Yesterday at the Mesh 2008 conference, Nora did an onstage interview with Bill Buxton, Principal Researcher with Microsoft and “a designer and a researcher concerned with human aspects of technology.”
The central question was, does location matter?
In this digital age, we have many tools — wikis, webcams, IM, videoconferencing, and other technologies of telepresence — and yet we still seem to want to be in the same place with one another. Is that because we haven’t yet got the technologies designed right, or because there’s a limit to what you can do at a distance? And if we get it right, can you run a successful business in Toronto or Iqaluit or Corner Brook and not have to move “where the action is?”
A shorter version of the interview will air on the May 28 & 31 episode of Spark, but you can watch the whole interview below.
Audio-only
If you’d prefer an audio-only version, you can listen to the whole interview in the player below or download the MP3.
Play audio:
It does not surprise me that someone from Microsoft would be an opponent of the One Laptop Per Child http://laptop.org project, and believes that a read-only access to the outside world is a relevant substitute. It is a very colonialist way of looking at the question, which is typical of these vendors who see majority-world countries as emerging “markets” for their old-economy products.
The original goals of the OLPC project, before Microsoft infected them, was all about enabling people to take control of their own technology. Technology will make its way into these countries, and it was seen as important to have citizen controlled technology to be seen as the norm.
Being based on Free/Libre software wasn’t about cost. It was always expected that Microsoft would match the price of free, or even subsidize the hardware in order to push their software at this massive population. It was about keeping the rules which the computers obey (what software really is) under the control of citizens of that country and not a foreign entity that has its own special interests.
These citizen controlled educational tools aren’t a substitute for clean water, but a parallel project that shows long term thinking by recognizing that food and water isn’t enough to allow people to fulfill their potential.
For many of us who are supportive of the project it was never about the hardware (which isn’t all that unique or interesting), but the educational and international development model within the project that was enabled by their use of Free/Libre Software.
Now that some countries are contemplating shipping OLPC hardware with Microsoft Windows XP software on it, I’m not excited about the project as it will have an entirely different impact. With Free/Libre Software it becomes a citizen enabling tool to allow them to become full participants. Running XP it becomes a method to job-train people for jobs that won’t exist in the future, and entice people into the world of “software piracy’.
Differences in the software methodologies changes the identical hardware in my evaluation from appropriate technology to inappropriate technology. The studies he was talking about that suggested that handing out laptops to people was a failure were likely the same ones I’ve glanced at over the years, which were laptops with “no user serviceable parts or modifiable software inside”.
BTW: This is being typed onto the BLOG from my XO which I acquired though their Give 1, Get 1 program.
Russell, I understand where you are coming from. Big brother (Microsoft) trying to push their product on to the ‘emerging markets’. I do see a lot of room for people to ‘take control’ of products such as XP (for example, through programming, registry modification, scripting) But as you say, allowing users to ‘take control’ probably isn’t the reason that a company like Microsoft would want to include their products in a program such as OLPC. And yes, I guess such a move might lead to software piracy as most software developed for the Windows platform is at least shareware with a note saying please send the author funds.
However, in regards to Free/Libre Software (I haven’t Googled this yet, but I’m assuming it is an Open Source software initiative)…How would you answer Bill Gate’s argument that software is intellectual property and so the authors/owners should be compensated for their work? Yeah, I know that my question doesn’t exactly follow the thread. The people working on Open Source software do so for the good of the population, not to get rich. And although it’s great that people will take the time write Open Source Software for countries in need and programs like OLPC, shouldn’t they be compensated in some manner as an example to the users receiving the hardware/software that they could attempt to make a living by developing software packages?
PS. Nora, any chance of adding a preview button along side the post button?
“How would you answer Bill Gate’s argument that software is intellectual property and so the authors/owners should be compensated for their work?”
I write about this issue all the time. Knowledge has a natural zero marginal cost, and rather than opposing this with man-made laws which contradict the laws of nature (which only incites people to break the law), we should be harnessing this. I would recommend reading the book “The Wealth of Networks” by Yochai Benkler http://www.benkler.org/ as one starting point.
We need to understand that charging monopoly rents (what royalties are) is a increasingly outdated business model, not a necessary incentive for that creativity and innovation.
