate means to get applications, but the only way to get widespread distribution is through the App Store. http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/21/122225 MS bundled a browser with it's OS, but Apple gets away with banning any browser from being developed at all, not allowing any VM(like Java) and gets a free pass because it's not a monopoly(yet)?

      For example, there was a app for a countdown clock for second term of Bush in Nov 2008. When it was rejected, the author emailed Apple, and Jobs himself replied: http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/

      Mr. Jobs replied : Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. Whatâ(TM)s the point? Steve

      So, before you develop the application, you might want to brush up on what Jobs MIGHT think about any political overtones in your application. There are no clear guidelines or rules. Some Apps are allowed, and other Apps with similar type of content or using similar development tools rejected.

      There's another case of Apple rejecting an application for duplicate functionality and then filing a patent for a similar app. Details are here http://www.ikaraokeapp.com/node/18 and here http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/02/app-store-rejections-apple-rejects-ikaraoke-app-then-files-a-p/

      They say that when restrictions come, they come wrapped in a sweet looking package. That may well be the iPhone to condition people to the world of restrictive applications on machines billed as general computing devices.

      --
      This space for rent.
  4. Capitalism at its best by greatica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let em' stifle all they want. Somebody else will make another cloud that doesn't stifle...or just build their own platform.

  5. Government by endianx · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nothing says innovation like government regulation!