oD Digest - Future of the Internet Annotation's feed | Diigo Group

Welcome to Flickr!

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 20:05:13 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Cool nice great place posted by jchristopher48

Tags: no_tag

Posted by: jchristopher48

The Future of the Internet—And How to Stop It » Chapter 5: Tethered Appliances, Software as Service, and Perfect Enforcement

Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:48:41 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

even the safest Volvo can be driven into a wall.

Too much power in the hands of bad users means it is tempting to tether and undermine the generative economy posted by tonycurzonprice

the appliances.

a more tethered internet is a more regulable internet posted by tonycurzonprice

a network.

TiVo v. EchoStar and PlayMedia v. AOL show how tethering increases the powers of regulators posted by tonycurzonprice

A change in technology can change the power dynamic between those who promulgate the law and those who are subject to it.

Technology transforms all sides of the power equation posted by tonycurzonprice

normal surfing.

china's simple ways of censoring -- add bumps posted by tonycurzonprice

Comprehensive regulatory crackdowns require a non-generative endpoint or influence over the individual using it to ensure that the endpoint is not repurposed.

real regul crackdown not possible with the generative end-point posted by tonycurzonprice

Tags: no_tag

Posted by: tonycurzonprice

The Future of the Internet—And How to Stop It » Chapter 7: Stopping the Future of the Internet: Stability on a Generative Net

Thu, 29 May 2008 22:16:28 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

bad code

End-to-end neutrality should give way to "generativity test": control the network where it does least harm to generativity. posted by tonycurzonprice

generative system.

Abandon the strict notions of middle and end-points once we take a "generativity maximising" view of policy (NB - this is like moving from a rights-based view to a utilitarian one .. no wonder JZ like the pragmatism of JS Mill) posted by tonycurzonprice

Tags: no_tag

Posted by: tonycurzonprice

The Future of the Internet—And How to Stop It » Chapter 4: The Generative Pattern

Mon, 26 May 2008 16:53:44 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

three layers.

The Network = physical layer + protocol layer + content layer posted by renataavila

hierarchies

Network layer separation is a condition of polyarchy --- "ordered independence". posted by tonycurzonprice

principle at work

IP protocol is the "Natural Monopoly" in the system --- that AND NO MORE posted by tonycurzonprice

Generativity is a system’s capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences.

JZ defines generativity: Generativity is a system’s capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences. and says open, free and communal don't quite capture it. posted by tonycurzonprice

consumers

Generativity requires unfiltered inputs and unexpected outputs; this requires contributors and participants, not just consumers to animate the system. posted by tonycurzonprice

f code.

Conditions of generativity: 1. Leverage, meaning that it makes hard work easier. (sounds like the opposite would not be much use in any context...) This might also be called a productivity advantage - it increase output per relevant unit input. posted by tonycurzonprice

specialized

Conditions of Generativity: adaptability- Can the same equipment be put to new, un-anticipated tasks? Plastic, AC electricity, PC ((How does a musical instrument do here? Does just one thing - produce notes -- but in an infinite variety)) posted by tonycurzonprice

training

Conditions of Generativity: Ease of mastery. Many code masters got there without formal training. They allow a certain level of use (lik cars) that falls short of mastery. posted by tonycurzonprice

accessible

Accessibility - the easier it is to get mass adoption, the more likely to become generative. posted by tonycurzonprice

generative

Transferability - or viral nature (/?) -- is it easy for copies to propagate? posted by tonycurzonprice

frequently generativity at one layer is the best recipe for generativity at the layer above.

Frequent link btwn generative tools and generative systems - a question of culture? posted by tonycurzonprice

generates

Accessibility of Free Software is key to its viral generativity posted by tonycurzonprice

Free software satisfies Richard Stallman’s benchmark “four freedoms”: freedom to run the program, freedom to study how it works, freedom to change it, and freedom to share the results with the public at large

generative

Generativity is different from Stallman's 4 freedoms: Windows is generative, but not free to examine or distribute; and Linux in TiVo is free but not (technically) accessible. posted by tonycurzonprice

platform

Subjective affordance maps the possibility space of an object -- greater affordance probably implies greater generativity ... but not if it leads to over-functionalism. posted by tonycurzonprice

detail

Is there a public good aspect to generative systems? posted by tonycurzonprice

Generative systems facilitate change.

