Great New Yorker article ‘The Group That Rules the Web’

The New Yorker article, The Group That Rules the Web, is a comprehensive overview of the history, organisation and processes around web technology standardisation. By some coincidence, in my last blog post I mention web technology without going into any details. This article is an actual journalist piece on web technology. It’s a good read for anyone interested in the subject.

This is a  a comprehensive overview of the history, organisation and processes around web technology standardisation. By some coincidence, in my last blog post I mention web technology without going into any details. This article is an actual journalist piece on web technology. It’s a good read for anyone interested in the subject.

New Yorker article: The Group That Rules the Web.

Trying to oppose Open Web to Native App Technologies is so misguided that it beggars belief

Open web is not in opposition of native apps. There is just one single entity called Web, and it is open by definition. There are numerous forms of applications that make use of Internet technologies, a subset of such Internet-based technologies serve the web. You get nowhere trying to oppose those two things.

People who ought to know better spend valuable energy dissing native app technologies. I’ve ignored the fracas for a long time, finally I thought I’d pen a couple of simple thoughts. I got motivated to do this upon seeing Roy Fielding’s tweets. I also read @daringfireball’s recent blog post explaining in his usually articulate way how he sees Apple in the whole picture. Here, I just want to look at a couple of definitions, pure and simple.

To claim that open web technologies would be the only safe bet is akin to saying that all you would ever need is a hammer. Good luck with that if you never come across any nails.

I think both are very good and very useful in their own right, one isn’t going to push the other into irrelevance anytime soon because they serve different use cases. The signs actually are that web addressing model, by way of URIs, might get challenged soon once Internet connected devices start to proliferate (as they’ve been hyped to do for some time now). So, I actually think that a safer bet would be Internet Technologies, Web could increasingly be pushed into a niche. But ok, I actually didn’t intend to get in the fray.

Incidentally, I only see claims that native platform apps would be some kind of conspiracy to lock users down, but apparently open web would be the gentlemen benevolent dictator’s choice. I am skeptical in the face of such claims, because Mother Teresa wasn’t a web advocate for example. I remember that Apple, who triggered what-you-know, initially only wanted people to write HTML apps for the iPhone when it launched. It was only when they got pressured by developers that they finally released native SDKs. That’s such a terrible showing for a would-be mal-intended user-locker.

There is no such thing as an open web versus anything else. There is just the web and then there is an ever growing generation of native platform apps that also take advantage of Internet technologies. That’s it. Trying to oppose those two things is just rubbish. Plainly put. If something is a web technology and actually adheres to the web definition, it can only be open. A close web technology would be an oxymoron, the definition doesn’t hold. If something is built using Internet technology, it may borrow web technology for some purposes, but it is not part of the web per se.

In the instances where web technology is best fit, it will continue to be that way and get better. Conversely, in the  cases where native platform apps work best, those will continue to get better and may use the Internet. There is a finite number of web technologies bound by the standards and specifications implemented. But, there is an infinite number of native app technologies since the implementers can write anything they like and get it translated to machine code following any protocol they may devise.

The Web doesn’t equate to the Internet. There are open and closed Internet Technologies, but there isn’t such a thing for the Web. The Internet contains the Web, not the other way around.

In the outset, there is a platform battle going on where parties are vying for depleted user attention. In such battles, every party attracting people to their platform is self serving and can make as much morale (or whatever you call it) claim as any other. The only exception are those set to gain nothing in getting their platform adopted. There aren’t any of those around.

My observation of the ongoing discussions so far is simple. Some individuals grew increasingly insecure of having missed the boat on native platform apps. Whatever the reason, including own choices. Some other individuals, a different group, burned their fingers trying to follow some hypes, learned from that and turned to native platform apps. The two groups started having a go at each other. That got all the rousing started, everyone lost their cool and indulged in mud slinging. But there is no point to all of this.

If you are building software intended to solve a category of problems, then the most important technology selection criteria you should consider is ‘fit for purpose’. Next to that, if the problem is user bound, then you want to find the most user friendly way of achieving your aim. If you do this correctly, you will invariably pick what serves best the most valuable use cases of your intended audience. Sometimes this will work well with web technologies, sometimes it won’t, and other times you will mix and match as appropriate.

I don’t see web technologies being opposed to native app platforms, at all. Whatever developers find more attractive and profitable will eventually prevail, and use case is the only metric that truly matters. It is understandable that any vendor should vie for relevance. That’s what’s at stake, and that is important to everyone. It’s only once people and organisation would face up to this cold fact and start talking genuinely that they begin to make some progress.

