Open to unopenness, creative and codeful

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 2^nd 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

http://lessig.blip.tv/file/3730123/

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.