For good and ill posted by tonycurzonprice

breakthrough

The non-generative encourages change that is conceived of by the single controlling orgnaisation of change posted by tonycurzonprice

compete

Generativity and disruptive change ... generativity helps with the process of creative destruction. posted by tonycurzonprice

market model.

Generativity gives the amateur a chance posted by tonycurzonprice

initial spark

The venture capital model, the amateur, the long tail and generativity all come together - VC picks up once a generative experiment has hit a big seam. posted by tonycurzonprice

They represent tinkering done by that one person in a hundred or a thousand who is so immersed in an activity or pursuit that improving it would make a big difference—a person who is prepared to experiment with a level of persistence that calls to mind the Roadrunner’s nemesis, Wile E. Coyote.

The type case of the use-innovator -- like Auden's: "caveman who first forgot his supper". posted by tonycurzonprice

The genius behind such innovations is truly inspiration rather than perspiration, a bit of tinkering with a crazy idea rather than a carefully planned and executed invention responding to clear market demand.

In the young internet, innovations like wikis are inspirational, low effort, out of the blue innovations; lots of bang for buck. posted by tonycurzonprice

Web service

Generative systems can accommodate many models of production - market, amateur etc posted by tonycurzonprice

Generativity, then, is a parent of invention, and an open network connecting generative devices makes the fruits of invention easy to share if the inventor is so inclined.

Generativity as a medium of invention - it makes me think of a market place - 2nd Century Palmyra, say - as opposed to a market or a trade. posted by tonycurzonprice

He then noted the innate value of being able to express oneself idiosyncratically

We are seeing the possibility of an emergence of a new popular culture, produced on the folk-culture model and inhabited actively, rather than passively consumed by the masses.

makers

Benkler: particpation and transparency potential of new networks changes us deeply as cultural co-creators. posted by tonycurzonprice

policy issues

Benkler, contd: free culture makes us citizens, market cutlure makes us consumers. posted by tonycurzonprice

innovation

An economy of "sharing nicely" has created great wealth and internet allows it to increase in scope. posted by tonycurzonprice

The divide is not between technology and nontechnology, but between hierarchy and polyarchy.⁷² In hierarchies, gatekeepers control the allocation of attention and resources to an idea. In polyarchies, many ideas can be pursued independently. Hierarchical systems appear better at nipping dead-end ideas in the bud, but they do so at the expense of crazy ideas that just might work. Polyarchies can result in wasted energy and effort, but they are better at ferreting out and developing obscure, transformative ideas. More importantly, they allow many more people to have a hand at contributing to the system, regardless of the quality of the contribution.

Polyarchy is ... what allows parallel, uncoordinated action to nevertheless produced orderly wholes posted by tonycurzonprice

contribution

Hierarchy and Polyarchy - who forages better? (is this intrinsic or extrinsic)? posted by tonycurzonprice

eccentric

Intrinsic bebefits are not just there for the technically enclined - there is recursion in generativity, allow all sorts of activities to become generative. posted by tonycurzonprice

Internet

Internetworled PC makes group coordination much simpler than it used to be. posted by tonycurzonprice

disruption

Generativity encourages mutations posted by tonycurzonprice

economic harm.

How much harmful mutation are we prepared to put up with from Internet - especially social harm? posted by tonycurzonprice

But society has now fairly got the better of individuality; and the danger which threatens human nature is not the excess, but the deficiency, of personal impulses and preferences.

The generative Internet and PC were at first perhaps more akin to new societies; as people were connected, they may not have had firm expectations about the basics of the interaction. Who pays for what? Who shares what? The time during which the Internet remained an academic backwater, and the PC was a hobbyist’s tool, helped situate each within the norms of Benkler’s parallel economy of sharing nicely, of greater control in the hands of users and commensurate trust that they would not abuse it.

