Oxford University Professor Jonathan Zittrain in his new book, The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It
, according to NetworkWorld, states that:
...today’s Internet appliances such as the iPhone and Xbox hamper innovation. That’s because these locked-down devices prohibit the kind of tinkering by end users that made PCs and the Internet such a force of economic, political and artistic change.
Zittrain argues that if the cybersecurity situation doesn’t improve, we will migrate to a different kind of Internet. The new Internet will have as its endpoints tethered appliances such as iPhones, which are controlled by their manufacturers, instead of open, changeable PCs attached to an open network that can foster the next round of disruptive innovation.
A bold statement. And he's got a point.
Now these devices are innovations unto themselves, and some even are positioned as development platforms. Take the iPhone, for example. Apple just released the latest version of their Software Development Kit (SDK) and developers everywhere are coding away, looking to build the next great iPhone application.
But in classic Apple style (i.e. heavy DRM within iTunes), Apple remains the gatekeeper. Applications can only be distributed via their App Store, and will only be distributed if approved by Apple. Apple will explain that this is for security and quality-assurance reasons, but it still puts them in control of what's available, with the ability to shut an app off if they so desire. So yes, you can be as creative as you want on their platform, but it's up to Apple if anyone is going to see it at all, or in perpetuity.
There's a similar situation going on with Google's new App Engine (the preview version was launched on 4/8, then taken down on 4/9). Google's vision is that instead of freely building apps with their API, you can develop applications using their APIs and host them on their servers, free of charge. Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud and Salesforce's Appexchange are also providing similar opportunities for developers. Sounds great, right? But there's a catch, as ArsTechnica reports.
Perhaps the most blatant downside is being locked into Google's platform. Existing projects will have to be ported or written from scratch, and those that rely on traditional relational databases will probably have difficulty making the transition. Even more difficult would be transitioning your application to your own servers if you choose to leave Google's tender embrace. Once you've created an established application on top of Google's authentication service and stored all your data within the company's datastore, removing all this code and data and moving it to another location would appear to a be fairly onerous task.
Once again, applications -- and even more importantly, data -- are locked into someone else's platform. And this is precisely what Jonathan Zittrain is talking about.
This is a disturbing trend and runs afoul of what led to the creativity that yielded many of the most popular websites of the last few years. Imagine if Warhol was free to create any art he wanted, but someone else owned the canvases and could destroy or bury them at any point if his art offended someone? That's what's going on here.
It doesn't seem that this is a trend that will let up anytime soon as companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon have way too much to gain by housing and hosting application engines. Doesn't feel like 'do no evil' anymore does it? And a little more 'PC' than 'Mac', if you ask me.
Food for thought...
Recent Comments