Closed is the new open

Newsweek has posted an interview with Jonathan Zittrain, author of "The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It" and it's generating some interesting discussion.  Whether he's a kook or a canary is too early to judge but I will say this - he's gotten me thinking.  I'm old enough to remember the dominant computing model of the 1970s.  It was based on a large central CPU with dumb terminals hanging off it.  Most if not all the actually computing tasks were managed by the centralized computer with the terminals providing the user interface and not much else.  The model worked very well.  Many large, profitable and influential companies grew up around this architecture - IBM, Digital, Wang, Data General, Control Data Corp, etc.  Customers were well served and major advances, both technical and productive, were accomplished. 

So what happened?  Why is it that only IBM survives out of the list above.  The microcomputer was introduced.  At first it was seen as just a toy.  In reality, it represented a shift that, though small at first, quickly became tectonic.  Suddenly the average Joe had control over computing power.  Turns out we discovered that when our information future was owned and controlled by others we didn't get what we wanted and overpaid for what we got.  So the public armed themselves and the revolution began.  Innovation exploded from all directions, prices cratered and big hardware companies lost their grip on customers.  "Power to the People" was Apple's mantra and "A computer on every desk" was Microsoft's.  We've been living with the results of their success ever since.

So here's the thing.  Cloud computing, browser-based applications, proprietary application and network architectures (ala Facebook), closed network devices, all these things start to look suspiciously like the 1970s computing model.  By tacitly accepting this direction, we are in effect ceding control over many parts of our informational existence to large corporations (sound familiar?).  We are giving up the freedoms we fought for and received over 20 years ago.  Maybe that's ok.  I'm not saying the analogy is exact.  But it has me wondering what the costs will be.  History has shown that big corporations don't always do what's in the best interest of their customers.  They are slaves to their investors and shareholders.  But hopefully we've learned. 

I am a firm believer in a democratic, bottoms up model of innovation.  The PC and Internet are my examples of its power and effectiveness.  So, I agree with Zittrain that this is something we need to watch.  The last thing we need is a repeat of the 70s.

Comments

[Santiago Gala]

What role do you think is the android platform and the Open Handset Alliance on this "world"?

I mean, in a sense the iPhone looks like the Apple ][ or Mac of mobile world, and the Android platform like the new PC.

[turn_self_off]

i think openmoko fits even more into the pc image then android...

[bijan]

great post peter

[Peter Verkooijen]

Absolutely! This is what's been happening for the last decade, a creeping, suffocating online collectivism ("The Wisdom of Crowds!") where no one is allowed to own any intellectual property or charge for their labor and Google is sucking up more and more ad dollars and power on other people's content. I really don't understand why Google continues to get a free pass from the ubergeeks.

[Peter Verkooijen]

Google, Apple and Facebook I mean. They all profit from the same bait and switch.

[Peter Semmelhack]

Santiago - Thanks for the comment. I don't think I'd equate the iPhone to the Apple II. The iPhone is far more restricted both technically and philosophically. The Apple II was all about hacking, exploring and discovering new territory. Android and OHA embody much more of this spirit and I'm anticipating great things from their efforts.

[Alasdair Allan]

I think Jonathan is worrying about the wrong thing. What is changing is that we're in the transition phase away from one model of computing and towards another. You should drink some of your own Kool-Aid. I'd argue that the underlying trend is towards more openness, not less. The very thing that Bug Labs is about...?

http://www.dailyack.com/2008/05/death-of-desktop-end-of-internet.html

[Peter Semmelhack]

Alasdair - great comment. I think you're right about the openness trend. As an example, Facebook could have taken a much more closed approach than they did. But it's still a walled garden. Someone there can still, with the flick of the wrist, completely alter the landscape, just like Google can put you out of business by making you invisible to their search algorithm. I much prefer a sort of techno-creative anarchy, where no one controls anything, or at least very little. Bug Labs is about this type of radical openness. Revolutions are not started by big, fat corporations.

[Dave]

I think that the computing model that we're talking about here encourages openness, not discourages it. Things like Amazon's Web Services offerings allow anyone to create a reliable, scalable web application without spending a lot of money in infrastructure. Using a shared infrastructure also creates communities of users and developers. Take a look at the SDF Public Access UNIX System for example (http://www.freeshell.org ). I think sharing of computing resources is pretty neat.

If we look back at the centralized model of the 70s I think you'll find very exciting technological advances and much more community than what was going on during the time when individuals had personal computers that were not networked with each other very well. Paul Graham has written many essays about innovation in these early days of computing. This was driven by the community of people using shared resources. Cloud computing will foster innovation and collaboration in new and exciting ways that will make us look back at the time that we didn't share infrastructure as the dark ages.

But that's just my opinion :)

[Peter Semmelhack]

Thanks Dave - I'm all for sharing resources. And to your point the 70s saw a huge number of technical advances. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm just suggesting that a world where the rights of a community are dictated by some outside organization, especially a profit-minded one, is vulnerable to disruption.