The Future of the Internet

A couple of weeks ago I turned on my XBox 360 and there were new icons informing me of new capabilities for my game console. I always find this a little disconcerting. I'm still accustomed to my old un-networked consoles that just turned on and played whatever game was inserted in their drive. This new system is pretty nice. There is a lot of talk in media that the Xbox 360 and the PS3 could be the devices that finally integrate the web and television. Microsoft just added facebook and twitter applications to the Xbox and I already enjoy Netflix Instant Streaming and Amazon on Demand. The evolution of the gaming console into this multi-purpose unit relates well to this week's readings. Jonathan Zittrain's The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It introduces the idea that the success of the internet and other networked innovations relied on its "generative" nature. The fact that the internet was an open space where dozens of people could collaborate, modify and enhance, is what made it work better than the tightly controlled environments or "tethered". Starting with the history of the first PC Zattrain points out a recurring pattern:

"The pattern begins with a generative platform that invites contributions from anyone who cares to make them. The contributions start among amateurs, who participate more for fun and whimsy than for profit. Their work, previously unnoticed in the mainstream, begins to catch on, and the power or the market kicks in to regularize their innovations and deploy them in markets far larger than the amateurs' domains. Finally the generative features that invite contribuation and that worked so well to propel the first stage of innovation begin to invite trouble and reconsideration, as the power of openness to third party contributions destabilizes its first set of gains." (p. 18)

When the original Xbox came out, coders figured out a way to modify the Xbox to many other functions. This hack gained so much popularity it turned into the Xbox Media Player. This modification was not sanctioned by Microsoft, but its popularity pressed them to develop more multimedia capabilities for the Xbox and later the XBox 360. In spite of the fact that the Xbox was a "tethered" device, coders managed to maximize the potential of a gaming console. Instead of exploiting this development, and using the generative model, Microsoft chose to block development and keep within a closed system. It incredible to me that they let all that potential go to waste.

A few weeks ago, in an effort to prevent piracy, Microsoft blocked users of modified Xbox 360 consoles from Xbox live. Now, I can understand this on one hand, many Xbox mods are ways to circumvent copyright and anti-piracy codes. So its a tradeoff, you try to cheat the system, you lose certain privileges. On the other hand, this policy also blocks people who modified their box to maximize the potential of their purchase. They paid for it, why shouldn't they be able to enhance it? By locking down controls, Microsoft not only hurts consumers but slows their own development. The creators of the initial Xbox Media Player have moved on and now have a multi-platform "media player and entertainment hub" in development. XMBC is manned by volunteers, who "write software because we enjoy doing it". Their code is currently being used by Boxee and Plex media centers. While, I am not sure why anyone would want to write code for free, it does seem that their system of collaborative, generative work is producing fun, new technology.

Zittrain points out that:
"A move to tethered appliances and Web services means that more and more of our experiences in the information space will be contingent. A service or product we use at one moment could act completely differently the next, since it can be so quickly reprogrammed without our assent." (p. 176) Exemplified when modified Xbox 360 users were shocked to find themselves cut off from Xbox live, or my own frustration when facebook changes their layout. (I still hate the live feed/news feed.)

Zittrain believes that generative spaces should be preserved. With the help of governments who can "help reinforce the the conditions necessary for generative blossoming, and they can also step in-- with all the confusion and difficulty that notoriously attends regulation of a generative space-- when mere generosity of spirit of goodwill cannot resolve conflict. But such generosity of spirit is a society's power first line of moderation."(p. 246)

This does seem a little utopian to believe that a "spirit of goodwill" can solve problems. The power and allure of money would seem to be much stronger than goodwill. But I will try to stay in Zittrain's camp and be optimistic.