When I first saw the title of Simone Santini‘s Is Your Phone Killing the Internet [PDF], I expected an article on how Internet usage is more and more moving toward cell phones, so that we spend less time browsing the Web using our laptop or desktop computers. I did not quite see how that might lead to the demise of the Internet, but my interest was piqued enough to actually read the article. In the end I was only more confused though.
According to the author, the generative nature of computers and the Internet helped them triumph over early, proprietary networks:
What made the Internet and the programmable personal computer a successful pair was a characteristic none of the alternatives offered: they are generative (J. Zittran, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, Yale Univ. Press, 2008).
Generativity refers here to our ability to freely program and modify our computers and produce our own content. Any programmer can appreciate this and the Internet is full of examples where this has led to outlets of creativity to pass spare time (such as lolcats) as well as innovative solutions that would not have been possible before the Internet (such as Wikipedia or Facebook).
We are increasingly seeing devices that are less open in nature. The iPhone is an incredibly successful platform, but its app store and the associated app review process are much more restrictive and have drawn criticism because of it. Other examples of closed computing platforms are known, sometimes their software are modified remotely, sometimes apparently without the product owner’s approval.
The author appears to believe that this might lead to an overall negative change on the Web:
Things could evolve differently, though, due to the possible diffusion of Web 2.0. Its application programs are beginning to migrate from individuals’ computers to centralized webservers. This approach offers great and widely publicized convenience, but there are also great—and not so publicized—risks.
With centralized applications, the user loses control over the software’s evolution, even post facto—that is, even after using it to create data. While we can simply decide not to install the new version of a program if it lacks some useful feature, such a possibility doesn’t exist in the Web 2.0 environment.
It is curious that web 2.0 is being highlighted here. It seems like lots of early, successful websites (such as Amazon.com or eBay in the mid-to-late 90s) had some of those same symptoms without yet having any of the characteristics we have come to associate with web 2.0 in recent years.
The author concludes:
If Web 2.0 and its information guardians have their way, the future may be nothing more than a flashy version of Compuserve or Minitel, despite the allure of all their modern technological bells and whistles. The corporate model that the creative anarchy of the Internet defeated once might then return with permanent vengeance.
Going back to the title, I am confused how exactly the phone would be to be blamed for this. The web is still a very open environment. It has in fact in many ways become easier and cheaper to get server space and computing capacity, develop applications and make them available to the world. Many applications that now have strong user interfaces and also take advantage of features that aren’t easily conceivable without online access are also complex. Depending on the degree of complexity the likelihood of someone else simply building their own is of course decreased.
I think there will always be walled gardens, as well as open playgrounds. There will probably also always be a hacker culture (particularly following Paul Graham‘s definition) and so people will always strive to find smart new uses of systems (open or closed).
And some of those people will continue to look for interesting solutions, because they are intrinsically motivated by the joy of solving an interesting problem. As the author asserted, this kind of spirit drove a lot of the innovation on the net. I don’t think that is going to stop.
Shopping online has fundamentally changed my expectations and comfort level, when I buy things in general. I noticed this clearly, when I recently ventured to a local shopping mall to attempt some not-yet-too-late holiday shopping – offline.
I do a significant portion of my shopping on the Internet and I have come to appreciate customer reviews, recommender systems and many other features that have become common at a lot of online stores. I often take information provided by those systems into account when making buying decisions. I have gotten used to those features and – as I realized on that day at the mall – I miss them in their absence.
Usually, I am content to satisfice, but when I am in the store without access to those familiar features, I feel a bit deprived, as if one of my senses were shut off. I like that imagery, too: The idea of an additional sense, based on Internet data is an intriguing one.
The following video shows how MIT’s Sixth Sense may have the potential to act as an additional sense to equip you with the features that you may have gotten used to on the Internet.
I wonder when we will routinely wear devices that integrate cameras, microphones, displays/projectors, etc. and that continuously scan our surroundings and have the ability to feed us data about it back in real time. It could be a version of Sixth Sense using discreet packaging.
Quick access to product reviews, as we look at a book or CD in a store sounds like a useful feature. Maybe sunglasses (and their integrated display) could provide directions as we are walking. It could also display quick stats regarding our surroundings, incl. a warning of nearby danger. The potential for applications seems endless.
In the meantime, I am of course still stuck with unfinished shopping.
Over on the Seattle 2.0 blog, Anthony Stevens‘ Are Great Programmers Born, or Made? posed an interesting question that also generated insightful thoughts in the comments. I am very intrigued by this topic and the direction of some of the research in this area. So, here is my take on it.
Intuitively, I think, we tend to read that question as Are great programmers born xor made? – understanding it such that it is either one or the other. I believe that is false: It is not one or the other; it is both, at least to some degree. However, the ratio is important.
Innate ability, such as a baseline degree of brain capacity is absolutely required, maybe measured as at least average IQ. That baseline or innate ability is the smaller part of the whole.
I would argue that it helps to be strong at abstract and critical thinking, logic, mathematics, pattern matching/prediction, memory and recall, and so forth. However, those are largely skills. They serve as very useful prerequisites or corequisites, but they are learnable. The same is true for other skills in software development, such as deep understanding of programming language usage, the ability to follow code style guidelines, writing good unit tests, coming up with “clean” designs, etc.
When I first taught myself programming (Turbo Pascal, if you are curious), it felt like it came easy to me. It was also great fun, which served (at least partly) as motivation for me to learn and experiment more, eventually turn it into a profession.
If you either “have it” or “don’t have it,” then there does not really seem to be a chance for greatness for the person who is missing that innate ability. On the other hand, if training/deliberate practice can play such a significant role, then there are options: The opportunity of a new challenge. I think, this should be very encouraging.
Except instead of passion, the authors deliberately use the German word leidenschaft. Leidenschaft combines the words leiden (to suffer, experience pain) and schaffen (to make, create, achieve).
People passionate about their pursuit are willing to suffer in the process.
I believe that the connotations of the word leidenschaft have changed a bit and modern day usage is much closer to the positive aspects of a passion: To pursue an activity or subject with great interest, dedication or enthusiasm. Still, I think it is instructive to keep that implied duality in mind, not just as an introspective exercise to more fully understand oneself, but also to find concrete opportunities for growth.
It is worth examining software/technology and evaluating how different products strengthen the positive aspects of a passion and how they help deal with potential negatives. Then, do something about it.