http://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-a-reality-fcc-votes-to-bring-internet-under-utility-style-rules/
The FCC has reclassified broadband as a service that they're allowed to regulate (more strictly than they've done before). It's a complicated situation, with many potential implications and future lawsuits. The primary concern heard from consumers is that this increase in government regulation will lead to increases in consumer prices and lower internet speeds. These concerns aren't unfounded; Extra bureaucratic overhead has that potential, and the FCC will have the authority to directly add more taxes to the service. Despite claims that this decision is simply an attempt by the government to gain control, I don't believe these scenarios are likely. I can't imagine that consumers from either political party would approve of any motion that would slow their internet speeds or directly increase their prices. Maybe it's just a naive hope that the people's government will run the way it's supposed to, but I do actually believe that the FCC passed this reclassification with only net neutrality in mind.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Study Journal 3
~ Sure, there will be less crime/mayhem if everybody's inside playing video games, is that healthy? There's been a few dystopias written about groups of people who spend their entire lives hooked up to virtual reality, never seeing the real world. Is that really bad?
~ That guy is claiming that it's much more difficult for people to regulate themselves in a large scale conversation, and it sounded like he was implying individuals, but it's probably just about the increasing statistical probability of having that one jerk who can ruin an area by him/herself.
~ The internet as a social experiment is intriguing. Sure, the instant world-wide connectivity is amazing, but observing the social dynamic that is created in the huge number of sites could be revealing.
~ The small advances, little changes that are available to everybody have a way of causing social changes that no one expects. The big advances are awesome, but don't change an individuals daily life.
~ Predicting the effects of technology before understanding what it's actually able to do and how quickly potentially creates a divide politically that people in the future who know what can be done with the technology will find silly.
~ The fact that claims made on the internet are so difficult to verify probably is the worst part about comments online. Any claim can be made, supported, and accepted, and that has a lot of potential for damage.
~ That guy is claiming that it's much more difficult for people to regulate themselves in a large scale conversation, and it sounded like he was implying individuals, but it's probably just about the increasing statistical probability of having that one jerk who can ruin an area by him/herself.
~ The internet as a social experiment is intriguing. Sure, the instant world-wide connectivity is amazing, but observing the social dynamic that is created in the huge number of sites could be revealing.
~ The small advances, little changes that are available to everybody have a way of causing social changes that no one expects. The big advances are awesome, but don't change an individuals daily life.
~ Predicting the effects of technology before understanding what it's actually able to do and how quickly potentially creates a divide politically that people in the future who know what can be done with the technology will find silly.
~ The fact that claims made on the internet are so difficult to verify probably is the worst part about comments online. Any claim can be made, supported, and accepted, and that has a lot of potential for damage.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Blog Post 1
Apple's participation in the PC revolution and their current smartphone sales seem somewhat similar. First, Apple releases a product - not the first of its category, but one that helped shape where the technology was going (Apple 2 / iPhone). Apple spends a lot of effort making this product right, and keeps everything within the company. They see huge initial success. Second, many other products in the same category are released. The interesting ones are (MS-DOS machines / Android smartphones). Many different companies built these new machines, and then licensed the aforementioned operating systems from (Microsoft / Google), splitting the responsibility for different parts of these products. Third, these new products gain ground, and Apple loses market share (although the iPhone not nearly as much as their PC line). Analysts usually attribute most of this switch in the market to that basic structure; the separate responsibilities allowed for cheaper products and more opportunity for developing widely-usable apps. The smartphone market is still in flux, and finding programs for the iPhone is easier than it was for the Apple 2, so I can't claim that the same situation has occurred, but I find the similarities interesting.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Study Journal 2
~ Personal computers mostly came about because hobbyists built things that were cool for themselves, and then shared with others. Does that affect quality of a product? When a person has a passion for a particular topic, and builds for themselves, does the product end up better?
~ Having the drive to create these cool things is more productive than a standard 9 to 5. Getting people to work harder than the 40 hours per week isn't easy if they don't really like what they're making.
~ It's a shame that personal computers are becoming more and more difficult to open up to see the hardware. Laptops usually use unusual screws now. Big transition from when everyone had to build their computer themselves.
~ It's interesting that during the start of the personal computers, frequently the inventor or first to commercialize something rarely ended up making the most money from it. I guess it seems tough for a company to tell where a technology needs to go when it's first created.
~ It's also disappointing to see in negotiations that one party often comes out a clear winner. Although it's not always the company with the lawyers that wins. Microsoft was able to sell their OS to everyone after IBM released their PC, while the IBM clones took over the PC market.
~ Strange that a couple of companies ended up creating cult followings from this. And that those followings are still around 40 years later. (Although no one admits to being a fan of Microsoft anymore.)
~ It's really cool that so many companies realized how big the internet would become as soon as it started. That's a lot like social media right now, as much as I hate to admit it (I'm not a fan of social media at all).
