
We rarely talk about the fact that the Web is a barn we raised together.
The first generation of Web developers learned the craft from one another. When’s the last time so large a group of people collaborated on developing something so great?
I’ve been privileged to receive notes like this in my life. I’ve sent dozens of notes just like this to the people who encouraged and taught me how to code formatting in 1994, tables in 1996, CSS in 1999, and ever onwards. Everything we gave was just a fraction of what we got, passed on and on and around and back again, for years and years and years. Everyone won.
So here we are, the designers and developers and product managers, the conference speakers and venture capitalists, professional bloggers and online critics, and more than a spattering of CEOs. How unbelievably lucky we were to fall into a society of sharing that propelled us all into prosperity. It was a hobby that defined our adult lives. Admit it, the Web’s been good to you.
So here we are, cosy in our cottages. Believe me, there’s nothing I want more than to snuggle down in the blankets and congratulate us all on our cleverness, but there are some that are saying that the Web is under attack by the strategic decisions of corporations that benefitted more than any other by the Web’s growth: Apple and Google. And it’s not an argument without merit.
Apple is the arbiter of the software that runs on its devices (completely, in the case of iThings; increasingly, in the case of the AppStorified Mac). This creates unnecessary bottlenecks when it comes to bugfix or security releases. It creates a single point of failure for apps and therefore for devices; if Apple goes under tomorrow (or, more likely, changes their mind completely about whatever they please), how will you continue to update your apps? Worst, it puts Apple in the position of policing for content, which, whether driven by a well-intentioned desire to avoid offensive content or by a malevolent puritanism, is a Bad Thing.
- “Done with Apple”, Boone Gorges, October 12, 2011
Well. What am I to do with that?
Alright. So the growth we’ve all been enjoying despite this awful economy, the conversion gains and the order value gains, have been fueled by expansion. The user base is still growing. It’s going to continue to grow. And the toys that enable them to buy online continue to diversify, to spread. So I’ve got more people out there, and they’re buying a new pair of shoes on Monday morning at work, and they’re buying a movie later that night to watch with dinner, and they’re buying their book online to read before getting on the plane. It’s all growth, magical beautiful growth based on giving people what they want when they want it so they can live richer lives. I’m down with that. I think most people are down with that.
I understand why the big guys are moving towards a closed circuit. The revenue benefits are significant and… well, no one seems to mind. There’s a convenant you make with your users when you take on that model. Your product has to be easy. It has to be good. Really good. And all three of what I consider the big three - Apple, Amazon, and Google - have honored that covenant. So no one minds. I don’t mind iTunes. The only time I don’t like iTunes is when it doesn’t have what I’m looking for. The only time I mind Google is when it shows me ads that aren’t relevant. And, in fact, I hate having Apple TV AND Netflix AND Hulu, and have to check all three to see who’s carrying Downton Abbey.
It was only a matter of time before the content of a CD was sold just as the CD was before it. I think we all saw that it was going to happen, no matter how loudly people complained about Pirate Bay. But I didn’t see that commercial content might actually move aggressively against non-commercial content for the simple reason that the two are now in competition.
I think right now, the existence of YouTube feeds the value of the device by being “already available” and free when the device is first bought. So the YouTube mobile client comes pre-installed. That content is consumed and enjoyed, causing the user to go into the app store to see what else is there, hello paid content. The same is true of all social media tools. The big ones are easy to find on any device. But is this the culmination of the Web that Wired built? Facebook is a nightmare on every level. No, they must be considered commercial content. It’s just that it’s the contributors who pay for the social networking services with their personal information, rather than the consumer. But let’s be honest. It’s paid for. It’s just that no one seems to mind.
I have to tell you, I’m excited about all this. I think it’s fascinating and the work coming out of all these market undulations is gorgeous. I love the race to the living room. I love the texting teenagers. I love the kids playing Nintendo. I love the fucked up way it is messing with all our brains on a deeply physiological level. Whew! A girl’s got to fan herself. What a wonderful world. What a wonderful industry.
But the concern is interesting, maybe even legit. There are many, many ways in which I can’t communicate with my friend because she’s on an Android and I’m on my iPad. And I realized recently that our workarounds are just utilizing social networking sites, which are no less proprietary and controlled.
I mean, this is just the maturation of the medium, right? It’s not like… like… It’s just the maturation of the medium, right. I mean, what could we possibly be losing?
I think. I think maybe it’s not a bad idea to think about that.