There have been a lot of technology pundits discussing the demise of the desktop—primarily arguing that the desktop is going to get sucked in to the browser. And there has been a lot of conversation about switching from the desktop to “the cloud”—the idea of the network as the computer. In a funny comment in that Wired article I just linked to, Clay Shirky is quoted as saying that when Thomas Watson estimated that the world only needed five computers, his estimate was off by four. It rings true because it is a simple and funny observation, but this new view of the network as the computer is a binary view, problematic because as software engineers still tend to do, the solution takes the user into account second and not first. A user-first outlook for most software demands of it that it be a desktop-cloud hybrid—with good reason. And a desktop-cloud hybrid won’t suck the OS in the browser, it will suck the browser into all the apps that a user has. I want to point out two real successes in this regard first, and then look at gaps in the current software offerings out there.

Read more…

I’m coming out of the novel-preparation-stasis today just to post a real quick note about a talk that I just saw Cory Doctorow give at Clemson. His presentation was fantastic. I had been expecting a somewhat understated “nerdy” talk, but not at all—the issue of copyright history and reform is clearly where his passion lies. I was amazed that he kept up the pace and energy that he did for the entire hour. Beyond that, he managed to draw some wildly clear connections that, though I’ve read quite a bit about the issue before, I had never noticed before. The talk was just rife with fantastic information and anecdotes, and he was even nice enough to answer a copyright question I had about my own work. Probably, the highlight of the talk, though, was that after championing the creative commons and railing against our current copyright regime, one of the audience members asked him if he knew he was being videotaped. He responded by saying that he was glad to see it, and that “for the record I release” the audience, the university, etc. to a resounding round of applause. Nice to see someone put their money where their mouth is these days. I pledge allegiance to the creative commons.

Taking a play out of Nicholas Negroponte’s playbook on our transition from atoms to bits, Cory Doctorow makes one of the most concise points I’ve heard with regard to why the more common form factors of art are beginning to shift:

“Take the record album. Everything about it is technologically pre-determined. The technology of the LP demanded artwork to differentiate one package from the next. The length was set by the groove density of the pressing plants and playback apparatus. The dynamic range likewise. These factors gave us the idea of the 40-to-60-minute package, split into two acts, with accompanying artwork. Musicians were encouraged to create works that would be enjoyed as a unitary whole for a protracted period—think of Dark Side of the Moon, or Sgt. Pepper’s.”

In general he was talking about people claiming to not like reading on screens; making the point that we all read on screens these days. ((At least if you’re reading this, you are!)) What we don’t like is a long format on screens. I’ve made the argument for a time that our eyes are simply not evolutionarily used to staring at the sun. Paper is a reflective medium, screens are emissive. This means that the light is more unidirectional like a light bulb, then scattered randomly like most (unpowered) surfaces. ((I’ve not seen or found the human factors study, but I am convinced that looking at a screen causes more eye strain than paper)) That’s mainly why I think the form factors of most art (for all media) will shift to smaller bite size bits until screen media becomes reflective again.