Open versus Closed - code and networks

I read two things this morning in praise of closed systems and fﾃｪting their future dominance, both by people who should know better. Bob Cringely praises Adobe's Flash, and predicts that AIR will take over the world because Flash can be made to run on cellphones. Clearly, this is wishful thinking on Adobe's part. There is a standard for creating user interfaces that has many orders of magnitude more developers than Flash, is installed on every computer and nearly every cellphone already, and is powerful enough that even Steve Jobs didn't dare to leave it off the iPhone, and that's HTML.

Cringely says:

Once you own the interface to every mobile device you can make those devices talk more easily to your networked applications than possibly to those from Apple, Microsoft, or Sun. As we move toward a fully mobile Internet, compliance with mobile APIs will be more important than what operating system is running on the server, which is why I believe Adobe is putting so much effort behind AIR and Flex.

"Owning" interfaces is not something that you can do when there is an existing interface that is simple, powerful and deployed on every device imaginable already. That would be HTTP - Cringely's piece starts by saying how HTML has made it beyond ubiquity to invisibility, but HTTP is so invisible he doesn't even notice that it's there (let alone TCP or UDP).

Marc Andreesson also has a good underlying point about the Valley's short attention span with regard to technologies, but he too ends up praising a closed application model, in this case Facebook's. They provide access to their users under sufferance, and clearly can't provide access to users of otehr social networking sites. For Marc to back a closed system like this when he has built his career on open ones is odd to me. Kottke puts this well:

As it happens, we already have a platform on which anyone can communicate and collaborate with anyone else, individuals and companies can develop applications which can interoperate with one another through open and freely available tools, protocols, and interfaces. It's called the internet and it's more compelling than AOL was in 1994 and Facebook in 2007. Eventually, someone will come along and turn Facebook inside-out, so that instead of custom applications running on a platform in a walled garden, applications run on the internet, out in the open, and people can tie their social network into it if they want, with privacy controls, access levels, and alter-egos galore.

Dave Winer agrees it is time to do this:

Eventually, soon I think, we'll see an explosive unbundling of the services that make up social networks. What was centralized in the form of Facebook, Linked-in, even YouTube, is going to blow up and reconstitute itself.

The thing is , pace Andreesson, we have been working on building a consensus to express these connections in an open way for a few years now. We already have a way to express social networks and personal information online. We have hCard for expressing contact information and authorship, and we have XFN to express social connection. Twitter, Dave's experimental platform, already supports this. Lets continue to spread it further.

Jobs WWDC keynote in chapters

I finished watching the WWDC Macworld Keynote from last week - here's my chapter-list version of the stream so you can skip through it to the bits you find interesting:

My overall reaction similar to what I said based on textual reports. Jobs saying that web-based applications are as good as native ones on the iPhone is a big change for him, and a sign that development really has changed. What was clearly flawed in the iPhone directory app demo was the need to write all the integration links into the site - how about Safari/iPhone natively understanding hCard and integrating it with apps, like Operator does in Firefox?

Stacks seems not to really solve the too many documents problem well - see Tim Oren's discussion of literalism and magic (Tim worked on 'Piles', the less euphoniously named version of this idea at Apple, long ago).

The dynamic DNS support integrated in 'Back to my Mac' is great idea for those not yet committed to keeping their documents in the cloud. The tension between Jobs advocating a new OS with 300 features, versus a thin client on the iPhone to the same developers was pretty clear.

Jobs saying that Safari for Windows has built-in support for both Google and Yahoo Search was not something I saw anyone pick up on.

Oh, and one more thing... the new iChat features look great, but why is there still no demo or even mention of iChat on iPhone? The main thing I use my sidekick for is AIM chatting, and if iPhone can't do that and forces chat through the procrustean constraints of SMS it's a huge missed opportunity.

Microformats and media

A few weeks ago at Web2Open, Mary Hodder and I gave an audience-led talk on Microformats and Media Info. Fumi Yamazuki videoed it and posted it on YouTube. The web connection was a little unreliable, so I started out typing up examples by hand...

Every high school graduate?

An unctuous lexicon for the loquacious, wrought through nomenclature hubris for pecuniary chicanery. Is using "should" like this obsequious or supercilious? The taxonomy oligarchy could have been more abstemious with the latinate and greek terms, though no doubt they'd call me a vacuous jejune xenophobe for daring to abrogate their homogenous hegemony.

Even Steve Jobs can't ignore the web

When Jobs introduced the iPhone, it was clear that the platform they could not afford to ignore was web developers - however closed the platform was, having a crippled web browser was not an option. Jobs confirmed that today by saying that the SDK for iPhone applications was Web 2.0 Internet standardsWeb 2.0 + Ajax. Jobs also announced Safari 3 for Windows, so Webkit is now a platform that runs on all computers and a lot of phones.

This is another step in the Innovators Dilemma disruption of the PC computing platform by web-based applications, where learning lessons from the web, and reusing others work are important principles.

Compare and Contrast

Here's Andrew Keen's talk at Google - you can hear me asking questions and reading out that Douglas Adams quote from the front row:

In contrast, here's David Weinberger's tour de force about "Everything is Miscellaneous", which I am proud to have helped arrange.

If you only have time for one, watch Weinberger.

