---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:19:44 +1000 From: vacic staff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 >Ken >Sure. Thanks for liking the piece. >Douglas >---------- > >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 To send a message to the list, write to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
