A respected member of the computing industry with a yellow flag waved this week about the “grave” of personal computers, and with good reason. The co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, Jonathan Zittrain warned about the threat to innovation and the freedom that the disappearance of PCs can have on our lives, in an essay published in Technology Review, MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
He argued that the diminished importance of the PC is creating a shift in the balance of forces in the digital world. “We’re seeing an unprecedented shift of power from end users and software developers on one side until the other system manufacturers,” he wrote. “This is a little better, and far worse.”
Some of us, myself included, might think that the change of power is attractive. What’s wrong with “it just works” instead of “it worked this time?” Zittrain’s answer to this question should concern anyone seeking comfort in the Big Brothers emerging from the funeral pyre of PCs
People familiar with Zittrain’s work will recognize his main culprit in the destruction of the paradigm of PCs: the ecosystem iOS started with the iPhone. In his book “The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It” (free download), he blames the Apple smartphone for contributing to the death of the web and explains the approach attractive for the Apple computer. “We were not tired of things hoped for and legal production produced by the computer, but the unexpected things that came together very boring, “he writes in the book. “Viruses, spam, identity theft, crashes: all of this was the result of a certain freedom built into the generative PC. As these problems become worse, the promise of security becomes reason enough for many to give up that freedom. “
Although the model“closed walls” of the iPhone have solved some of the annoying aspects of the computing environment, it also created problems even more serious. However, as these issues do not affect people as directly as a computer crashing or an email box full of spam, they end up being ignored by a public constantly being “courted” by the next amazing product on the market.
For example, as applications need to be approved by Apple before being sold on the App Store, the company chose to be a judge of what content is good and bad. This model may be tolerable if it were limited to one platform or company, but is beginning to be imitated by other companies, most notably Microsoft.
“The fact that the apps always need approval mask how extraordinary is the situation: technology companies are in business for approval, one by one, the text, images, and sounds that are allowed to find and in our experience the most common portals of the connected world, “said Zittrain.” Why, “he continued,” we would want the world of ideas worked well, and we think that the mere existence of rival technology companies – with all powers censorship – would solve the problem? “
Worse, to reduce the chances that a content has to reach people, says Zittrain, it becomes easier to control the flow of information. What government would not prefer to apply pressure to some strategic points of information than chasing lots of sources for which the content is currently distributed? “Suddenly, the objectionable content that can disappear when you put pressure on an intermediate company.”
“If we allow ourselves to stay satisfied with the ‘closed walls’, we will lose the innovations that are reproved by this policy, and we will be subject to censorship code and content that was previously impossible,” he added. “We need some angry nerds.”
It is impossible to miss the irony in the arguments of Zittrain: Apple, who left an indelible mark on the consciousness of people with a commercial about going against “the system” may just be building a wall to its growth.
*
No comments:
Post a Comment