 

Marrying Technology with Liberal Arts, Part II

People whose mental memory is sharpened by one kind of activity, tend to do poorly when facing an opposing kind of activity, and vice versa. Liberal Artists are not expected to brag about efficiency and effectiveness, or even economical. Conversely, Technologists will not be taken seriously if they start dwelling on aesthetics. Even if it were aspirational for one side to claim value attributes of the other, they are likely to face an uncertain journey of reconversion, adaptation, reinvention. At an individual level this is hard at best, at an organisational level such aspirational journey could quickly become daunting, you have legions of people and habits to convert into totally alien habits.

In a earlier post, I started exploring this notion of marrying technology and liberal arts. If you follow information technology closely, you certainly know who got famous for making such a claim. Even if you do, I invite you to bear with me for a moment, join me in a journey of interpreting and understanding what could lie behind such an idea. It’s a fascinating subject.

This is not about defining anything new, let alone appropriating someone else’s thoughts This is just an exploration of the notion, to get an idea of the motivations, challenges and opportunities that such a view would generate.

In the last post, I mentioned that there were challenges and pitfalls when attempting to marry technology with liberal arts. Let’s have a look at some of these challenges and pitfalls.

Let’s imagine that the journey involves two sides, two movements, starting at opposing ends and moving towards each other, converging towards an imaginary centre point.  On one side of this journey are The Technologists, thereafter Technologists. On the other side are the Liberal Artists, thereafter called Liberal Artists. The imaginary point of convergence is thus User Needs and Wants, that’s what both sides are striving for. Herein lies an important first chasm:

  • The products generated by Liberal Artists want to occupy our minds and souls, capture our imagination, give us comfort and feeling of security, entertain our fancies, give us food for thoughts. Of essence here are issues such as aesthetics, forms, feelings, comfort, feeling secure or insecure, want, etc. Liberal Artists want to make us feel and want things, trigger our imagination, provoke our thoughts. Liberal Artists might not necessarily concern themselves with practicality – this is not to suggest that they would never do because clearly whole legions of them do, but just that it might be a lower priority concern.
  • The products generated by Technologists want to help us carry out some essential activities. The premise here is that something needs to be done, something that is perhaps essential, something that is unavoidable. The technologist has done her/his job if such an activity could be carried out with the tools created and the techniques devised, considerations such as aesthetics and friendliness might come at a at later stadium, if at all.

By virtue of them starting at different places, Technologists and Liberal Artists have different contexts, different set of values, different views of the world, not necessarily completely alien to one another but definitely having their minds occupied in completely different ways. They face different sorts of challenges. Because we are shaped by our environments, we can grow to become utterly different people. Technologists and Liberal Artists often grow to become very different  people.

Liberal Artists have their own activities,  attributes and aspirations. In no particular order, nor  an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination:

  • Crafting is the primary activity, the outcome could be more personal, intimate, often some form of impersonation or expression of the liberal artist.
  • To be loved, to be adopted and to entertain the patrons.
  • To be perceived to have good aesthetics, aesthetic in this sense could come in the form of something that is pretty, beautiful. Alternatively, this could be something very ugly, repulsive, contrary to accepted beliefs and wisdom. The aesthetics may manifest itself in the look, the feel, and the smell.
  • To provide feel good, feeling different if not somewhat superior, or otherwise convey distress, pain, anger, or other high emotions, especially when dawned in artistic expressions

Technologists also have their activities, attributes, and aspirations. Again not in any particular order, certainly not exhaustive either:

  • To be perceived to be effective and efficient.
  • Productivity is an important driver, this is more about Taylorism, automation, continuously seeking to make things faster and cheaper.
  • To be making durable products, to be providing effective services
  • To get a job done in an economical way.
  • Attributes such as fast, powerful, high performing, are the typical claims that are made.

It is not necessary to go any deeper before one starts to see some of the challenges that all sides/parties face: the  areas of strength for one side automatically represent the perceived or real weakness points of the other side. This is trivial. People whose muscle memory is sharpened by one kind of activity, tend to do poorly when facing an opposing kind of activity, and vice versa.

Liberal Artists are not expected to know much about efficiency and effectiveness, or the economical. Conversely, Technologists might not be taken seriously if they start dwelling on aesthetics. Even if it were aspirational for one side to claim value attributes of the other, they are likely to face an uncertain journey of reconversion, adaptation, reinvention. At an individual level this is hard at best, at an organisational level such aspirational journey could quickly become daunting, you have legions of people and habits to convert into totally alien habits.

Liberal Artists and Technologists are sometimes competing for the same resources and spaces, most of the time they are not. In fact, the two sides address complimentary wants and needs, they are frequently found to be collaborating but not competing. For a wide variety of their activities, Technologists and Liberal Artists rely on each other, one could be found making tools that the other would put to use.

If Technologists and Liberal Artists are collaborating to address user needs, aren’t they already somehow “married” then? Aren’t they solving different but complimentary problems? Does it make sense to talk about bringing them closer together?