Did competition or cooperation build the Web we have today?
LO Folks - The following article puts a different spin on how we got the
technology we have today. I feel it relates to the competition/cooperation
discussion for Org Learning.
Tom Christoffel
lfpdc@shentel.net
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:19:44 +1000
>From: vacic staff <vacic@vicnet.net.au>
>Reply-To: acna@cat.org.au
>To: acna@cat.org.au
>Subject: [acna] Douglas Rushkoff Article
>
>Hi all,
>This article was in Melbourne Age in yesterdays IT pages... I wrote to
>Douglas and he forwarded the article to distribute on the mailing list....
> There was also a good letter from Bruce Simpson from New Zealand on web
>disaster sites... when he sends me a copy I will forward it to the list...
>in mean time his site is http://aardvark.co.nz/weekly/ is quite interesting
>Ken
>
>>----------
>>
>>The Shareware Universe
>>
>>By Douglas Rushkoff
>>
>>
>>Some people are getting tired of my anti-business tirades. Mostly
>>businesspeople, in fact -- or developers and journalists trying to justify
>>why they sold their souls to them. The argument they throw at me in emails,
>>online forums, and my public speaking gigs is this: how can you hate a
>>market-driven Internet when it's the market that's driving technological
>>innovation, universal access, and competitive pricing?
>>
>>How can I? Because it is not the brute force of the marketplace that has
>>brought us any of the major technological and social leaps leading to what
>>we now know as the Internet. These innovations have been driven by
>>cooperation, not competition.
>>
>>Eudora, USENET, the web browser and chat were not developed by companies,
>>but by universities. They were not sold in stores, but distributed as
>>shareware, for free. They were developed not by people looking to make
>>money, but by students, teachers, and researchers hoping to advance the
>>state of networked culture. The protocols that allow our computers to
>>communicate were developed collaboratively. These standards were not set by
>>business monopoly or "first to market" incumbencies, but by committee.
>>
>>Many of us, including me, were mistakenly convinced that the US military had
>>a lot to do with all this. A seminal essay on the subject by science
>>fiction author Bruce Sterling (where he outlined how the US Defense
>>Department and Rand think tank created the Internet as a way for military
>>installations to maintain communication in the event of a nuclear war) is
>>only half-true. What really happened is that the Defense Department saw
>>that the already-existing communications infrastructure developed by
>>scientists and universities -- ARPANET -- would be quite capable of
>>surviving a nuclear war, and could be used by military installations in this
>>eventuality. Because of this, the Defense Department funded additional
>>research.
>>
>>The fact remains that every single major development in online technology
>>and communication came as shareware. Since big business took the wheel, we
>>haven't seen anything significant -- save, maybe, Java, an Internet
>>programming language by Sun, which is itself distributed for free.
>>Microsoft and Netscape have developed increasingly sophisticated browsers
>>and email programs that don't really do anything more than early shareware
>>versions of Mosaic and Eudora -- except take up more hard drive space an
>>processor speed. The companies creating these programs also
(intentionally)
>>create all sorts of compatibility problems as they fight for dominance in
>>the marketplace. It's harder to send attached files to multiple recipients
>>or create a web site that everyone can view now than it was five years ago.
>>This, thanks to free market competition.
>>
>>While shareware developers create programs to address universal needs,
>>businesses develop programs in order to create needs. It's a bizarre form
>>of reverse engineering, where the research department figures out how to do
>>something new, and then the marketing department determines how to sell it.
>>By setting standards and fighting compatibility, companies can insure that
>>their customers will need to buy new machines and software if they want to
>>keep communicating with others. Competition devolves. (If you don't
>>believe this, just think about how much "better" each new release of
>>Microsoft Word really works for *you,* but how you have to buy it if you
>>want to remain compatible with everyone else.)
>>
>>Not true, the business folks argue. In the long run it will all be better.
>>The force of competition drives evolution! "Survival of fittest" may sound
>>hard, but it's what allows a species to develop! At first, perhaps, but
>>many species also evolve unique bits of shareware that benefit groups and
>>not just individuals. The poison in a mosquito's bite benefits not the
>>mosquito who has stung us, but her buddies: our nervous itching releases a
>>hormone into our sweat that the other mosquitoes can smell in order to find
>>us. Evolution -- and survival -- is a team sport.
>>
>>This applies to the Internet, in particular. Unlike many of our
>>technologies -- like guns or pizza ovens -- the Internet depends on
>>cooperation for its survival, and thus implicitly encourages its members'
>>collaboration. This is because the technology itself is about connectivity
>>and group activity. No wonder it requires a supreme effort the likes of
>>which only a Microsoft can afford to impose standards for profit in such an
>>environment.
>>
>>Businesses encourage us to think of ourselves as shareholders rather than
>>community members. The bottom line is money, and how much we'll get to keep
>>for ourselves. Such an ethic does not promote innovation in the style or
>>technology of group dynamics. On the Internet, the true bottom line is
>>communication. This is why the only productive ethics have always been
>>education and the free exchange of ideas and tools. Shareware is a more
>>highly evolved survival mechanism than competition.
>>
>>But business, proponents argue, pays for advertisements on the web, allowing
>>for all these terrific web sites! Actually, that's not true. The
>>advertising business model has not worked online -- only direct sales sites,
>>like Amazon.com, and pay-for-access sites, like stock market services, have
>>turned a profit. Banner ads don't work, and the commercial content
>>providers depending on them are dropping like flies -- or starved
>>mosquitoes.
>>
>>Maybe that's what will finally end the argument. The businesses attempting
>>to steer the Internet will just go out of business.
>
>==
>Australian Community Networking Association - Discussion list
>www.acna.org
--"Lord Fairfax PDC" <lfpdc@shentel.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>