This is the generative pattern, and we can find examples of it at every layer of the network hourglass:

123

An idea originates in a backwater.
It is ambitious but incomplete. It is partially implemented and released anyway, embracing the ethos of the procrastination principle.
Contribution is welcomed from all corners, resulting in an influx of usage.
Success is achieved beyond any expectation, and a higher profile draws even more usage.
Success is cut short: “There goes the neighborhood” as newer users are not conversant with the idea of experimentation and contribution, and other users are prepared to exploit the openness of the system to undesirable ends.
There is movement toward enclosure to prevent the problems that arise from the system’s very popularity.

The general cycle of generativity, at every level. (NB How does the market avoid these? what is the role of free-riding and externalities?) posted by tonycurzonprice

surfing

Spam and malware are like Mill's notion of individuality having got too far ahead of the collective power to discipline it. posted by tonycurzonprice

Tags: montpelerin

Posted by: tonycurzonprice

The Future of the Internet—And How to Stop It » Part II: After the Stall

Mon, 26 May 2008 16:47:08 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

technical layer.

the general story of open success that contains the seed of its closing; Wikipedia is as much at risk as the PC and Internet. posted by tonycurzonprice

layers

Generative is delicate, it is not self-sustaining; and ignoring that by enthusiasts will endanger it more. posted by tonycurzonprice

Tags: no_tag

Posted by: tonycurzonprice

The Future of the Internet—And How to Stop It » Introduction

Fri, 09 May 2008 17:02:34 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

to the Web.

iPhone is object of desire posted by tonycurzonprice

of its use.

The original PC is a blank slate. posted by tonycurzonprice
Apple II is a user object; iPhone is a consumer object (open / closed) posted by lampertina

very fast.

Apple II was a generative box whose success depended on others' additions to it, like VisiCalc posted by tonycurzonprice

computer crashes

Apple II was open for tinkerers and hobbyists, unlike the iPhone posted by tonycurzonprice

permission

iPhone needs Apple permission before you can tinker; Apple can remote modify it; it is a controlled system. posted by tonycurzonprice
ahah ! - sterile the iphone ?... not so... it has now many app. done free, as the next widgetbox web2 ways - and it is a very great inspiration too, an industrial asian has produced a similar product better...and of course as usual, protections attract hackers to modify or to use free: it's done... posted by akozoom

give up that freedom.

The dark side of openness - viruses, spam, crashes - makes the closed philosophy of the iPhone attractive to consumers. posted by tonycurzonprice
generative creativity = dangerous; closed consumption = "safe" posted by lampertina
This is a very important tension to consider, and one that will take time to work through. posted by forestfortrees

network of control

iPhone / Apple II story is representative of the Internet: it is moving form the open to the tethered, the generative to the controlled. posted by tonycurzonprice

things

Boxed appliances are fine, but they endanger the NEXT ROUND of innovation --- innovation-types they themselves were dependent on in the past. posted by tonycurzonprice
If the generative aspect is ursurped by closed appliances, the ecosystem dies as a productive source of further innovation posted by lampertina

discover

When there is separation of PC ownership and use, interests diverge: stability versus "wilderness" posted by tonycurzonprice

heartbeat

As long as a PC can run code it is given, and especially with broadband connectivity, the dangers are there, and are serious. posted by tonycurzonprice
like a natural ecosystem, open and generative platforms can provide habitat for dangerous pathogens (viruses, invaders, etc.) posted by lampertina

exported

These dangers add support for lockdown and interference by the surveiling centre --- with all the dangers this implies in authoritarian states. posted by tonycurzonprice
lockdowns as monoculture... safe, but sterile posted by lampertina

groups with shared norms and a sense of public purpose

or private

Lockdowns and box-appliances will destroy the creativity of IT, and to stop this happening we'll need new technologies, communities that sustain the right ethos and a sense of public purpose. posted by tonycurzonprice

pressure them

The everlasting battle will be between open, Web 2.0 systems and services and "bottled power" as exemplified by the iPhone. posted by tonycurzonprice
- users (vs. consumers?) stay in the generative loop via Web 2.0 applications posted by lampertina
free services and ...ware = battle for money may change to battle for communities influences and direct human exchanges posted by akozoom

Tags: no_tag

Posted by: akozoom

The Future of the Internet—And How to Stop It » Chapter 3: Cybersecurity and the Generative Dilemma

Sun, 04 May 2008 12:20:13 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

computer

Nov 2nd 1988 - First Internet Worm launched from Princeton ... just looked through directories on a machine for addresses to send itself to and do the same... Internet almost crawls to a halt. posted by tonycurzonprice

count

digital nose count.

