Why I hate the new Google Maps 17 Apr 2014Posted by Tony Law in Impact of IT, IT marketplace, ITasITis, Social issues, Tech Watch, Technorati, Uncategorized.
Tags: compatibility, Google, Google Maps, update
add a comment
I finally allowed myself to be pushed into using the new Google Maps instead of the old familiar one.
Here are all the things that I cannot do as easily as previously.
1 – have it open by default with my own location rather than the blanket map of the USA
2 – immediately find my own list of custom maps. It’s an extra click and I have to know that it appears as a drop down from the search bar. Custom maps have become a lot more complicated to create and manage, too, with “layers” and so on. And there’s a different set of marker icons, differently styled from the old ones. So modifying an existing map, such as the one I maintain for Brighton Early Music Festival, won’t be straightforward if I want to maintain consistent styling.
3 – sharing has changed. It used to be simple: create a map, and embed the HTML provided. Now, for example, the Brighton Early Music Festival map doesn’t properly display the venue markers. Never had a problem before. Still working on this one!
4 – “search nearby” was a simple click from the pin marker on the old version. These pin markers have got “smart” which means that if I search for Victoria Coach Station, when I click or hover on the pin what I get is a list of all the coach services which leave from there. If I right click, I get three options: Directions to here; Directions from here; and What’s here, which doesn’t seem to do anything. If I search for Ebury Street (essentially the same location) I get a pin with no smart hover at all. But the marker does not now pop up nearby information, Directions, Save and Search Nearby options.
5 – no accessible help without going out to separate web pages; and even then the instructions don’t make sense. For example, Google says that “Search nearby” is on a drop down you find by clicking the search box. No, it doesn’t. Not in Firefox. It does, though, appear to work in Chrome. I don’t like being pushed to a different browser.
6 – having found Search nearby, I get given (of course) a set of strange, supposedly related, links. Well I suppose this is what Google does. But for me, it gets in the way.
7 – extra panels and drop-downs obscure parts of the map I’m trying to look at
Now all this, and more, is partly the natural response to changing a familiar application. Let’s assume that overall the product is fuller-featured and more flexible than the old version, and its links to the rest of Google’s information are more capable. But software vendors in general are not always good at user-oriented upgrades. Keep the backward compatibility unless there’s a really, really good reason not to. Icon redesigns, and added complexity in the user interface, are not good reasons.
I’m exploring alternatives. Apple’s new map application doesn’t have near the same level of functionality, and older offerings such as Streetmap haven’t really moved on either. But for (UK) route planning, for example, I’m now using either AA or RAC route planner – which still have the simple, straightforward A-to-B interface.
• Google Maps (new version)
• How to search “nearby” in new Google Maps? Google Forum, 11 Jun 2013
• Google Removes “Search Nearby” Function From Updated Google Maps, contributor to Slashdot, 16 Jan 2014
• Route planners from the AA and RAC
• Streetmap (UK)
About metadata 4 Dec 2013Posted by Tony Law in Cloud, Impact of IT, ITasITis, Managing IT, Social issues, Tech Watch, Technorati.
Tags: Alan Rusbridger, metadata
1 comment so far
I’ve been following, of course, the revelations and debate about US and UK security services’ interventions (is that an appropriate word?) in the world of electronically-mediated communications. It’s no great surprise to many of us that the NSA and GCHQ have their fingers deeply into these pies.
If enterprise IT people discuss cloud solutions for data storage, email, and so on, the requirements of, particularly, EU Data Protection legislation come up often. If you outsource to a large cloud provider then they may assure you that your European data will be stored in the EU: in a data centre in Ireland, say. Ask them where the backup is kept, though, and the answer is sometimes Texas. Even if it isn’t, then if the company is a large US corporation it is susceptible to US government pressure: and if it’s based outside the US but does a lot of business with the US then almost the same applies. We’ve seen this in the revelations about interference with encryption standards; and it’s generally believed that this isn’t the only commercial sector where it happens.
