Loose directions [or] Apple is so stupid
(I just have to start by saying I'm not a Mac user, but an iPhone user with Windows and Linux PC experience.)
Having that said, and right after watching that remarkable video presentation of Google Wave, it's undeniable that openness, colaborativeness and accessibility are the way to go. Yes, this is a wide statement. I don't intend to push it upon you guys, the much appreciated readers who keep coming back to me. Instead I'm gonna try and point out some recent events that brought me to this point.
If you have an iPhone and you're kind of a geek, you know it has lots of features (like bluetooth, video outputs) but that some of it is purposefully capped (no access to bluetooth headsets, video cables with switched outputs). Now I kept trying to understand why would someone deliberately make its own product do less than it could do. "Oh, I'm baking a cake, but I don't want it to taste that god, so..." And what I could come up with is that, in Apple's case, they probably though they could make an extra buck out of it: proprietary hardware. Of course, Seth Godin already said so much about this kind of practice, suffice to say it is terribly stupid, specially if you're only doing it for an extra buck. Stupid.
On a very different area, but on the same line of thought, the Government of Japan is discussing this new fascist way to tag foreigners: a alien registration card that would have a RF chip. I still can hardly describe what I feel about this. It sounds very similar to the star Jews were forced to use in German, specially because of the RF chip. The possibility of identity theft is very present and dangerous also, but what interests me here is the fact that this government sees aliens as outsiders to such an extent as to tag them. Foreigners are not threats. Getting too much control over the future or over people's lives and whereabouts is not necessarily a good thing. A society where most of what's gonna happen is expectable is not a good thing per se. Once again, it's not a matter of criticizing the idea on itself, but mostly about getting to the stupid reasons behind those ideas. Stupid ideas.
So I studied in a very renowned brazilian engineering college (not really an university), and I just got a very friendly email from one of the amazing teachers I've met and worked with there. Interestingly enough, most of those amazing professors are not actually engineering professors, but rather professors of subjects loosely related to engineering or teaching. This particular professor teaches architecture, which is closely related to civil engineering. Being a professor in such a hard and traditional institution, while teaching a borderline subject (is architecture an exact science or part of humanities?) gives him plenty of room to talk about interesting subjects. By interesting, of course, I mean all the subjects not strictly related to learning or teaching engineering, and - trust me on this one - students love doing stuff that isn't on the textbooks. Students ask simple questions: "Why do classes have to be boring?" "Why do tests have to make us feel like shit?" "Why do I have to dress like a dork to be taken seriously?" (very common questions there) And one thing I've picked up throughout my years, is that if you phrase questions about the status quo in a "Why do things have to be like this?" form, the answer is always the same: they don't. We can change them. We can do something about stuff we hate. So why don't we? Because there are people sitting around and telling you that you can't. Simply put: those people are stupid. They're too lazy to listen to students, they're too self-absorbed to see what great changes can be made, their lives are so boring they want to make everybody else's life boring too. This last sentence is a mix of jokes and guesses, but I'm sure you'll find some truth to it. These status quo defenders have been there for a long time, they have all kinds of shallow explanations to try and keep everything as it is. It's about explaining reasons not to change, but mostly about not wanting to change and making up stupid reasons for it as it goes. Stupid reasons.
There are some loose connections around these very diverse subjects, and - for that - I have to switch on my speaking loosely mode. I've even made up an excuse (reason) to allow myself to be vague: it would be wrong trying to make a point. The non-borderline professor on my college are always so serious and trying to make a point, whatever it may be: how an engineer should behave, what an engineer has to endure to graduate, why I am a professor and you (students) are not. Whatever their point might be, it is pointless, because wanting to make a point is like trying to force your ideas and points of view onto other people. So, that's my excuse for not praising rigour, for not having strict rules, for writing in a vague form. RIAA and other associations will eventually learn that forcing their own strict view of laws, regulations and "their" industries is not the way to go. Most of you will agree that Google owes much of its success to embracing looseness and openness rather than strictness and restrictions. Currently, Japan has a lot to learn about exchanging, but I bet you guys are definitely gonna be surprised by the new generation growing under daddy's traditions.
I'll just write one mor line, to let you guys know this is a vague post, with vague ideas. Concluding anything would be counterproductive, since this is vaguely about conveying loose directions on the way to go.