Morris' code contained a bug that made it proliferate - the intent had been the harmelss one to count machines on network. posted by tonycurzonprice

from afar.

worm shows danger of generativity: ease of reprogramming could be dangerous. posted by tonycurzonprice

and less-skilled users.

Situation is worse today than in 1988 - network bigger and faster, processors more powerful and users less skilled. posted by tonycurzonprice

threats

Public reaction to worm: other Interent engineers thought it was a challenge; govt set up an enquiry and a program at Carnegie that still today is a clearing-house for info on network security, viruses, etc. posted by tonycurzonprice

at MIT

Fairy story ending to the fate of Morris, the first worm-maker, dot com millionaire, and now tenured professor at MIT. posted by tonycurzonprice

Internet

The Internet Engineering Task Force, the de facto UNIX gods of the Internet, published a report ("The Helminthiasis of the Internet" :) describing the technology of the worm, and recommending some ethics training for new comers on the Net. .. posted by tonycurzonprice

retool them.

Naivety of Internet's response has to be understood in relation to logic of computer architectures. posted by tonycurzonprice

Urging users to patch their systems and asking hackers to behave more maturely might, in retrospect, seem naïve.

operations

Original ATT crack at 2600Hz : ATT, because it controlled a centralised network, could change the architecture to close-down the backdoor. posted by tonycurzonprice

enforced

Compuserve similarly adopted post Cap'n Crunch rule: "do not let the paths that carry data also carry code." posted by tonycurzonprice

Internet

the networks evolved slowly and with few surprises either good or bad. This made them both secure and sterile posted by tonycurzonprice

the Internet.

Security = slow to change, sterile posted by tonycurzonprice

responsibility

1988 internet had no ways to control spread of morris worm posted by tonycurzonprice

attack

endpoint machines were disparate and open - no single way to secure them against morris attack posted by tonycurzonprice

the Internet.

Insecurity of Internet - allowing code to be run on end-poitns, eg, - is critical to its creative potential posted by tonycurzonprice

considered

Post Morris, no one really offered to solve the problem, because there was no non-transforming solution ,,, posted by tonycurzonprice

The decentralized, nonproprietary ownership of the Internet and the computers it linked made it difficult to implement any structural revisions to the way it functioned, and, more important, it was simply not clear what curative changes could be made that did not entail drastic, wholesale, purpose-altering changes to the very fabric of the Internet.

Then it stalls.

generative is good: great products, and also great opportunities for self-expression. posted by tonycurzonprice

generativity

generative systems require trust; trust gets abused; if it is abused enough, people choose security over generativity. posted by tonycurzonprice

password security.

Remarkable scalability of Internet, especially given new demographic of users in 1990s posted by tonycurzonprice

a set time.

hacker non-malevolence has slowed the issue of bad code from getting out of hand. posted by tonycurzonprice

syndicates

graffiti vs. drugs trade - where is the pay-off to bad code ... we can now see one posted by tonycurzonprice

happening

organised crime apparently controls 1 in 10 home pcs through botnets. posted by tonycurzonprice

money

spam, ddos ($50k per day), gaming passwords, private infrmation -- all are biz model for malware posted by tonycurzonprice

orbit

malware has become very sophisticated, with recovery essentially impossible against the worst infections posted by tonycurzonprice

Internet

generativity is put at risk - either from death by 1000 cuts, or by watershed security moment. posted by tonycurzonprice

globe

Wipe the world's drives - the watershed scenario. posted by tonycurzonprice

starts

Badware subterfuge examples posted by tonycurzonprice

compromised

Badware or not is subjective, in the eye of the installer - see VNC posted by tonycurzonprice

appliancized

Frustrated consumers, their machines getting infected and mis-performing, will go for appliances posted by tonycurzonprice

decisions

consumers will increasingly to use the XBOX that works over the PC that crashes. posted by tonycurzonprice

device

appliances clip the wings of invention posted by tonycurzonprice

the fore

Vital function of PC is to keep the appliance honest - it is general purpose, and so can be reconfigured into the appliance; but this insurance policy is not WHY the PC is bought, it is unintended social benefit. posted by tonycurzonprice

gatekeeper

PCs that are shared are getting appliantised by various restrictions. posted by tonycurzonprice

f the user is allowed to make exceptions, the user can and will make the wrong exceptions, and the security restrictions will too often serve only to limit the deployment of legitimate software that has not been approved by the right gatekeepers.