What’s outside expectations is the scale and depth of the interference.
So today’s Guardian carries reports of editor Alan Rusbridger’s appearance at the House of Commons Home Affairs committee. In parallel, yesterday a supplement was published covering the issues, with some interesting infographics. For example: the number of deaths in the UK from terrorism-related actions is marginally higher than that from bee and wasp stings. More critically, there’s an interview with Tim Berners-Lee and, following this up, outlines showing how the so-called counter-terrorism activity blows a hole in internet security generally and cripples, therefore, any internet business relying on open standards for its confidentiality. Apparently Indian embassies have been instructed to return to using manual typewriters to prepare confidential documents.
It’s worth publicising, too, that the United Nations’ chief counter-terrorism official is launching an investigation: not into the Guardian’s publishing, but into the governments’ activities. Ben Emmerson, interestingly, is a British Queen’s Counsel, a very senior lawyer. He’s quoted in the same supplement to the effect that publishing reports of this activity is at the forefront of public interest. This is not some interest-group’s independent review. This is above government, an international review at the very highest level. In the US, very senior people accept that the issues need to be debated. Only in the UK, apparently, is there an attempt to shoot the messenger. Something Alan Rusbridger labelled yesterday as a classic diversionary tactic.
That’s background. But there’s one thing in all this reporting that is going unchallenged and shouldn’t be. It’s the use of the word “metadata”.
Any IT graduate or professional with any training in data management learns what metadata is. It’s “data about data”. That is, it describes, for example, the type of a data attribute, its name in the database, its range of permissible values, and what it means (in so far as this can be codified). Metadata says that the attributes recorded for a phone call, for example, are a date stored as an eight digit yyyymmdd literal, a time stored in 24 hour format to the nearest 0.1 second, a location stored as a Greenwich latitude and longitude pair, and so on.
Information about when and where I use my mobile phone, or the subject line of an email, is not metadata. It is data. A particular instance – the phone call I made yesterday – is a data item and the time, date, location and content of that call are attributes of the data item. I repeat: this is data. It is not metadata.
Even the Guardian itself is misusing the term. A Guardian article asks “Is metadata just billing data …”. This is the wrong question. Is billing data metadata – no, it is computed from attributes of the call (such as the start and end times, location and so on) and a tariff table. These are data, not metadata. Moreover they are personally identifiable information and should be afforded the full protection of the Data Protection Act.
This is far from a technical detail. By mis-labelling these data attributes as metadata, security agencies are making them seem less harmful. Not least, because metadata is not a term in normal everyday use, so lay people will simply adopt the definition they are offered. IT-literate people need to shout.
• Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger appears before MPs: Guardian, online, offering live coverage from 3 Dec 2013
• Edward Snowden revelations prompt UN investigation into surveillance: Guardian, online, 2 Dec 2013 (print, 3 Dec)
• Metadata: is it simply ‘billing data’, or something more personal? Guardian online, 2 Dec 2013
• Wikipedia: Metadata (this is a good definition, as reviewed today, with references to ISO standards and other sources)
Working with others (2) 2 Jul 2013Posted by Tony Law in Impact of IT, IT is business, ITasITis, Social issues, Tech Watch, Technorati.
add a comment
On Thursday (4th July) I’m facilitating a Corporate IT Forum event called Collaborating with Third Parties (the working title, reflected in its URL, was “Beyond the Firewall”). As it happens this is something I have ideas about. I’ll need to work quite hard not to impose them on the group, since it’s the group’s shared learning that’s important.
Quite a long time ago now, a group of us in BP’s long-disbanded IT Research Unit worked with Imperial College, AEA Harwell (as it was), ICL (remember the British computer company?) and, in due course, many others looking at management architectures for widely distributed systems. That’s to say, where components developed by and hosted by different organisations came together to comprise composite systems which did useful work. In the late 1980s this was not a well understood way of doing applications.