As a software developer (which is part of what I do for a living), I am fully compensated for my creativity. This creativity is paid for once for the time I spend authoring the work, given it only costs me once in resources to create it. After the software is created to meet the needs of my customers, my customers and I are legally able to redistribute that software royalty-free (under the conditions of the agreed upon Free/Libre and Open Source Software license).
Royalty-free and working for free are not the same thing, no matter what the dinosaurs trying to force knowledge into the industrial economy try to convince you.
Old economy vs new economy — a battle between Canadian business coalitions.
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4669
One thing that helps me believe that technology might be able to facilitate our ability to avoid distrations and focus on the issues is illustrated by the first comment above by Russel McOrmond.
He said:
“It does not surprise me that someone from Microsoft would be an opponent of the One Laptop Per Child … project, and believes that a read-only access to the outside world is a relevant substitute. It is a very colonialist way of looking at the question, which is typical of these vendors who see majority-world countries as emerging “markets” for their old-economy products.”
What the technology does is permit the reader to evaluate the merit of his statement, and the degree to which his personal biases have overcome his ability to address anything that I said objectively.
To help the reader, simply review my responses to the two questions which appear at 35:16-39:09, and 39:22-44:48, since they are what prompted Mr McOrmond’s comments
If Mr McOrmond has a problem with my statement that perhaps we might consider giving children in the world food and clean water rather than expensive and unproven digital technology, that is his priveledge, and I would welcome hearing his considered counter-argument.
Likewise, if he questions the data that I cite and my caution that simply giving people laptops may not close the digital divide, but actually widen it, I would again welcome his cogent arguments and reasoning.
Unfortunately, he does not give any counter-argument to anything that I actually said. Rather, he reverts to the classic uninformed dual strategy of (a) ad hominem argument – attacking the company that I work for rather than my arguments, and (b) putting words in my mouth that not only did I not say (“read-only access” ????).
The nice thing is that my arguments are recorded for anyone to verify, evaluate and question, and this blog provides a forum for anyone to increase our knowledge and better inform the issue, by contributing their indights.
And, having the original interview available, it also provides a means to expose Mr.McOrmond’s biased rant for what it is.
The issues that we were discussing are really important and deserve serious thought.
In contrast, I would suggest that the level of discussion evident in Mr McOrmond’s email shows contempt for the very issues that he purports to care so much about.
We can do better, the issues deserve better, and it is our responsibility to do better.
*smile*
You seem to have been excited by my commenting on this issue. You could easily not accept the comment as being related to yourself, and instead take it as a comment about your employer. I will quickly grant that I added colour to what you said based on my knowledge of that employer.
Do you disagree with my characterization of your employer? You did dedicate a fair part of your conversation to attacking the OLPC project, a negative view partially shared by your employer. Your employer thinks handing out hardware to children is a good idea as long as it runs their software, but strongly disagreed with the project when it was using citizen modifiable software and promoting an educational/knowledge development model.
I don’t believe that the long term solution to food security and poverty is “giving away fish” (IE: giving children in the world food and clean water), but teaching people how to fish and ensuring that making ones own fishing rods (and sharing without additional permission or payment the knowledge to do so) remains legal. Much of this work turns out to be political work.
The laptop hardware shouldn’t be seen as the focus of the OLPC project. The focus should be on the educational model (and knowledge development/sharing model) that the original project promoted. Change the software on the hardware, and it is an entirely different project which will have a different outcome.
Get rid of the hardware entirely (and focus only on the educational/knowledge model) and the project still stands. Students still need some tools to create and share their creativity. If we are to enable multimedia creativity by students under this educational/knowledge sharing model, I suspect that low-powered owner controlled general purpose computer (maybe small form factor such as, maybe, a laptop) will quickly become a logical answer.
Amartya Kumar Sen (same last name as my wife, no relation) as well as others have spoken for years about the fact that hunger/starvation isn’t an issue with a lack of food, but political/economic issues causing distribution problems. A shorter-term focus on handing out food and clean water doesn’t solve the underlying problem. Someone needs to do that short-term work, but it can’t be societies overall focus.