Tags: no_tag

Posted by: tonycurzonprice

The Future of the Internet—And How to Stop It » Chapter 9: Meeting the Risks of Generativity: Privacy 2.0

Thu, 01 May 2008 16:09:50 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

complex social phenomenon

Institutional info + info by amateurs + transclusion = Privacy concerns, associated data might be unusual or unwanted posted by renataavila

Tags: no_tag

Posted by: renataavila

The Future of the Internet—And How to Stop It » Chapter 2: Battle of the Networks

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:28:10 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

somehow

Everyone - even the appliance - needs a network posted by tonycurzonprice

one another.

But imagine the cost and inconvenience of every appliance having its own network ... so the ability of th enetwork to re-purpose itself is also important to diffusion of technology. posted by tonycurzonprice

connect to it.

Network architectures and protocols work in an environment in which certain behaviors are assumed ... and new assumptions on behavior lead to new desires for network configuration; trustworthiness is an important such behavioral dimension. posted by tonycurzonprice

networking

Regulation, not jsut technology, made it hard to make the telephone network useful for anything apart from telephoning. posted by tonycurzonprice

Hush-A-Phone, which was invented in 1921 as a way to have a conversation without others nearby overhearing it

were sold.

ATT had control of network adn devices attached to it posted by tonycurzonprice

The court drolly noted, “[AT&T does] not challenge the subscriber’s right to seek privacy. They say only that he should achieve it by cupping his hand between the transmitter and his mouth and speaking in a low voice into this makeshift muffler

small ways.

Courts forced ATT to accept non-ATT devices on phone system posted by tonycurzonprice

phone network.

Court principle in 1940s: "as long as network is not harmed, 3rd parties can hook up to it". posted by tonycurzonprice

The physical layer had become generative, and this generativity meant that additional types of activity in higher layers were made possible.

services business

The modem on the "open" ATT network was first generative opportunity for hobbyists and businesses posted by tonycurzonprice

THE PROPRIETARY NETWORK MODEL

themselves

Firt online services were along IBM model but consumer-facing; one company supplied the lot. posted by tonycurzonprice

unchanged

In 10 years of business, between 1984 & 2004, Compuserve hardly changed its array of offerings. posted by tonycurzonprice

tinkering

Compuserve piggy-backed on ATT network, phy layer generativity, but did ot itself offer 3rd party acces for generativity. posted by tonycurzonprice

Why would the proprietary services not harness the potential generativity of their offerings by making their own servers more open to third-party coding?

model prevailed.

Information service companies were charging by the minute - so why didn't they want to cultivate 3rd party apps? posted by tonycurzonprice

shopping

Probably no one actually saw the commercial potential. posted by tonycurzonprice

free-for-all

By early 90s, a small umber of networks offered slightly differentiated, closed, monolithic services. posted by tonycurzonprice

who built them.

The answer is probably deep in organisational behavior: mature markets encourage exploitation of niches, not radical exploration of new models. posted by tonycurzonprice

possible.

Hobbyist BBS encouraged the opposite incentive of proprietary netowrk: bandwidth limitation meant that users had to be as quick as possible. posted by tonycurzonprice

Jennings’s work

FIDOnet - the original p2p file sharing system - got over some of the bandwidth limitations. posted by tonycurzonprice

annoyed person.