In today’s Internet-enabled world, third-party components are everyday reality. Any vendor who accepts credit card transactions over the Internet, for example, may create their own payment system: but they may equally well wedge in a widget from someone else, who understands and has resolved the issues around payment protection and the compliance and standards embodied in PCI. Whoever processes their payments is almost guaranteed to then invoke either Mastercard or Visa’s online verification service. That payment, then, passes through at least two and probably three different systems before the vendor collects their money. No one organisation has responsibility for the overall system. And it doesn’t matter if you’re an organisation the size of Amazon, eBay or Tesco: when you need a card transaction verified, you don’t have a serious say in how this is done. You interface to Verified by Visa, and you do it their way or not at all.
None the less if you’re Amazon or, in the USA, WalMart, you do have a lot of clout. And if you want to do online supply chain stuff with WalMart, again, however big you are as a multinational global supplier, you do it their way.
These kind of interactions are not equal-handed. One party dominates. I wouldn’t, myself, call these interactions collaborative.
Here’s the other model. In the oil industry (back to BP again) joint ventures are commonplace. You set up a joint operating company, quite likely, with its own capital and operating and management structures: but you want to share expertise and experience and decisions even-handedly so the JV needs to draw on both companies’ information. This doesn’t happen if one of the companies puts its arm round its geology information, for example, and refuses to let the other see it.
More subtly, it doesn’t happen if one company insists that data from the JV is stored in my data centre on my servers and access is controlled by my LDAP directory. It may be stored in your data centre on your servers because that’s the best place. But you have at the least to trust your partners to have access as easily as your own people. They must also be able to decide who, from their side, is allowed access: and preferably to just set it up without referring to you.
It’s similar to what Euan Semple says about conversations. He quotes David Weinberger to the effect that “Conversations only happen between equals”; and he elaborates this. “If two people are not prepared to see each other as equal, at least for the duration of their interaction with each other, then what they are having is not a conversation”.
It’s the same for a collaborative relationship. If you want to decide whether a relationship is truly collaborative: I think this is the same as asking whether control is symmetrical. If you were in their place, and they in yours, would you be able to work in the model you’ve set up?
If I’m wrong about this, I’ll find out on Thursday. What do you think?
• Collaborating with Third Parties, Corporate IT Forum workshop, 4 Jul 2013
• Euan Semple (2012), Organisations don’t Tweet, people do, John Wiley, Chichester. Page 110 ff.
• PCI (Payment Card Industry) Security Standards: the PCI Security Standards Council
• Working with others (1): feeling pleased with myself (ITasITis, 1 Jul) was about something quite different!
Facebook faces up: whose reputation? 30 May 2013Posted by Tony Law in Impact of IT, IT is business, ITasITis, Social issues, Social media, Technorati.
add a comment
Facebook made the mainstream news again last night. Behind the news there’s an interesting twist.
In brief: Facebook is being forced (as the commentators put it) to face up to issues of inappropriate and inflammatory comment being posted on its open platform. In the early days of the internet (think Newsgroups) or of the Web, anyone could put anything up. Communities like newsgroups or conferencing sites were largely self policing. Now, with the development of case law and some explicit regulation, it’s not such a free-for-all.
Facebook mirrors this. In many ways, for some people, Facebook is the Web. Its un-policed, self-regulated, relatively small caterpillar has become a free-flying butterfly (is that a good metaphor?) where it has millions of users, representing a wide variety of (mostly legitimate) points of view, different cultures and so on. It’s taken a while for the management of a multi-billion public company to realise they have to exercise responsibility.
OK, so far, so obvious. But the interesting thing to me about last night’s news item was that the pressure has come, specifically, from advertisers. In the Web world we’re used to thinking of advertisers as a necessary intrusion; they pay for our Google searches, our online news (paywalls apart), most of our “free” services. But here, it’s the advertisers that have forced Facebook to take notice. No, said the Nationwide Building Society (and others), we will not take the risk of our brand appearing alongside this kind of stuff.
