Let me start with a question. What is the difference between a television and a computer?
It’s no brainer, you will say. TV is primarily an entertainment device and computer is, well, with its keyboard and mouse, something that helps you work, write mails, surf web and play games. A computer also lets you watch films and listen to music.
Pretty neat, eh? Not really. In the last few years, TVs have changed a lot and, if you have money, nowadays, you can find a TV on which you can stream YouTube videos, watch movies, listen to music, and in some cases, even access email, Facebook, etc. Does that make TV a computer?
The difference between television and a computer is more than just skin-deep. As I see it, TV is a gadget, a product that makes our lives easier, more enjoyable. A computer, on the other hand, is a tool. Just like wheel and printing press. It enables us and frees us and allows us to do wonderful things that go largely beyond our physical limitations.
Some may say it’s all the same. I beg to differ.
Computers and the web could have very well been just a gadget and services. Fortunately, for once the script did not conform to norms. In the 80s, a number of corporations were interested in computers. Old-world behemoths like IBM, DEC, Sharp and Xerox all had an eye on the market. But all of them had wrong ideas about it. They wanted to sell a gadget and not a tool. I don’t know how it happened or why but early adopters refused to buy gadgets. Instead, they started building their own devices.
The do-it-yourself nature of early computers led to a model that computer industry has followed since 1980s. Companies like Intel made hardware, Microsoft and others wrote software but users always took the final call on how their computer was going to look like or perform. This model drove prices down, enabling masses to take advantage of computers. WWW happened for free and there too users reigned supreme. The result: we got a free web, free email, free encryption technology, free image editors, free video editors, free maps, virtual public spaces where you can rail to your heart’s content against whatever injustice you perceive, and the freedom to tweak. More importantly, we got an environment that empowered individuals. With a computer and access to web, you could conquer the world.
If the old guard had succeeded, virtual world would have been entirely different. It would have mirrored the real world — the world of man-made boundaries where money is the key to open all doors. If technology had progressed differently in 80s, we would have only got smart TVs and not computers.
But that did not happen. We got computers and we got the web.
My next question — for how long?
Almost three decades after modern computers went mainstream, once again, there is a great shift in technology. And that shift is called mobile computing. While PC model crumbles, the time is fraught with dangers for users. Sensing its chances, the old guard is striking back. And with it, bringing back the idea of ‘we control what you buy and we dictate how much you pay’. In the future, there may not be any free lunches. Not even virtual ones.
iPhone or iPad may be great devices and Steve Jobs a fantastic salesman, but Apple’s ecosystem is not one that gives me much hope for the future of technology. Jobs may have made Apple a trillion-dollar company but he couldn’t have made the WWW. That could have been done only by Tim Berners Lee because it required giving away your best creation for free. iPad is not an enabling device. It’s a gadget. Apps don’t enable a person the way the web did; they simply sell services.
This is where Android comes in. Due to miniaturization, we have already lost the ability to pick and choose hardware. But because Android is a free to use operating software and because Google doesn’t make any explicit hardware demands, any compatible device can run Android. This gives us some choice. It’s not much, but in a world where there may be no choice — you can have it in any colour as long as it’s black — even that is welcome.
More than hardware, it’s the software where Android’s true significance lies. The good old days of whacky and crazy technology are over. Computer and web users will probably never have the kind of power they wielded until two years ago but with Android they can continue to keep some degree of freedom. It is tweakable. Its ecosystem allows people to write all kind of apps — good, bad or crazy. Even if Google doesn’t approve, you can always break free and install apps directly. It allows hackers — once the word used to be respectable — to tinker with it. It lets people configure their devices.
On many occasions, readers here have called me biased towards Android. But that is not true. I am not biased towards any Android handset. I don’t favour a Samsung over an HTC or hate Nokia. I even realize that when it comes to gadgets, Apple makes fantastic products. But yes, I am biased towards the model propagated by Android. If tomorrow Apple drops its closed system shenanigans, I will be in the first row cheering for it. But that is not going to happen. Instead as more and more smartphones and tablets come, Android ones included, more companies are taking a cue from “successful Apple model” and enforcing their own terms and conditions.
Yet, because Android is open-source, at least in spirit, it gives enough leeway to users, if they are not too dumb, to wrest back the control. For now, most of the Android-powered phones or tablets can’t hold a candle to the likes of iPhone and iPad. But it’s not only about usability or which one is the prettiest looking device. It’s about the future of technology and whether we want tools that enable us to create WikiLeaks or gadgets that can make coffee and do dishes.
If Android can survive the tech tumult of next couple of years, it will leave the world a better place. At least for those who love technology and not just use it. That’s the real importance of Android.
PS: I am sure now that you will also understand why Apple could not make any headway until late 90s even though Jobs was at the helm for a fair number of years in 80s.
Disclaimer: It concerns all reviews you may see here. What I think of Android or iPhone or Nokia is my personal view. For reviews, I see the usability and importance of a device from users’ perspective. Each device is reviewed on its merits and not on the basis of some political views. So, don’t be surprised to see iPad 2 getting five stars if it merits that. But my point is, I am not buying an iPad until I can help it.
