Slashdot Mirror
The Un-Internet and War On General Purpose Computers
theodp writes "Apple,' writes Dave Winer in The Un-Internet, 'is providing a bad example for younger, smaller companies like Twitter and Tumblr, who apparently want to control the 'user experience' of their platforms in much the same way as Apple does. They feel they have a better sense of quality than the randomness of a free market. So they've installed similar controls.' Still, Winer's seen this movie before and notes, 'Eventually we overcome their barriers, and another layer comes on. And the upstarts become the installed-base, and they make the same mistakes all over again. It's the Internet vs the Un-Internet. And the Internet, it seems, always prevails.' Thinking along the same lines, Cory Doctorow warns the stakes are only going to get higher, and issues a call-to-arms for The Coming War on General Purpose Computation."
Like 2 days ago? Unless you're in Samoa and Tokelau, then it was yesterday.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
In a true free market there would be more closed solutions too and the one most people want will win. I'm not sure why he's upset that most people are actually computer illiterate and want something that can be easily controlled rather than the ultimate swiss army knife of computers. Open computers won't go away and there is no need to get upset because most people don't care for that.
Oh for God's sake... Name one thing Apple prevents you from doing on OS X. Not a feature they left out, not a Windows app you like that isn't available, not a hack to customize Windows that isn't also present on Macs, but something that Apple EXPLICITLY PREVENTS YOU OR ANYONE FROM DOING.
... by competing. If you feel that closed platforms are wrong, provide open platforms.
Complaining about other people that choose a different business model that you would have is just being a donkey. Put your moolah where your food-hole is and run your business model for real.
Digital Millenium Copyright Act
Security Systems Standards and Certification Act
SOPA
The locked bootloader
"Approved" software
All this will end your freedoms, what are you doing to fight it?
I'm not happy with the way I see the industry going
You do realise those great minds in congress, largely funded and heavily lobbied by the MAFIAA attempted to make it legally mandatory, for your computer to not be a computer, they tried to legally mandate approved security and digital restrictions management systems in ALL electronic systems, personal computers and devices designed for your use. This would make your PC closed like an apple iPad where only the DRM compliant software could legally run, locked bootloaders would be everywhere, and it would be a crime (DMCA) to circumvent it
This would have made alot of problems for Linux too, thankfully the GPL v3 has *some* protections against DRM schemes that take away your freedoms
The interests of big business and distributors like the RIAA/MPAA are not very well aligned with the interests of end users, and they are more than happy to ride roughshod over your end user freedoms in order to gain all the control over the market for themselves and the profits that follow
I think we should be doing more to protect our freedoms
because after all most people preferred the simplicity of macintosh.
that is why after about 1986, the x86 and IBM PC died... as did linux.
well may I share an apple story? I own a powermac 9600/300, terribly expensive computer for its time (over 7 grand new) one day apple came out with a new operating system called OS9 and its not the worst OS apple has ever released it quickly became surpassed by OS9.2
OS9.0x was about as useful as system 7, if you wanted anything new it was 9.2 or nothing ... Video drivers for your new card, 9.2? New game 9.2, new compression utility 9.2, but my 9600 was unable to run OS9.2 ...
You know what made a 7 grand workstation into a dinosaur? Apple's control, they swapped 2 bytes in the installer so that machines with a older rom would fail the system check
Naturally apple suggested I toss this perfectly good machine in the dumpster and buy a whole new and improved model (which had darn near identical specs), Their control was nothing about the user experience (it still runs a patched version of 9.22 and OSX just fine, and fairly snappy) it was all about selling me a new machine whenever THEY thought I should have one.
Oh here we go.
Freedom to compute is for criminals. Right.
--
BMO
Most end users are concerned with the user experience, and little else.
This doesn't negate the legitimacy of the Free Software Movement. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be championed and taken as far as it can. What it does mean is that the vast majority of people just want shit that works right out of the box. Free Software has yet to provide an experience many find superior to things like iOS, so iOS continues to gobble-up marketshare while people write articles about how awful it is that it's happening.
What most users want is this: Open box. Turn on computer. Search for the app they want. Hit "Install". Use app. That's it. Get shit done, and do other shit when the desire strikes.
People who don't understand this often adopt a condescending tone and claim iPhone / iPad users are just dumb sheep who buy into PR, etc. And that if users only opened their eyes and realized how they're being controlled...