~ It's odd that Apple and Microsoft became such big rivals when they only partially marketed in the same space. Microsoft did Windows and other software, while Apple made complete products. It seemed at the time that Microsoft made the more successful business decision, because they were able to sell their OS and software to so many people, and now with the smartphone market the story kind of repeats itself: Apple held on to the market share for a while, but they're no longer even the top hardware manufacturer of smartphones. (I word it that way because in OS market share they lost ground to all the different android phones pretty quickly, but as the only iOS phone they kept hardware manufacturing market share a bit longer)
~ Having the right vision of where the future tech will go can make you a lot of money. Xerox missed out on a lot of stuff when they let Apple see their ideas for a GUI. If their management had been thinking more forward, Xerox may have had a larger part in the PC revolution.
~ When you treat your user-base as debuggers, do you owe them compensation?
~ On the topic of compensation, how do you get people to create products that are targeted towards non-developers? No users will be able to help create the product, so you have to pay developers to do it. But I guess users that are non-developers are probably more likely to need support, so maybe the income can come from there.
~ That means the whole idea of open source is strangely complete. When the users are developers, there's a lot of free work on it, and a good product can be made with all the extra testers. When the users are non-developers, hopefully they'll pay for support.
~ I initially figured that the free software movement was wrong, the creator should be able to determine who, if anyone, can ever see the code that was created. But I kind of agree with them now. When someone purchases software, they should have the right to be able to look over the code and make sure it won't do anything that wasn't advertised. Preventing the user from making sure that's the case is an ethical issue.
~ Maybe the software should always be open for people to view, but it could be copyrighted. A user could change it, but only for non-commercial purposes. I can't really see how full free access is an ethical right. You should be able to make money off your creation, if other people support your app, you can't make any money off of it.
~ And the leaders of the free software movement really need to stop using the word free. That's just way too ingrained as meaning no cost, it's confusing even after clarification.
~ Having the drive to create these cool things is more productive than a standard 9 to 5. Getting people to work harder than the 40 hours per week isn't easy if they don't really like what they're making.
~ It's a shame that personal computers are becoming more and more difficult to open up to see the hardware. Laptops usually use unusual screws now. Big transition from when everyone had to build their computer themselves.
~ It's interesting that during the start of the personal computers, frequently the inventor or first to commercialize something rarely ended up making the most money from it. I guess it seems tough for a company to tell where a technology needs to go when it's first created.
~ It's also disappointing to see in negotiations that one party often comes out a clear winner. Although it's not always the company with the lawyers that wins. Microsoft was able to sell their OS to everyone after IBM released their PC, while the IBM clones took over the PC market.
~ Strange that a couple of companies ended up creating cult followings from this. And that those followings are still around 40 years later. (Although no one admits to being a fan of Microsoft anymore.)
~ It's really cool that so many companies realized how big the internet would become as soon as it started. That's a lot like social media right now, as much as I hate to admit it (I'm not a fan of social media at all).
~ It's odd that Apple and Microsoft became such big rivals when they only partially marketed in the same space. Microsoft did Windows and other software, while Apple made complete products. It seemed at the time that Microsoft made the more successful business decision, because they were able to sell their OS and software to so many people, and now with the smartphone market the story kind of repeats itself: Apple held on to the market share for a while, but they're no longer even the top hardware manufacturer of smartphones. (I word it that way because in OS market share they lost ground to all the different android phones pretty quickly, but as the only iOS phone they kept hardware manufacturing market share a bit longer)
~ Having the right vision of where the future tech will go can make you a lot of money. Xerox missed out on a lot of stuff when they let Apple see their ideas for a GUI. If their management had been thinking more forward, Xerox may have had a larger part in the PC revolution.
~ When you treat your user-base as debuggers, do you owe them compensation?
~ On the topic of compensation, how do you get people to create products that are targeted towards non-developers? No users will be able to help create the product, so you have to pay developers to do it. But I guess users that are non-developers are probably more likely to need support, so maybe the income can come from there.
~ That means the whole idea of open source is strangely complete. When the users are developers, there's a lot of free work on it, and a good product can be made with all the extra testers. When the users are non-developers, hopefully they'll pay for support.
~ I initially figured that the free software movement was wrong, the creator should be able to determine who, if anyone, can ever see the code that was created. But I kind of agree with them now. When someone purchases software, they should have the right to be able to look over the code and make sure it won't do anything that wasn't advertised. Preventing the user from making sure that's the case is an ethical issue.
~ Maybe the software should always be open for people to view, but it could be copyrighted. A user could change it, but only for non-commercial purposes. I can't really see how full free access is an ethical right. You should be able to make money off your creation, if other people support your app, you can't make any money off of it.
~ And the leaders of the free software movement really need to stop using the word free. That's just way too ingrained as meaning no cost, it's confusing even after clarification.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)