It’s no brainer, you will say. TV is primarily an entertainment device and computer is, well, with its keyboard and mouse, something that helps you work, write mails, surf web and play games. A computer also lets you watch films and listen to music.
Pretty neat, eh? Not really. In the last few years, TVs have changed a lot and, if you have money, nowadays, you can find a TV on which you can stream YouTube videos, watch movies, listen to music, and in some cases, even access email, Facebook, etc. Does that make TV a computer?
The difference between television and a computer is more than just skin-deep. As I see it, TV is a gadget, a product that makes our lives easier, more enjoyable. A computer, on the other hand, is a tool. Just like wheel and printing press. It enables us and frees us and allows us to do wonderful things that go largely beyond our physical limitations.
Some may say it’s all the same. I beg to differ.
Computers and the web could have very well been just a gadget and services. Fortunately, for once the script did not conform to norms. In the 80s, a number of corporations were interested in computers. Old-world behemoths like IBM, DEC, Sharp and Xerox all had an eye on the market. But all of them had wrong ideas about it. They wanted to sell a gadget and not a tool. I don’t know how it happened or why but early adopters refused to buy gadgets. Instead, they started building their own devices.
The do-it-yourself nature of early computers led to a model that computer industry has followed since 1980s. Companies like Intel made hardware, Microsoft and others wrote software but users always took the final call on how their computer was going to look like or perform. This model drove prices down, enabling masses to take advantage of computers. WWW happened for free and there too users reigned supreme. The result: we got a free web, free email, free encryption technology, free image editors, free video editors, free maps, virtual public spaces where you can rail to your heart’s content against whatever injustice you perceive, and the freedom to tweak. More importantly, we got an environment that empowered individuals. With a computer and access to web, you could conquer the world.
If the old guard had succeeded, virtual world would have been entirely different. It would have mirrored the real world — the world of man-made boundaries where money is the key to open all doors. If technology had progressed differently in 80s, we would have only got smart TVs and not computers.
But that did not happen. We got computers and we got the web.
My next question — for how long?
Almost three decades after modern computers went mainstream, once again, there is a great shift in technology. And that shift is called mobile computing. While PC model crumbles, the time is fraught with dangers for users. Sensing its chances, the old guard is striking back. And with it, bringing back the idea of ‘we control what you buy and we dictate how much you pay’. In the future, there may not be any free lunches. Not even virtual ones.
iPhone or iPad may be great devices and Steve Jobs a fantastic salesman, but Apple’s ecosystem is not one that gives me much hope for the future of technology. Jobs may have made Apple a trillion-dollar company but he couldn’t have made the WWW. That could have been done only by Tim Berners Lee because it required giving away your best creation for free. iPad is not an enabling device. It’s a gadget. Apps don’t enable a person the way the web did; they simply sell services.
This is where Android comes in. Due to miniaturization, we have already lost the ability to pick and choose hardware. But because Android is a free to use operating software and because Google doesn’t make any explicit hardware demands, any compatible device can run Android. This gives us some choice. It’s not much, but in a world where there may be no choice — you can have it in any colour as long as it’s black — even that is welcome.
More than hardware, it’s the software where Android’s true significance lies. The good old days of whacky and crazy technology are over. Computer and web users will probably never have the kind of power they wielded until two years ago but with Android they can continue to keep some degree of freedom. It is tweakable. Its ecosystem allows people to write all kind of apps — good, bad or crazy. Even if Google doesn’t approve, you can always break free and install apps directly. It allows hackers — once the word used to be respectable — to tinker with it. It lets people configure their devices.
On many occasions, readers here have called me biased towards Android. But that is not true. I am not biased towards any Android handset. I don’t favour a Samsung over an HTC or hate Nokia. I even realize that when it comes to gadgets, Apple makes fantastic products. But yes, I am biased towards the model propagated by Android. If tomorrow Apple drops its closed system shenanigans, I will be in the first row cheering for it. But that is not going to happen. Instead as more and more smartphones and tablets come, Android ones included, more companies are taking a cue from “successful Apple model” and enforcing their own terms and conditions.
Yet, because Android is open-source, at least in spirit, it gives enough leeway to users, if they are not too dumb, to wrest back the control. For now, most of the Android-powered phones or tablets can’t hold a candle to the likes of iPhone and iPad. But it’s not only about usability or which one is the prettiest looking device. It’s about the future of technology and whether we want tools that enable us to create WikiLeaks or gadgets that can make coffee and do dishes.
If Android can survive the tech tumult of next couple of years, it will leave the world a better place. At least for those who love technology and not just use it. That’s the real importance of Android.
PS: I am sure now that you will also understand why Apple could not make any headway until late 90s even though Jobs was at the helm for a fair number of years in 80s.
Disclaimer: It concerns all reviews you may see here. What I think of Android or iPhone or Nokia is my personal view. For reviews, I see the usability and importance of a device from users’ perspective. Each device is reviewed on its merits and not on the basis of some political views. So, don’t be surprised to see iPad 2 getting five stars if it merits that. But my point is, I am not buying an iPad until I can help it.
No comments:
Post a Comment