Keening for Culture

Andrew Keen turned up at Google today to plug his book The Cult of the Amateur: How today's Internet is killing our culture. I was too late to get a copy of the book, so reviewing that will have to wait until Amazon delivers me one later this week. Instead, I listened closely and read some of his soi-disant polemics on his blog.

Like Nick Carr, and before him Andrew Orlowski and John Dvorak, Keen is a professional troll. He has realised that combining overblown rhetorical attacks on the internet with a smattering of erudite sounding quotation gets him both newspaper commissions and a lot of links from bloggers, and he is making the most of it. Listening to his arguments, I had the feeling that he was clutching at so many straws so he had enough to build his straw man.

Among the things he said were that he's nostalgic for big media, that the web is not a viable economy for artists, and we need middlemen. Talent is scarce - the value is finding talent. Web 2.0 flattened media lends itself to corruption - media without official gatekeepers is untrustworthy. Youtube is becoming one long commercial break, where the 'best content is sponsored', that most of his evidence is anecdotal, people aren't as smart or as media literate as we'd like them to be and that online anonymity is corrupting (yet he plays along with the wholly fictitious Strumpette).

Andrew Keen's real sleight of hand is that he evokes the best of newspapers and contrasts that with the mass of the web. He says that most musicians won't make money from the web, ignoring that hardly any make money from the label system he defends. Like Carr, his worldview is wholly coloured by survivorship bias.

Now, I recognise a lot of this - being an Englishman in America makes it very tempting to play the Cultural Erudition card - having recently watched the excellent The History Boys, he reminded me of Irwin, the master keen to use gobbets of quotations to support an arbitrarily contrarian premise. This kind of Oxbridge cleverness for its own sake is part of the Guardian/BBC Platonist culture that sees its role to lead the uneducated masses to better themselves, while sneering at their plebian interests. Keen continually calls Google "Orwellian", while ignoring the emotional core of 1984, which is the tension between Winston's day job at the (BBC-derived) Ministry of Information, controlling the party line, and his private diary, written "to the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different for one another and do not live alone". Michael Warner's essay "Styles of Intellectual Publics" expresses this yearning well, and Keen's denial of it to those outside the clerisy of the professional media is a betrayal of the enlightenment principles he professes.

So what did I like? I liked that he said the web was a mirror of ourselves, but I see him as a Caliban cursing his reflection, as I said five years ago:

The web we see is a reflection of ourselves individually as well as collectively.

With 2 billion pages and counting, we can never see it all, and when we venture outside the well trodden paths of the personal web we know, we are more likely to make mistakes in our maps, and come back with 'here be dragons' written across entire continents and tales of men with no heads.

I think this effect, rather than malice or wilful misrepresentation is what is behind such things as journalists' clueless articles on weblogs or congressman fulminating against the net consisting mostly of porn and piracy.

I also liked his call for media literacy, though his assumption that internet users are children who don't have it was more de haut en bas posturing. Douglas Adams put paid to this back in 1999:

Of course you can’t ‘trust’ what people tell you on the web anymore than you can ‘trust’ what people tell you on megaphones, postcards or in restaurants. Working out the social politics of who you can trust and why is, quite literally, what a very large part of our brain has evolved to do. For some batty reason we turn off this natural scepticism when we see things in any medium which require a lot of work or resources to work in, or in which we can’t easily answer back – like newspapers, television or granite. Hence ‘carved in stone.’ What should concern us is not that we can’t take what we read on the internet on trust – of course you can’t, it’s just people talking – but that we ever got into the dangerous habit of believing what we read in the newspapers or saw on the TV – a mistake that no one who has met an actual journalist would ever make. One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’.

Update: Larry Lessig points out many of the inaccuracies of the book:

And then it hit me: Keen is our generation’s greatest self-parodist. His book is not a criticism of the Internet. Like the article in Nature comparing Wikipedia and Britannica, the real argument of Keen’s book is that traditional media and publishing is just as bad as the worst of the Internet. Here’s a book — Keen’s — that has passed through all the rigor of modern American publishing, yet which is perhaps as reliable as your average blog post: No doubt interesting, sometimes well written, lots of times ridiculously over the top — but also riddled with errors. Keen’s obvious point is to show those with a blind faith in the traditional system that it can be just as bad as the worst of the Internet. Indeed, one might say even worse, since the Internet doesn’t primp itself with the pretense that its words are promised to be true.

Larry has a wiki page for further corrections

Unceremonial writing

I was listening to Cory's podcast while cycling home, and while talking about writing, he said something that resonated strongly with me. He said that the danger with writing is that you make it ceremonial, that you have to have a cigarette, or a cup of tea, or the right music playing before you write, and that it is easy to keep accumulating ceremony, until you don't get to the writing part.
That struck home, because I stripped the styling from my blog 2 months ago, and said to myself that I'd convert it to a new template with hAtom support and revamped CSS before I posted again. I had put a ceremony in the way of writing here, so I'm going to start writing again, and maybe get around to titivating the markup later. I've been reading and listening and talking a lot over the last two months, just not writing it down here, so I'm going to start doing so again.

Cory dropped by at Google a couple of weeks back, and gave a very thoughtful talk on the future of copyrights and politics.

Also, his new novel "Little Brother" is a splendid blend of polemic, practical advice on information security and a rollicking tale with characters you can believe in, where he takes his "science fiction is imagining the present" idea to heart and gives a series of recipes for culture clashing. Cory has made writing habitual and frequent. I'll try to do so too.