Michael Perelman wrote, in conclusion:
> With the transformation of images and voice, as
> well as data, to digital form, alongside the more general commodification of
> cultural life, the distinction between data proper and, say, a movie, becomes
> blurred within the newly invented category of intellectual property. The vast
> flow of executives from the fast food and beverage industry to the management
> suites of the computer industry is symbolic of this broadening of the nature
> of information.
I'm not sure what you mean by this; I suspect that this business migration
connotes the usual condensing and bowdlerizing of information compelled by
sales psychology. In his 1987 book "Odyssey: etc." former Apple Computer
CEO John Sculley describes how, when he was the heir-apparent of the Pepsi
empire, Steve Jobs spent months pursuing him with the zeal of a rock
groupie though he protested that he knew nothing about computers (among
other self-deprecating arguments).
The bald reality was that The Two Steves had made a great product but had
come to abruptly realize that sales is a science in itself that they knew
nothing of. What they did know was that Sculley had waged "the cola wars"
against Coke and thereby brought Pepsi back from the dead, so Sculley was
their man.
Jobs wrapped up his final pitch with a desperate question: "Do you want to
spend the rest of your life selling sugared water, or do you want to get
a chance to change the world?" Surely among the greatest of one-liners
in business history.
Alas, the implication is that Jobs had no hope of pitching to the smarts
of his potential customers because the product was too new, too complex
and too expensive, so the impulse-buying that soft drink advertising
panders to would have to serve instead: early corruption in the age of
democratized knowledge-access.
All more than a bit sad, really, but could a socialist society _ever_ have
created the computer industry? We should not shrink from such a question,
and I don't mean to pose it rhetorically.
valis