As the BBC report says, the Nationwide action went public on Twitter. Looking at the Twitter feed for @asknationwide, on 25th May, it appears they received a large number of tweets relating to ads being displayed alongside offensive content. One tweet to @everydaysexism says “It is not our intention for our ads to appear on pages like this. We will report this page to Facebook and suspend our ads”, and they did just that.
Whoever thought that damage to brands could become a force for positive change?
• Sexism campaign: Facebook learns a lesson, Rory Cellan-Jones, BBC Technology, 29 May 2013
• Facebook bows to campaign groups over ‘hate speech’, BBC (Dave Lee and Rory Cellan-Jones), 29 May 2013
• BBC news video, 29 May 2013
• Twitter: @askNationwide and @everydaysexism (look here for other news links)
Glyndebourne’s Imago arrives 4 Mar 2013Posted by Tony Law in Impact of IT, Social issues, Social media.
add a comment
Some while ago I posted a note about Glyndebourne’s 2013 Community Opera, Imago. It’s staged this week; tickets are still available for some of the performances – at “ordinary”, not High Season, prices.
Imago is an opera about modern technology. It challenges the boundaries between real and virtual worlds, between age and youth, and between emotion and impudence. It uses serious technology in its visual effects, though not all of it is modern technology! The chorus cast and some of the orchestra are local musicians, not mainstream professionals; many of the name parts are sung by young professionals.
If you’re a techie, not used to opera, in the East Sussex area – come!
View this Glyndebourne video, or find Imago on the Glyndebourne website or on Facebook.
Glyndebourne opera takes on social media 3 Nov 2012Posted by Tony Law in Social issues, Social media.
add a comment
I’ll declare an interest: Glyndebourne is local to us, and as a singer I enjoyed a couple of stretching and very rewarding workshops through the audition process. Unfortunately I had to withdraw from participation because of family and other commitments which will clash with the most intense rehearsal period. Thankyou, Susannah and the team, for the chance to be – even marginally – part of Glyndebourne-behind-the-scenes.
But it was the theme of the opera that drew me to it as well.
You can find more details on Glyndebourne’s own site, but briefly: the opera begins in a care home, where a staff member introduces the residents to virtual worlds as a way to let them express their personalities when their frailty limits their scope to do so in real life. They create avatars (“imagos”). So does he, but his is hijacked by his two sons. The opera switches between two natural worlds (the care home, and his own home) and several islands in the virtual world.
As in worlds we know about, like SecondLife, the imago represents who you’d like to be rather than your natural world constraints. So one elderly lady becomes a teenage girl, who falls in love in the virtual world with the imago operated by the two teenage boys. At the end, when the real lady dies, the relationship moves poignantly from the virtual to the natural world.
Many years ago, I saw Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange which made waves for all the wrong reasons. It was a powerful film asking questions about what is the essence of humanity. Imago will do the same in a world whose technology has moved on by around 40 years. It’s staged in early March for three days only; ticket prices are community prices, not mega-opera prices; and if you can get to Glyndebourne, do come.
Suddenly, it’s personal 1 Nov 2012Posted by Tony Law in Social issues, Social media.
1 comment so far
Information that comes through the social network isn’t always welcome. At my desk last evening, I received a call (in the UK!) from a New York Times reporter working on a Hurricane Sandy story. And so I learned that a former colleague, with whom I was still spasmodically in touch, had died alongside her husband in the storm in New Jersey when a tree fell on their truck. Their two younger sons were with them in the car, but are safe.
The reporter had been searching for her contacts through, among other places, LinkedIn and called me. Watching coverage of President Obama’s visit to NJ, an hour later, he was talking about people I knew better than he did. Suddenly, it’s personal.