FIDOnet was a great kludge, but had some real issues - like wrong numbers in the call list ... and irate humans at the end of them. posted by tonycurzonprice

the world

FIDOnet problems were exactly the problems that ATT worried about when it wanted to limit 3rd party appliances on the network - who was to blame for quality of service. posted by tonycurzonprice

FIDOnet

Internet offered flexibility of FIDOnet with robustness of proprietary network. posted by tonycurzonprice

services

PC <--> Internet analogy: Internet connects to proprietary networks and eventually replaces them posted by tonycurzonprice

message

From the first, Internet is designed to pass information along diverse computer platforms by defining protocols. posted by tonycurzonprice

points

Internet was low level: allow 2 nodes to exchange information ... and that is all; no prejudgement of what people want to do with that information. posted by tonycurzonprice

billion

Internet builders were academics who could devote time to the project and yet were doing it for the innate interest; $10m or so spent on Internet between 1969 and 1990 --- great return on investment, from a social point of view. posted by tonycurzonprice

from them.

Environment of creation is critical in determining the nature of the system: Internet pioneers were trying to get the most out of existing infrastructure and diverse netwroks; contrast business logic of FedEx network. posted by tonycurzonprice

network work.

The motto among Internet pioneers was, “We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code;” they were building it for themselves, in a sort of Kantian environment of universalisability of the user. posted by tonycurzonprice

controlling it.

1991, backbone privatisation context also allowed for decentralisation of network ownership and operation. posted by tonycurzonprice

tryout period

Internet -> Windows PC link built by a single academic hobbyist posted by tonycurzonprice

access

1991, first opening of Internet to non-research uses; by mid 90s, proprietary networks were branding mainly as ISPs --- generative boom was gathering unbelievable speed. posted by tonycurzonprice

code for it.

Internet was built away from commercial logic, no trying to guess what the conusmer wanted; just like the hobbyist PC. posted by tonycurzonprice

rust that at least some third-party software writers will write good and useful code, and trust that users of the device will be able to access and sort out the good and useful code from the bad

harmful code.

Basic trade-off: consistency, quality and reliability of service (closed systems) versus breadth of uses, trust of open systems. posted by tonycurzonprice

approach

Intenret design choices made sense given a sociology, not just an negineering environment. posted by tonycurzonprice

Its origins can be found in a 1984 paper by Internet architects David Clark, David Reed, and Jerry Saltzer.

requirements

Procrastination principle: 1984 Internet engineer academics formuilate argument that only universally useful features should be built into the network, with other specific work being done at the end-points. posted by tonycurzonprice

The people using this network of networks and configuring its endpoints had to be trusted to be more or less competent and pure enough at heart that they would not intentionally or negligently disrupt the network.

persists today.

Internet design assumed basic trustworthiness and competence. posted by tonycurzonprice

Yet the assumption that network participants can be trusted, and indeed that they will be participants rather than customers, infuses the Internet’s design at nearly every level.

an outsider.

Banks are built for robbers, airports for terrorists ... the Internet was built for colleagues. posted by tonycurzonprice

the IDs.

AOL/CompServe had identity management built-in: wanted to know who you were for marketing purposes ... good for accountability, too. posted by tonycurzonprice

User identification is left to individual Internet users and servers to sort out if they wish to demand credentials of some kind from those with whom they communicate.

contents

On Internet, identity-management was left to specific service providers or apps to choose. posted by tonycurzonprice

regulation

There's good and bad in internet's anonymity -- can't pursue bad behavers, but can't get the freedom fighters against oppressive governments either -- but an engineering decision has ended up havign huge social impacts. posted by tonycurzonprice

The person at the endpoint must instead rely on falling dominos of trust. The Internet is thus known as a “best efforts” network, sometimes rephrased as “Send it and pray” or “Every packet an adventure.”

Internet as "network of networks" loosely cobbled together entails the inability to develop quality of service, or bandwidth agreements, that apply between any 2 points. posted by tonycurzonprice

chapter

"bit egalitarianism" is assumed in the network, and fixes have been found along the way (eg Akamai & network caching). posted by tonycurzonprice

environment

Crucible of development - collaborativ academis -- strangely made something that thrived beyond it and gave world this wildly generative environment. posted by tonycurzonprice

dead end.

Is the appliance and the proprietary network an evolutionary dead-end? posted by tonycurzonprice

ignore

The generational pattern of generative technology: small-world success, big-world expansion through commercial forces, limitations of the model; limitations now may threaten the ethos that amde it so good, but limitations are real. posted by tonycurzonprice

Tags: no_tag

Posted by: tonycurzonprice

The Future of the Internet—And How to Stop It » Chapter 1: Battle of the Boxes

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:56:43 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

went wrong.