But that's not going to win any converts. People want to do shit with as few hassles as possible. Years of "Grrr. If you want X, Y or Z, code it yourself!" have reenforced ideology and alienated users, while companies like Apple have been making and releasing products. And that's really the difference in the end. Dogmatic essays and arguing over the minutiae of license revisions vs. shipping products that do things people want in a manner in which they find appealing. The latter always wins.
Most end users don't give a damn about ideology, licenses or figureheads spouting the latest opinions on how things should or should not be.
They want: "Here is a new device. This is what it does. If you like it, buy it. Come back in 12 months and we will have an updated version."
They like that discovering and installing software is now about as easy as you could possibly hope to make it.
They like that they can download an application once, delete it, and reinstall it for free whenever they want, as many times as they want, on all of their devices. Simultaneously.
They like that their devices automatically backup their applications and user data while they're walking down the street.
They like that they can go into a store, buy a new device, enter their email and password, and have all of their applications and settings just appear within moments.
You can bemoan the licenses and lack of tinker-ability in each piece of hardware and software. You can talk about walled gardens and developer fees. Remind us how annoyingly arbitrary the application approval process is.
And I will probably agree with you.
But the fact remains, people want a user experience, not a license. Not an ideology or a movement.
Firefox took Internet Explorer's market share because Internet Explorer sucked, and Firefox was great. And you could point-out why it was great in ways that someone who didn't know what a compiler or license was could say "Wow, this is great!" And most of all, even if you didn't tell them, even if they had never heard of Firefox or the GPL, you could see people start using it and not stop using it. Because it was better. At the end of the day, clicking "Firefox" instead of "Internet Explorer" made things happen faster, with fewer problems. People liked that.
It was a triumph of free software. Lower case. The Free Software movement won a victory, but at the end of the day you have to write your code and release your applications and hardware with the assumption that no one will know, or care what the Big Ideas are behind the project. Anything you want to get across to the user must come out in the time spent interacting with a program. Kinda-sorta functional, pre-Beta / endless Beta software excused with a "But it's free and makes the world a better place because..." won't cut it.
If you want to fight the likes of iOS and win, look at what's appealing about the experience and improve on it. Don't you dare tell people they don't want what they're currently enjoying. Offer them a better alternative. Cut the condescension and smug sense of supe
They have to dumb down both of them to control them both. Good for the vendor, but the society?
Me, I don't think a society which manages to make their citizens an interchangeable commodity with a well-defined but artificially limited set of skills that match a narrow range of "appliances" is going to be "cutting-edge" in anything; rather, as a monoculture they - and their "appliances" - will be sitting ducks for the electronic version of Phytophthora infestans just as Ireland - and the potato - were in 1845.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Sure, and they'd be, well maybe not happy, but willing to jump through the licensing hoops to allow such to run on those locked-down systems, or to purchase unlocked hardware.
Options that might not be available (or be prohibitively expensive, or require an inordinate amount of paperwork) to Joe Public.
IOW, never rely on big business to defend your freedoms for you. It turns out that businesses have freedoms that individuals don't.
-- Alastair
I'm on the iPad and Slashdot is giving me this semi- mobile version. Half of the web these days hates mobile devices and I don't know why can't we always have desktop versions and only have mobile sites on request?
All of this is the predictable result of growing technology. Technology amplifies human intent. There are two great forces in the world. The first being the human desire to own, control, manipulate and squeeze to benefit me or us (focused self interest.) The other being to human need to create, advance, promote the greater good for all, collaborate and serve to benefit all. These are not intrinsically right or wrong, just different. Its when technology has amplified these ambitions in humanity to world shaking heights that we find ourselves at odds.
We must allow for artists to create new visions of what is possible closed or open. These creations however must sit inside of a world designed to serve all for the benefit of all. The greater good must dominate the worlds infrastructure. It is only in a context that serves all, that the more limited context of single self expression can flourish without destroying the very people for whom the creation should be serving. We need to make this a clear and public conversation, such that new creators can fully understand the repercussions of their choices and the ultimate value of their inventions. By making the total environment clear, and seeing how the many parts work inside the larger system, we can allow new players to choose positions that will server precise who they choose to serve.
about what's going to happen when 3D printing and bioscale assemblers hit the mainstream. Right now we're having trouble because the [MP/RI]AA, who represent comparatively tiny industries, are pushing to destroy open systems. Imagine what happens when the Monsanto's and Walmarts of the world jump on the bandwagon because consumers stop consuming and start manufacturing on their own.