I joined SmithKline Beecham, as it then was, in 1993 to do emerging technology monitoring. A reorganisation a few years later gave me a brief which was global, across the whole international company. Then, much more than now, there was a gulf between the pharmaceutical R&D arm of the company and the rest of us (R&D lumped us all together as “Corporate”). But Beth Everett had been carrying a similar brief to mine, in R&D IT, for longer than I had. She and her boss had knowledge, experience, contacts and processes and with her boss’s active encouragement she and I worked together for several years.
R&D had different business perspectives. Short term, experimental and tactical IT solutions were often embraced. Six months taken off the lead time for a new drug was well worth while. “Corporate” wanted a vendor with an established market record. But R&D would adopt, adapt and leverage experimental technologies from vendors, startups, and academic research. So my previous collaborative work with academic researchers in the UK paid off in credibility with Beth’s network. Our different contacts and perspectives combined to great benefit. And some of the awareness, risk appetite and external collaborations began to transfer to the wider corporation. Many years later, after the merger which formed GlaxoSmithKline, I was still benefitting from this with the willingness of senior IT managers to know about things going on in leading edge IT, and to see potential in at least some of the technologies we monitored.
Beth encouraged me to attend, alongside the R&D people, meetings of the Object Management Group (OMG): SB R&D held membership, and were leaders of its work in the late 1990s in the healthcare domain. (Incidentally, that enabled me to reconnect with Andrew Watson, OMG Technical Director, who previously I’d known in a European distributed systems architecture project. His colleague Andrew Herbert later became head of Microsoft Research in Cambridge, England.) Beth and I shared attendance at OMG meetings: one in Manchester, England, was remarkable for a presentation by Tom Kilburn of his work on the “Baby” computer and the first ever stored computer program. We participated in projects. And I learned about how consensual standards-making works. All these things are my mix of personal and professional memories of Beth.
It was at an OMG meeting in Philadelphia, hosted by SB, that I first met Beth’s family: her husband Rich, and their (then three, now four) children. They welcomed me into their home on a visit too. At a devastating time for them all, thoughts and prayers are with them.
• Couple From Randolph, N.J., Are Killed in Storm, New York Times online, 31 Oct 2012 (by Alison Cowan; find the timestamp 7.54 p.m.) [This post no longer appears online]
• Hurricane Sandy: Police ID couple killed in Mendham Township crash …, NJ.com, 30 Oct 2012/update 31 Oct 2012
• Object Management Group (go to Search and look for Corbamed or find the Healthcare Domain Task Force)
• ANSA (Advanced Networked Systems Architecture): The official record of the ANSA project, 1985-1998
• Microsoft Research Cambridge
• Blue Crest Riding Center, Rich and Beth’s business, also on Facebook
• Tom Kilburn, 1921-2001, obituary, Computer50
Business Continuity, Olympic style 12 Apr 2012Posted by Tony Law in Impact of IT, IT is business, ITasITis, Social issues, Technorati.
1 comment so far
People are beginning to talk about “keeping business running in London during the Olympics” or words to that effect. I’ll try and track some of the most helpful commentary.
The Olympic planners themselves highlight the key issues. Of course the effect will be at its greatest close to the venues, but these are quite widely scattered across London and beyond. Nor is the impact limited to those areas:
- travel: there will be perhaps millions of additional people in, and travelling to and around, London. Event start times may mean additional travellers in the rush hours. Transport networks will be re-organised to service the games, meaning disruption to normal travel patterns
- logistics: deliveries into or from, or transport through, London will see challenges
- communications: there will be significant additional load on communications networks which might lead to overload and failures in other areas
- accommodation: will be scarce and probably more expensive than usual
- staff: people may be on leave (escaping, or, because they want to attend events or are volunteering), or, on shorter timescales, giving attention to reports of high profile events as they happen
- and don’t forget that however good the preparation there is always the possibility of a high profile security incident which would cause disruption very widely
Suggestions, and commentary, are beginning to emerge. What’s striking me is that we’ve been here before: not in relation to the Olympics, clearly, but with other situations where travel and normal business patterns might be disrupted. Ash clouds. Bird flu. And so on.