The first computer company, Tabulating Machine Company, (1890) leased machines and operated them for clients (gvt, big business) and offered a service, not a piece of equipment. posted by tonycurzonprice

from scratch

TMC becmae IBM and retained the model; the downside was that innovation was negotiated and slow, and new vendors found it very hard to enter the market. posted by tonycurzonprice

purposes

The threat of anti-trust forced IBM to unbundle, allowing third party and in-house software in ... but large firms mainly maintained the old model nevetheless. posted by tonycurzonprice

Cutting and pasting different pieces of Flexowriter tape together allowed the user to do mail merges about as easily as one can do them today with Microsoft Word or its rivals.

reprogram them.

'60s corporate comp[uting was IBM or single purpose appliances posted by tonycurzonprice

problems

PCs come out of a hobbyist branch, not a corporate branch---they were "solutions waiting for problems". posted by tonycurzonprice

tabulators

Watch and calculator are the consumer equivalent of the information appliance --- and at heart this has got to do with having someone to blame when it doesn't work. posted by tonycurzonprice

springy posts.

revolution

PCs were always expected to run s/w written by authors other than the manufacturer ... but the PC, until the early 80s, was still considered a hobbyist toy. posted by tonycurzonprice

a university

Corporate computing moved to the mini-computer - still a dumb-terminal system that ran entreprise specific tasks and some general buisness functions. posted by tonycurzonprice

no more.

Un-networked, hobbyist nature of PC made it particularly lax about security. posted by tonycurzonprice

opponent

The PC started winning through its killer business apps - wordprocessor, spreadsheet and relational database, while the hobbyist uses led to the development of games. posted by tonycurzonprice

or the Web.

Business adopted the PC for cost reasons, despite its basic unsuitability to group work; homes bought the PC for one thing and discovered many things they could do with it. posted by tonycurzonprice

PCs can run.

Microsoft genuinely wanted an open PC running many companies' code, not a s/w monopoly for itself. posted by tonycurzonprice

installed

A vast network of PCs ready to run new s/w offered a market for new s/w, a market that only grew as the Internet eliminated the cost of the transaction. posted by tonycurzonprice

themselves

The core of Apple's and MS's business was in making attractive Operating Systems rather than in creating applications themselves, pace the MS antitrust cases of the 1990s that were precisely about such moves. posted by tonycurzonprice

parties’ code

The backwater of hobbyist computing environemnt was essential to the experimentation & risk-taking that made the PC. posted by tonycurzonprice

by others

But the PC revolution went beyond the tinkerers to the non-technical user because of the ease with which PC h/w can be re-used for other purposes. posted by tonycurzonprice

supremacy there.

Here is the typical pattern: creative amateur chaos -> successful product -> market take-over -> risk to interests from original chaos --> temptation to lock it all down. posted by tonycurzonprice

Tags: no_tag

Posted by: tonycurzonprice

The Future of the Internet—And How to Stop It » Part I: The Rise and Stall of the Generative Net

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:01:22 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

subscribers

Victory of decentralised Internet not obvious in 1990s versus the centralised behemoths posted by tonycurzonprice

become

Ingredients of success: quiet growth out of limelight, to avoid being shut down for being too risky posted by tonycurzonprice

to win.

Battle of Internet vs. AOL/Compuserve/Prodigy is like batlte of PC vs. Appliance; what makes the former win? posted by tonycurzonprice

dead ends.

Openness of PC and Internet are setting the scene for a counter-revolution; we need to look at history to find inspiration for avoiding lock-down. posted by tonycurzonprice

access it.

NB - Don't forget that the end-poitn device is integral part of Net (for the user) posted by tonycurzonprice

the box has come to matter.

Internet

If the tethered box wins, then heavy regulation will be possible and we will lose the amateur innovation that has delivered so much of the Net posted by tonycurzonprice

stop them

Net won against the centralised systems BECAUSE it assumed users would behave well, indeed contribute positive goodwill, even when bad behaviour was technically possible posted by tonycurzonprice

Tags: no_tag

Posted by: tonycurzonprice