That is proven, with cell phones, iPods, calculators. More broadly, it can be said that nongenerative appliances coexist with generative devices. It's not so clear whether one subverts the other without a lot of force behind it.

I'm not convinced of the direction here -- the Brother or Smith-Corona appliance typewriter was supplanted not by a generative product, per se, but by Word Perfect, WordStar, Microsoft Word, and other competitors. No open-system revolution brought this about, only high-stakes competitive market cannibalism. It was not the open programmability of the PC and Mac that inaugurated the market, but the plug-and-play capability of the new product, coupled with the price point.

Better known as the "acoustic coupler," which gives the layman a better idea of its shape and function.

Actually, this product rarely encouraged developing new products from scratch. While it was possible to do with difficulty, by that skill level it would be much easier to use a protoboard and discrete components. Any level of structural control will limit the user to some degree from the freedom to create. This is actually a very good example, and a survey of the various products and their creative possibilities would make for an interesting way to explore this question of flexibility and generativity.

Abraham's new Lego-style electronic project kit is much more "controlled" than my old Radio Shack one -- and he will get less out of it, though it may be easier and more satisfying in some ways, he won't understand discrete components. Compare Ted Kilpin's e-mail about PIC controllers.

The fundamental threshold difference was the ease of transporting functionality with the floppy drive. This gave the Apple II a first opportunity to allow this kind of conspiring. Other platforms (Imsai, Altair, Compucolor, etc.) all had, or eventually supported, floppy drives, and there was some conspiracy, but the Apple's was the most plug-and-play of them all.