So, what are the recommendations being re-invented? For the people issues, some clear short-term ones such as don’t arrange meetings during the Olympics which involve lots of people travelling to, and needing accommodation in, the London area. See if working patterns can be changed to stagger travel. And do check out the events at the out-of-London venues too. Expect that, for those who do need to visit, accommodation expenses will increase. Book travel as far ahead as possible.
But (this is an IT blog) once again the discussion focusses on alternatives. Use online technology to support distributed meetings: much more a way of business-as-usual than it was, for example, ten years ago at “9/11″. In fact, where I worked, it was 9/11 that kick-started the use of distributed meetings: not just from the security angle, but because the number of people out of place that single week highlighted just how much the company was spending on travel.
Encourage and support staff working from home, to circumvent commuting disruption: we had that one with the bird flu scare, and one of the key questions was whether the company’s inbound connectivity was adequate. Another, not immediately obvious, is whether the public infrastructure (which in residential areas won’t have been upgraded to support the event) is up to the increased load being placed on it. We’re a lot further on than even a couple of years ago in understanding different ways of enabling business activities to use personal technology, but staff likely to work from home may still need to be provided with additional services or facilities too.
Here are a number of references and events.
First, check out the Olympic organisers’ own business continuity information, planners and tools. London 2012 online has an extensive Business Network section highlighting both opportunities for businesses to get involved and the continuity challenges. Track through to Preparing your Business, or download (PDF) Preparing your Business for the Games.
The CMA (part of the BCS these days) is hosting an eventon the afternoon of 16th April focussing on the comms issues: Managing Your Business During the Olympics will include fixed line, mobile network and data centre providers and an ISP.
I’ll seek more, but the major (global) analysts not surprisingly don’t have much. In the meantime I’m off cycling in France along the Avenue Verte Dieppe-Forges (posting in French – sorry!), so I’ll extend this post next week.
Tech trends for 2012: who thinks what? 6 Jan 2012Posted by Tony Law in Cloud, Consumerization, Impact of IT, Insight services, IT is business, IT marketplace, ITasITis, Managing IT, Social issues, Social media, Tech Watch, Technorati.
add a comment
It’s the time when insight services are awash with predictions for the coming year. I’ve been having a look or, where possible, a listen to a few.
Did you see a recent Forrester announcement? In line with their own recommendations, they’ve replaced the CIO post with a Chief Business Technology Officer. With hindsight I’m surprised it’s taken this long; “Not IT but BT” has been a Forrester theme for several years now.
Another place where I’ve seen the Business Technology tag used is in McKinsey‘s quarterly newsletter. Their Business Technology office has just reported their sixth annual technology survey. According to the newsletter, “executives say their companies are boosting IT spending and adopting new technology platforms to support innovation”. McKinsey see a significant challenge to IT: “Aspirations—and current expectations—for IT have never been higher”.
Here are a few other pointers.
IDC Insights believe the CIO’s 2012 agenda will be shaped around the “Four Forces” (Cloud, Mobile, Social, and Big Data). I’m registered on their webcast (10th Jan: free) to hear more. Yankee Group also offer a focus on mobility. Their focus is on the market for devices, but their research speaks also to the corporate buyer strategist when they see an even smartphone market between Android, iPhone and BlackBerry. Oddly, though, they refer to the Bring-Your-Own market but don’t have a focus on tablets. They do, though, see both personal Cloud services and HTML5 becoming important in the coming year.
Gartner, of course, have created their swathe of Predicts 2012 content. Of course, most of it is client-only access. But the front page of Predicts 2012 includes a 15-minute podcast from Darryl Plummer. He highlights the same four areas as IDC (except he says “Information” instead of “Big Data”). It’s worth listening to Darryl; he’s quite listenable-to.
