Christian Schumacher
Forum Replies Created
-
The personal computer is dead, by Jonathan Zitttrain
“The fact is that today’s developers are writing code with the notion not just of consumer acceptance, but also vendor acceptance. If a coder has something cool to show off, she’ll want it in the Android Marketplace and the iOS App Store; neither is a substitute for the other. Both put the coder into a long-term relationship with the OS vendor. The user gets put in the same situation: if I switch from iPhone to Android, I can’t take my apps with me, and vice versa. And as content gets funneled through apps, it may mean I can’t take my content, either—or, if I can, it’s only because there’s yet another gatekeeper like Amazon running an app on more than one platform, aggregating content. The potentially suffocating relationship with Apple or Google or Microsoft is freed only by a new suitor like Amazon, which is structurally positioned to do the same thing.A flowering of innovation and communication was ignited by the rise of the PC and the Web and their generative characteristics. Software was installed one machine at a time, a relationship among myriad software makers and users. Sites could appear anywhere on the Web, a relationship among myriad webmasters and surfers. Now activity is clumping around a handful of portals: two or three OS makers that are in a position to manage all apps (and content within them) in an ongoing way, and a diminishing set of cloud hosting providers like Amazon that can provide the denial-of-service resistant places to put up a website or blog.”
https://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2011/11/30_zittrain-the-personal-computer-is-dead.html
-
Less like 1984, and more like Brave New World, as in:
Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.”
-
[Bill Davis] “world of tomorrow”
[Bill Davis] ” If some future rev of X can help”
[Bill Davis] “I still think there are massive shifts taking place out there”
Can you feel it, Bill?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A08_nlku8kc
-
[Bill Davis] “I’m confused as to which “conventions” your talking about?”
Tracks, Bins, Sequences and Source/Record monitors.
Src/Rec is from TV, but the others are much older than that.
Not a 100yrs old exactly, but old enough to become deep rooted conventions. -
[Steve Connor] “[Christian Schumacher] “You can complain as much as you want, but I don’t think that my simple poor argument on a forum could be in anyway, more dismissive -and important- than to what Apple have managed to accomplish to have done to date, specially by attempting to re-invent those very known conventions. You’re looking up to the mothership way too much.”
Good or bad, Apple are in the business of re-inventing conventions, someone has to at least try and shake things up a bit.”
Fair enough, Steve. Let’s see if that’s bad or good, then. I wonder how it will turn out.
Let me fix a typo I made:
“but I don’t think that my simple poor argument on a forum could be in anyway, more dismissive -and important-than to what Apple have managed to accomplish to date, specially by attempting to re-invent those very known conventions.”
-
[Bill Davis] ” I guess you’re not quite over the “let me be clever and wrap some ill-thought dismissal in poor argument” era.”
Unfortunately, I can’t Bill. So, you have to put up with me. I still have to deal with this poor release from Apple, and also theirs ill-thought-out dismissals of our conventions that agreeably have endured over a hundred years. You can complain as much as you want, but I don’t think that my simple poor argument on a forum could be in anyway, more dismissive -and important- than to what Apple have managed to accomplish to have done to date, specially by attempting to re-invent those very known conventions. You’re looking up to the mothership way too much.
-
[Noah Kadner] “Every phone call made had to be connected manually by a human once upon a time- do we really miss that or is it simply evolution?”
The main problem with today’s evolution though, is that it is being more and more restricted only to some specific vendor’s ecosystem. So, while we had recently a marvelous communication evolution, most of it has to be among a restrict set of users with very few -if any- translation capabilities between different ones.
-
[Bret Williams] “Sorry. Semantics I guess. I don’t see commercials, corporate communication, or sitcoms for that matter as “stories.””
Where were you in the last six months? When Apple’s new paradigm was introduced, even a cat sleeping on a couch has become a “storyline” and it is considered an “event”. Want to add a dream sequence over it?
That’s on a “secondary storyline”…And so on…Forget any titles though, better add them on youtube. -
[Oliver Peters] “I think it’s pretty silly to project psychological motives onto any corporate entity. Successful companies work towards two goals: make good products and make money to continue the process.”
It isn’t that silly when a certain corporate entity is surrounded with a golden aura of wholeness and it’s fiercely backed up by its customers as if it was a sort of religion that drives them blindly towards its products and far away of the “others”. The way that Apple is progressively promoting itself, as a complete solution capable of re-inventing our lives, is becoming eerily close to a cult, and that of course is only achieved because of the reactions that Apple is able to gather around itself coming from its widening “fan base”. Sociopathic behavior is often understood as “antisocial”, but in Apple’s case, I would call it “antiothers”. And that’s typical of a cult filosofy.
-
Didn’t you all get the memo? There’s a world revolution going underway and it is sweeping us away, everywhere .
They are comprised of a swarm of “potential clients” now looking for FCPX editors fiercely across the web.
🙂