Open Source Standardization

Android, the first major open source mobile OS, has found huge success on devices from virtually all manufacturers. People now are running into the problems that arise when a manufacturer edits Android before distributing it. While the idea of these edits is ideally to improve the user experience, it is mostly used to cripple the OS: remove tethering, draw attention away from functionality that is not supported, etc. In theory, successful open source projects will put pressure on the entire industry to improve, but only if people have access to use that open source.

Consumer calls lately have been to require all manufacturers using Android to allow consumers to opt for a standardized Google build over the custom manufacturer build. Google's CEO Eric Schmidt disagreed explaining that "if we were to put those type of restrictions on an open source product, we'd be violating the principle of open source." 

Eric Schmidt gets it wrong. Open source is about being open to the end user, not a manufacturer. These kind of perspectives hold open source software back from their true potential. By requiring that manufactures give consumers the option of using a stock Android build, Google ensures that customization by the manufacturer works towards the good of the user.

The Rise of Robotics

When computers were first marketed to the public (and corporate) sector, they were of limited value. They could only accomplish a handful of things and they were prohibitively expensive. As time went on, the capabilities of computing equipment increased while the price decreased. At a certain point, computers crossed the feasibility threshold such that their price could be justified by their abilities. The increased demand fueled the innovation that led to modern computers. 

Computers contribute value because they allow us to manage our information and automate repetitive knowledge-based tasks. It has changed the very fabric of our culture. Today it seems ridiculous to attempt to do much of anything without a microprocessor: laptop, computer, cell phone. I believe the next IT transition will be in robotics.

Once the exclusive arena of large corporate manufacturing plants, robotics have become much more available to smaller companies. The rise in demand has driven more research, and while it hasn't yet risen to the level of the personal computer, it seems to be following in those footsteps. Robotics today is drastically different from robotics 10 years ago; they are significantly more capable. It's just a matter of time before a handful of these machines cross the feasibility threshold and begin showing up in our daily lives.

When they do make their appearance, it will fall under IT. Robotics are just computers that can gather information and move around. It will redefine both the capabilities of IT and job an IT professional does.

Take a look at the links below for a few very cool examples of where robotics is headed:

Fully Autonomous (not remote controlled) quadrocopters 

Cameras that understand sight 

Advanced Robotic Hand 

Humaniod Robots 

Technology patents and imitation

It seems that with each new software release, competing products get closer and closer together. One company's competitive advantage is quickly copied and released by rival companies. This isn't a new trend; in fact, imitation is a cornerstone of "innovation" in the digital age. Let's start from the original digital knock-off, the graphical user interface. Originally pioneered by the Mac in 1984, it replace the DOS command-line systems with a more user friendly interface controlled by a mouse. This game changing idea was quickly copied, titled "Windows" and put on the market by Microsoft in 1985.

From the beginning, people viewed technological intellectual property as different from tangible property. Normally a firm could patent a product and the relatively slow change in their market would allow competitors to sell a competing differentiated product. In the fiercely competitive technology markets, a product without all the bells and whistles of the competition will fall behind. Therefore, large numbers of people have justified relaxing intellectual property restrictions.

Imagine how the patent trial would go if a businessman started selling knock-offs of patented pharmaceuticals and tried to use excuses common to IT. Sure, the knock-offs came after the original, were inspired by it, accomplish fundamentally the same thing, but are functionally different because of this insignificant change. Assuming that dispute got to trial (it never would), it would be a landslide victory for the pharmaceutical industry.

Yet today, it's common to see patented products that are indistinguishable from one another. Take the Nook and the Kindle, they're essentially the same product. Look at the current generation game systems, they all now have motion controlled sensors. TiVo got pushed out of the market because cable companies were able to provide a "non-patent violating" substitute in their cable box DVRs.

It seems like in technology fields today, patents are filed not to stop competitors from copying, but to slow them down. If they have to stop and figure out how to make the product "functionally different" the inventor might get an extra month of exclusive use. As a result, patents today are ridiculous. They either attempt to obscure the details of a product or they make the patent so broad it could be used to describe most technologies on the market. 

I don't think there's much we can do about it, other than have some personal integrity. I just find it interesting to contrast Intellectual Property in IT with Intellectual Property in other fields.

What does this have to do with the mac perspective? Everything. Companies no longer must one-up each other with invention and innovation. There is little profit in creating the game changing software, and quite a bit of risk in trying. It may seem like this kind of environment is good for consumers because it helps keep prices in check, but this is not the case. We are setting ourselves up for an era of stagnation, trade secrets, and unspectacular progress. In this case, competition is making the consumer lose. 

The Social Networking Frenzy

Everyone's on Facebook. Social networking is the technology trend at the present. It doesn't matter if you're a high school student, a professional stock broker, or a soldier deployed overseas, the prevalence of high speed internet throughout most parts of the world has spurred people to flock to social networking sites. While not the first social networking site, the fad started with MySpace. Eventually the elegant structure, intuitive UI, and lack of tacky music blaring from each page you visit drew people to the superior choice, Facebook. 

The true value of social networking comes from having a digital forum that is comprehensive. Facebook draws much of it's value from the fact that most everyone in the country not only has a page, but regularly updates it. With social networking as with most things, structure is nice, but content is king. With Facebook, the users supply the content; the users supply the value. 

Seeing the success of MySpace and Facebook, other social networking sites have attempted to get in on the action. Twitter showed just how ADD people could really be. LinkedIn attempted to split the business professionals off from more "consumer" networking sites. The list goes on, but a visit to wikipedia's ever growing list will show you there is a social networking site for just about every special interest. 

Now Apple has thrown their hat in the mix. With the release of iTunes 10, Apple is releasing "Ping", their new iTunes based music social networking program. You will often see me praise Apple on this site, but make no mistake, I'm also one of their toughest critics. Ping is a monumentally stupid idea.

Each time a social networking site draws a user to post on it rather than a central or localized site (lets say Facebook), it splits the available social networking content. In addition to people on Facebook not having access to that information, the poster doesn't have access to the people on Facebook. No users win; remember, content is king.

Apple saw the opportunity to integrate the latest fad into their software, and they correctly took it. However creating their own social networking program was the wrong way to go. The smart move would have been to work with other social networking sites, allowing people to put iTunes information on the profiles, walls, status updates, etc. Instead, they've chosen to compete with the market leaders in an already heavily saturated market at the expense of the users. 

You may have a different take on this, but I know that I will never use ping. However, if Apple had written an itunes Facebook app/extension with the same abilities, I'd have music posts on my profile right now.