Significantly, Gartner’s highlighted report for the IT community is titled “Gartner’s Top Predictions for IT Organizations and Users, 2012 and Beyond: Control Slips Away“. You almost don’t need to read the report; but there’s a useful summary by Peter Galen at Infosec Update. Corporate control of users’ IT assets has been useful, but is now increasingly a myth. Seems like Gartner are saying that this year is the year it will reach tipping point. But, listening to Darryl speaking in this area, I did rather wonder “What took you so long?”
IBM, in their “5 in 5″ (five trends in five years) take the argument a step further and look beyond the WENA (western Europe/North America) corporate market. Thanks to Basex for the alert to this, but I’m not entirely clear that Basex is looking at the same report. Their focus on mobile devices is on the super-smart, not on the abolition of the digital divide. Worth a look, to lift your eyes beyond the immediate page.
Finally, Ray Wang (now at his own Constellation Research) highlights “10 Mega Business Trends To Watch For In 2012″.
Perhaps the key one, for IT, is “Keep consumerisation of IT enterprise class”: in other words, ensure the right balance between enablement and discipline. Here’s a world class statement of the issue: If IT is too strict, business fails. If business fails to have a level of discipline in technology adoption, IT can not keep up with the lack of standards and scale. Ray sets this in the context (and there’s a timechart) of the change from transaction to engagement as the basis for business. There are comments for innovators, and for those who are scared to innovate.
Happy New Year!
• Forrester Research Names First Chief Business Technology Officer, Forrester Press Release, 5 Oct 2011
• A rising role for IT: McKinsey Global Survey results, McKinsey Quarterly, Dec 2011
• IDC Insights 2012 Predictions: The CIO Agenda, IDC Insights, 4 Jan 2012, in IT Governance and Executive Strategies. For the webcast (10 Jan), the registration link is at the foot of the page.
• Register and download 2012 Mobility Predictions: A Year of Living Dangerously, Yankee Group , Dec 2011
• Predicts 2012: Gartner; summary at Infosec Island, Peter Galen, 3 Jan 2012
• IBM the next 5 in 5, see also Basex Tech Watch
• 10 Mega Business Trends To Watch For In 2012, Ray Wang, constellation
Is power shifting to the OS vendors? 2 Dec 2011Posted by Tony Law in Impact of IT, IT marketplace, ITasITis, Managing IT, Social issues, Tech Watch, Technorati.
add a comment
Frank Zimper, via one of my Circles on Google Plus, drew my attention to a thoughtful article in MIT’s Technology Review (TR). I used to read TR regularly, in a paper copy, but time allocation defeated me. I ought to get back to it because it ranges not just across a whole range of the novel techology spectrum but to comment about what’s going on.
So here’s an article by Jonathan Zittrain, professor of law and computer science at Harvard (no, TR doesn’t restrict itself to MIT authors!) discussing the development of the platform vendors’ stranglehold on applications and, therefore, on content delivery. The piece is called The Personal Computer is Dead but that’s not actually what it’s about.
Zittrain takes for granted the shift from the desktop-like devices of the past thirty-odd years to mobile, highly personal smartphones and tablets. What he’s concerned to point out is that the enterprises who define the functionality of these devices, via the OS – Apple, Google, now Amazon, and still Microsoft – also lock down, with varying strictness, the means by which software can be loaded.
And with software goes content, which these days is often in the cloud and can only be accessed through the authorised App. Change platform and you may lose your content (not just your software). Zittrain suggests that this restrictive practice puts Microsoft’s tactics with IE (remember the anti-trust case?) in the shade. Yet it’s crept in under the radar, perhaps because we see these devices as “appliances”. They’ve become ubiquitous computing and content devices, as it were, by stealth.
As well as these socio-legal issues, the article does capture quite neatly the changing models for development and delivery of both software and content; for its more or less draconian review and authorisation by the platform vendors (and the reasons for this); and for payment, including the impost imposed by the app stores which have become, in some cases, the only route to market.
Well worth a read. Thankyou, Frank!