The technology (digital or analog) isn’t really the issue — who controls the software/knowledge that drives the technology is the issue. (IE: the problems are in the social sciences, not in the natural sciences).
For people further interested in this aspect of the topic, I might suggest watching a lecture given by Professor Eben Moglen last year.
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4055
It includes this question:
“Why is it ever moral to deprive people of that which they could have for nothing and which they wish to have, and you already have made? If you could feed everyone by baking one loaf of bread, and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for permitting the price of bread to be higher than the poorest hungry person could pay?”
While some knowledge vendors (Mr. Buxton’s employer being prominent) see the currently less industrialized economies as lucrative future markets, I strongly disagree with that approach. I truly believe we need to allow (and help enable) these economies to skip the industrial revolution entirely.
What you call a “comment” about my employer, I take as an inappropriate ad hominem argument.
What you readilly acknowledge as adding “colour” to what I actually said, I call intentional distortion and misrepresentation.
Furthermore, in both cases your comments have precious little to do with the conversation that I had with Nora.
I invited you to address the issues and you respond with a paraphrase of quote usually attibuted to Confucious.
Your postings stand as a testimonial to the nature of your position and the quality of thought that lies behind it.
I am content to let the recording of the interview represent what I actually said, and what values, integrity, and thoughtfulness were reflected within.
I am now dropping out of this particular thread.
It is unfortunate that you have decided not to engage in the substantive policy debate which you, possibly inadvertently, opened in your conversation. I understand and agree with you that this sub-topic is separate from what the bulk of your talk was about, and you may notice that it was not referenced in the edited for-radio show.
Since you don’t seem to realize how it happened, I’ll offer some help.
You and Nora had a great conversation about a topic that is close to your heart about communications technology and whether location matters. This is clearly an area you have studied, thought about, and presented about.
Someone then asked about the digital divide, and you started with a great story about wires being used as jewelry. This is one of the many reasons why telecommunications projects in majority-world countries are often wireless. Even in economies like India which is relatively advanced, wireless dominates over wired communications.
You then decided to take a few off-topic jabs at the One Laptop Per Child project, and followed it up with an eve further off-topic comment about Linus Torvalds (well, a name I presumed was intended to be Linus) and Open Source.
Where your area of study may be on issues around technology and location, my area of study is on the nature and impact of software on society.
I agree with you that Linus did not “invent Open Source”. While some people have been promoting the idea that business methods are inventions and thus should be patentable, many people strongly disagree. This is not to say that there is not innovation in this area, as there clearly is given the growing importance of emerging alternative methods of production, distribution and funding of human creativity and innovation. It is just to say they are not appropriately called “inventions”.
The term “Open Source” was coined together by a number of people, including Eric Raymond and Bruce Parens. It is far more appropriate to use the word “coined” and not “invented”. Linus was involved, but wasn’t one of the key players in coining or promoting this term.
This group did not come up with the development methodology or licensing models, just a new term and definition for the term. In 1998 this was simply a re-branding of the term “Free Software” that was coined by the folks who founded the Free Software Foundation back in 1985.
I think you put far too much importance onto those who compile dictionaries. Suggesting that it was these people who “invented Open Source” is like confusing the author of a book with a librarian.
It is unfortunate that you got sidetracked, as otherwise there would have only been positive commentary on your conversation.
As to your beliefs about your employer, we obviously disagree about the nature of their activities. You cannot dismiss those who disagree with you by claiming it is ad hominem. You could claim that my colouring of you might have been inappropriate, even while your distraction was inappropriate. What I have said about Microsoft’s activities are well documented, and not a matter of disagreeing with what the company does because of the company, but disagreeing with the company because of what the company does.
While you wouldn’t know from my comments here, I do write about all companies that carry out what many consider harmful activities. When talking about the problems with digital locks where the owners of the hardware are not offered the keys, I don’t often mention Microsoft as it is Apple that is far more prominent in this area thus far. When it comes to harmful global lobbying efforts, however, Microsoft and IBM (they make money on Open Source, but lobby for harmful changes to patent and copyright laws) are the leaders with other old-economy tech companies not being as bad.
That was a great post…I love this site…Thanks