I imagine that if we win that battle an era of unparalleled advancement, freedom, and opportunity for humanity lies on the other side; however, the powers that be will not go quietly, and there will likely be an unprecedented era of repression that will only be overcome with a great deal of trouble and not a little bloodshed.
The only way I can imagine it breaking our way without said bloodshed is if we plan it such that it all happens at once everywhere from as many places as possible, using darknets, ad-hoc mesh networks, and other ways to ensure freedom of information and clever replication schemes to make sure you, me, and everyone we know gets in on the quantum leap in capability immediately instead of the usual diffusion model that has been constant in human history. That is, we can't afford to wait the 20 years for everyone to get a computer and online to get everyone's hands on 3D printers; and that means we have to build dead-simple interfaces into those technologies from the outset to cut the learning curve to zero.
We can't give the powers that be time to react. We can't give them the chance to divide, deflect, and defeat the change.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
any more than burglars and rapists are needed for freedom in your neighborhood.
Right, and I don't think that the way to get rid of these supposed burglars and rapists is to inconvenience innocents and start arrested people at random. I don't believe in the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" attitude because that seems to rely on the notion that humans can't abuse their power, make mistakes, or be outright corrupt.
As long as you can choose between locked down systems and non-locked down systems, I won't have too much of a problem with it. Personally, I think people should learn how to use a computer rather than relying on locked down devices to baby and 'protect' them, but it's their choice and I'm sure they don't care about my opinion.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
This statement is so backwards it has me dumbfounded. How do you see letting people do what they want with a device as benefiting from Apple's efforts, and how is it at no cost if you still have to pay Apple for the device?
Good for you. I like freedom, and I don't think a corporation should tell me what I can do with something I own.
Why do you keep bringing this up? This isn't about what individuals like, but the principles of freedom. As I've said, I'm fine with them offering safe software, so if you want a safe and sterile environment, you can get that. But if someone else wants a porn app, then they should be able to get that easily too. In this proposed scenario, which would take very little work, you can get what you want, and I can get what I want. What is the problem with that?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Intel x86 CPU
single motherboard
exchangable RAM modules
cabled disk drives coming off motherboard
standardized bus architecture for 3rd party manufacturers
open design that allows easy cloning by anonymous hordes of skilled Asian laborers
sorry, where is the 'dead' part?
If Apple wants to charge for the dev tools, that's their business, but has nothing to do with this. If third party dev tools work, then Apple didn't provide them. There are no hosting and publishing costs if the apps in question are hosted and published by someone else, which is what I'm proposing.
Can you get your head out of your ass for just one minute, please? If it was malware and just malware, I wouldn't be that concerned, but it's far more than just malware that is blocked from the store. There are a number of reasons something can be rejected, and being malware is only one of them.
Under my proposed model, Apple wouldn't publish the apps outside of the App Store. Those apps would be published by third parties. Now, Apple doesn't HAVE to do that, but there's no good reason for them NOT to take the five minutes it would take to allow that (jailbreakers have already done the work needed for that) if all they are concerned about is the safety of poor little users. Just let them push the 'I'm a big boy' button, give them a warning, and let them be on their merry way.
I JUST explained that. Apple has their own repository. You push a button and read a warning that you are going into the scary world of software not vetted by Apple, and you install third party repositories. People like you don't have to push the button, and can be JUST as safe as they were before. You have either dodged explaining why there is a problem with that, or you don't understand how repos work.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
actually, "ibm compatible" died when makers quit including BASIC in ROM. that was long before 2005.
Nothing can stop someone from homebrewing a computer and running Minix or NetBSD on it.
Today, i agree. In 20 years, its quite possible that to get access to "general purpose components" to roll your own you have to be defense contractor. I can even see a point when OS code could be considered a "munition", or worse. ( don't laugh, not so long ago encryption code used to be considered this by the US government and its export was highly restricted )
At that point 'retro' hardware and that CDROM hidden in your attic with NetBSD source on it will worth its weight in gold and be virtually unobtainable to the average Joe.
And like you were saying if most people are 'stuck' with only having access to 'data appliances', the war is lost.
---- Booth was a patriot ----