There is a faint line drawn when it
comes to what is accepted and not accepted within “private” platforms. I have
never thought of this conundrum when I used the downloaded apps on my iPad or the
other ones I downloaded onto my laptop, which also happens to be an apple
product. It never occurred to me that the apps I use on my personal facebook
account had to go through rigorous test in order to see if it was acceptable
and then have a written out agreement between facebook and the app creator stating
at anytime they wish facebook could terminate the app. In a way it does make
sense. These different platforms are looking at the integrity of the product
being marketed to them and how it’ll affect the user. So does a closed platform
with limited freedom make sense? It makes me wonder, “Why is it so bad to be
open? Why is being closed better?” This is something that I personally will
have to understand, as well as my fiancé, in hopes of creating apps in our
future careers.
Through out Lawerence Lessig’s Open Culture talk I listened intently to
both sides of the argument. I’ve concluded that I’m on the closed side. I feel
like we live in time were we’re so connected to our technology there has to be
a barrier between them and us. Them are the companies or individuals creating
apps that we may think are fun but are nefarious and try to obtain our private
information and us is of course us, trying to find apps or programs to fill the
empty slots in our days.
Here is how it breaks down with the
level and evolution of openness over the past 2 decades with platforms and
programs:
1. Stage
1: Microsoft built a dominant proprietary platform. It was originally open but
then the closed the platforms ability to be changed with code. Another thing
that they had done was messing with their own personal product, such as
Netscape, and making it unusable to those who didn’t have their platform. This
of course led to a federal lawsuit against Microsoft. In a way, they were
becoming a monopoly and that of course is illegal in our nation. They were
found guilty
2. Stage
2: There was a return to open platforms because that was the cool, freedom
lover way. The internet started to have open platforms ergo no control. The
internet was a new creation out there on the market for a couple of years but
with it being now open it was producing 2nd rate technology. Also,
Google was created and gave users a better way to search the internet. Instead
of giving them results of the company who paid the most money to be the first
result, either relative or not, they instead gave the best link first. The idea
was to get the user what they needed quickly so when they came in, they came
out just as fast. There was still that nagging thought though, if controllable
there might be less innovation (less trust) but if it’s controlled, there will
be more information (it will be trusted.)
3. Stage
3: This is when there were the two; controlled/uncontrolled platforms. Twitter,
facebook, iPad, and many others control what is built on top of their platform,
as the should to ensure their users that there platforms are safe. The live by
a code of ethics and core values. This safety doesn’t guarantee freedom though.
If you create a app it has to go by the rules and regulations of what that
platform decides. So in way, it would be hard to build a cross-platform app.
Facebook for example will take your program off their server just because they
deem it as something that interferes with their platform. Another example of a
platform being “picky” is the apple iPad. They have the control to say what
goes on their platform and you cannot download programs that are not authorized
to be on their platform. Lawerence gave a great example of an app called
MyFrame. It was a simple app that allowed you to pick your own apple iPad
background with different layouts of the time, weather, and other information
placement. Steve Jobs would later take off the capabilities of this app to be
used on all iPads. The reason being was it interfered with the platform by
altering it with code that was created by apple so it was terminated.
Now I know I gave you a lot of
information to soak in, but it’s worth your while knowing what goes on behind
the making of the platforms and apps. You may be thinking to yourself, “What is
the big deal with having an open platform? Obviously it isn’t doing harm to
anyone and you don’t have to buy the app if you don’t want it.” Here is the
problem with an open platform. When an app is created by someone who isn’t
necessarily tech savvy, a whole mess of terrible things may occur. Your
technology may become corrupt. You may have hackers by-passing the programs
security because it wasn’t put together correctly to have tough firewalls, etc.
You’re device itself may become corrupt and the internal parts become ruined.
It may seem like facebook or apple are jerks for taking off apps whenever they
want to but in eerie, big brother idea they are protecting our information and
that IS good. So,, yea you don’t
have to buy the app because you don’t want it, but there is someone out there
who might who in the end may get a corrupt program or be hacked.
I’m convinced that a closed
platform is better than an open one. If I know an app or program is certified
by apple I feel safe knowing I’m buying something that won’t steal my private
information. I don’t know how stringent facebook is with their apps, but at least
I’m safe with apple for the time being.
We’re also moving into a day and
age where openness can also mean sharing one’s personal thoughts about the
current news, conspiracy theories, etc. Here is an openness that I’m somewhat
weary of. The fact being is as an art student I’m always competing with people
out in the world who think they are artists and post, I hate to say, bad work.
It gives all of us art majors a bad reputation and I take it personally when
people think all artists in our time are creating crappy work or all we know
how to use is photoshop to make things “pretty”. Can you imagine the horror I
feel when I hear someone say Art majors have it easy!? I also have a personal
guff with the capabilities of flicker letting people upload their photoshop
‘masterpieces.’ I read two articles recently, both by C. Shirky, and they
discussed all the possibilities of publishing one’s self out into the internet
world. A statement that they had made in one of their articles completely
enthralled me because it was exactly what I felt for art the way they feel
about the written word.
“…As with the printing press, the loss of profession control
will be bad for many of society’s core institutions, but its happening anyways…the
printing press broke more things than it fixed…the written word has no special
value in and or itself.” (Shirky pg. 73)
So, what is a perfect world to me considering we have a majority of closed
platform and the openness for people to publish their bad art work? Theres a
time and a place for every thing I suppose in this reality. But for me, I dream
of artist websites and platforms that are not only are safe have a
certification that’s visiably seen to let me know, “Come on in, we won’t give
you a virus!” The best thing for you and I, whoever you are who believes in the
same things I do, be honest with your friends about their photoshop “artwork”
and to not be offended if they create an app that is quickly terminated. There
is a rhyme and reason to all and if they are adamant about creating these
original products they will learn from their mistakes via our honesty.
Resources:
Open Culture – Lawerence Lessigs
Shirky,
C. (2008). Everyone’s a Media Outlet 55-80, Fitting our Tools to a Small World 212-232,
From Sharing to Cooperation To Collective Action
46-54. New York: Penguin Group.