Having that said, and right after watching that remarkable video presentation of Google Wave, it's undeniable that openness, colaborativeness and accessibility are the way to go. Yes, this is a wide statement. I don't intend to push it upon you guys, the much appreciated readers who keep coming back to me. Instead I'm gonna try and point out some recent events that brought me to this point.
If you have an iPhone and you're kind of a geek, you know it has lots of features (like bluetooth, video outputs) but that some of it is purposefully capped (no access to bluetooth headsets, video cables with switched outputs). Now I kept trying to understand why would someone deliberately make its own product do less than it could do. "Oh, I'm baking a cake, but I don't want it to taste that god, so..." And what I could come up with is that, in Apple's case, they probably though they could make an extra buck out of it: proprietary hardware. Of course, Seth Godin already said so much about this kind of practice, suffice to say it is terribly stupid, specially if you're only doing it for an extra buck. Stupid.
On a very different area, but on the same line of thought, the Government of Japan is discussing this new fascist way to tag foreigners: a alien registration card that would have a RF chip. I still can hardly describe what I feel about this. It sounds very similar to the star Jews were forced to use in German, specially because of the RF chip. The possibility of identity theft is very present and dangerous also, but what interests me here is the fact that this government sees aliens as outsiders to such an extent as to tag them. Foreigners are not threats. Getting too much control over the future or over people's lives and whereabouts is not necessarily a good thing. A society where most of what's gonna happen is expectable is not a good thing per se. Once again, it's not a matter of criticizing the idea on itself, but mostly about getting to the stupid reasons behind those ideas. Stupid ideas.
So I studied in a very renowned brazilian engineering college (not really an university), and I just got a very friendly email from one of the amazing teachers I've met and worked with there. Interestingly enough, most of those amazing professors are not actually engineering professors, but rather professors of subjects loosely related to engineering or teaching. This particular professor teaches architecture, which is closely related to civil engineering. Being a professor in such a hard and traditional institution, while teaching a borderline subject (is architecture an exact science or part of humanities?) gives him plenty of room to talk about interesting subjects. By interesting, of course, I mean all the subjects not strictly related to learning or teaching engineering, and - trust me on this one - students love doing stuff that isn't on the textbooks. Students ask simple questions: "Why do classes have to be boring?" "Why do tests have to make us feel like shit?" "Why do I have to dress like a dork to be taken seriously?" (very common questions there) And one thing I've picked up throughout my years, is that if you phrase questions about the status quo in a "Why do things have to be like this?" form, the answer is always the same: they don't. We can change them. We can do something about stuff we hate. So why don't we? Because there are people sitting around and telling you that you can't. Simply put: those people are stupid. They're too lazy to listen to students, they're too self-absorbed to see what great changes can be made, their lives are so boring they want to make everybody else's life boring too. This last sentence is a mix of jokes and guesses, but I'm sure you'll find some truth to it. These status quo defenders have been there for a long time, they have all kinds of shallow explanations to try and keep everything as it is. It's about explaining reasons not to change, but mostly about not wanting to change and making up stupid reasons for it as it goes. Stupid reasons.
There are some loose connections around these very diverse subjects, and - for that - I have to switch on my speaking loosely mode. I've even made up an excuse (reason) to allow myself to be vague: it would be wrong trying to make a point. The non-borderline professor on my college are always so serious and trying to make a point, whatever it may be: how an engineer should behave, what an engineer has to endure to graduate, why I am a professor and you (students) are not. Whatever their point might be, it is pointless, because wanting to make a point is like trying to force your ideas and points of view onto other people. So, that's my excuse for not praising rigour, for not having strict rules, for writing in a vague form. RIAA and other associations will eventually learn that forcing their own strict view of laws, regulations and "their" industries is not the way to go. Most of you will agree that Google owes much of its success to embracing looseness and openness rather than strictness and restrictions. Currently, Japan has a lot to learn about exchanging, but I bet you guys are definitely gonna be surprised by the new generation growing under daddy's traditions.
I'll just write one mor line, to let you guys know this is a vague post, with vague ideas. Concluding anything would be counterproductive, since this is vaguely about conveying loose directions on the way to go.
Comments
Post a Comment