I just think that solution is going to be reached WAY before any general education of computer users makes them able to read and act on error messages and error logs.
I weep for the future.
I don't. Once writing was way beyond the means and skills of everyone but a few monks and scribes and aristocrats. It cost a lot for paper and ink, and writing was a specialist skill. The printing press made reading available to a wide range of people (comparatively), but to write you still needed feathers and ink. Then fountain pens, which are still a pain. Chalk and slate was an option, but the long term memory storage wasn't great. Pencils work, but aren't a great solution.
Then someone invented ballpoint pens. Suddenly writing with ink became easy! People would moan when it ran out of ink, or dried up, or leaked when placed the wrong way up in their shirt pocket. But who cared? A new pen cost so little you'd just buy or steal a new one. Now, for general note taking or filling out of forms, pens are so cheap that they are functionally disposable. If there is an error, just find a new one.
At the moment, most computers are like fountain pens; available to anyone who cares to buy one, but a pain to use. The iPhone is like a ballpoint pen, which "just works", but still runs out of ink too quick and leaks a bit.
You weep for the future, but I long for the day that computers become so cheap and easy that anyone with anything to write or say or do, no matter how trivial, can just pick up any device and it just work. And if it breaks they can pick up a new one, and not have to worry about it, and they can use someone else's device, and that just works too.
Just because someone doesn't read error messages, or are CURRENTLY computer illiterate, doesn't mean they don't have anything to contribute to the world, and maybe the only way to contribute is to make a device they can use without stress or error.
The iPhone is like a ballpoint pen, which "just works", but still runs out of ink too quick and leaks a bit.
Except where as a ballpoint pen has maybe 3 mechanical potential points of failure, and operates on two basic physical properties for operation (capillary action and pressurization), a computer has quite literally billions of potential points of failure in the CPU alone. Then go into the software, all written by fallible human beings. It is by sheer determination and relentless obsession with debugging that one comes out with a device that's even mostly usable.
As long as humans build computers, you will need some way to debug them. The day machines "just work" is an idea that's been around for a long time, Ray Kurzweil just likes to call it the Singularity.
Except where as a ballpoint pen has maybe 3 mechanical potential points of failure, and operates on two basic physical properties for operation (capillary action and pressurization), a computer has quite literallybillionsof potential points of failure in the CPU alone.
It was an ANALOGY.
I'm talking about ubiquity and ease of use. Once electronic communication meant you had to learn morse code. Then, later, telephones became ubiquitous and "just worked". Sure, there were some technicians running things behind the scenes, but the vast majority of the population could pick up ANY phone and call any other phone, even if it wasn't theirs.
Again, this is an ANALOGY, but once computers are as simple, or more simple, than a telephone is, for the USERS, they won't need error messages. If one breaks, you'll just buy a new one, and it'll only cost 10 dollars, or be given away for free, so you don't care. Like the situation with ballpoint pens is now.
This WILL happen in the future, with all kind of technologies and devices. Complexity is beside the point, as once EVERY technological device was the height of complexity, from cars to kettles to microwave ovens, but all are now simple and ubiquitous. There is a Bond movie where Bond demonstrates a coffee machine, and it required all kinds of levels and mechanical parts and complexity. Now you can put in your cup and press a single button. The same WILL be true of computers, one day.
Scott, you continually overestimate what the average user wants from a phone or computer, and the average user is where these companies make the most money.
I don't overestimate what the user wants. I correctly estimate what the user WILL want.
There is a particular pattern I have noticed time and time again. People will not want, or claim not to want, something until they have it. Once they actually get a taste, then they can't do without it.
Take for example the person who lives in a small town. Everything they need is on one street. They walk everywhere. Try to sell them a car. They'll say "Who needs it? Why spend all that much money? I've been fine my whole life without one." The problem here is that they do not truly understand what a car has to offer them because they haven't experienced it. Give this person a car. Teach them to drive. Take them to another town that has new and amazing things. Eventually they will realize that if they have a car, they will be able to go to all these places whenever they want. Eventually they will realize how much easier it will be to buy groceries without having to carry them all the way down the street. A car will quickly become a necessity for this person.
You see similar behaviors in people when it comes to upgrading technology. I knew many people resistant to DVD. They didn't fully realize that it meant no rewinding, better video quality, and the ability to skip tracks, do subtitles, etc. Once they actually realized the difference, their minds changed.
People were resistant to mobile phones, until they actually realized the difference it made. People were resistant to smart phones, yet now they are beginning to realize the life changing power of such a device.
Even Rym is susceptible to this. I remember back at RIT he would say "Who needs tabbed browsing? IE is good enough for me." It was quite some time after I started using Phoenix(Firefox) that he realized it was the way to go.
As a geeky person I am exposed to every possible existing feature of technology. Because I also understand how the technology works, I am able to imagine features and abilities that do not yet exist. Most people can only want what they have been exposed to, and what they understand. If they use a product designed like an Apple, they will not want anything else because they will not know what to want. They will not be exposed to anything else, so they won't know they want it.
Imagine a person living in bumblefuck middle of nowhere might not realize that a particular Norwegian dish is their favorite food of all time because they have never been exposed to it. They don't even know that they want it. I think many people who do not mind closed platforms simply do not fully realize that they are limited, or that they want those limits to go away, because they lack exposure to the alternative.
You weep for the future, but I long for the day that computers become so cheap and easy that anyone with anything to write or say or do, no matter how trivial, can just pick up any device and it just work. And if it breaks they can pick up a new one, and not have to worry about it, and they can use someone else's device, and that just works too.
Just because someone doesn't read error messages, or are CURRENTLY computer illiterate, doesn't mean they don't have anything to contribute to the world, and maybe the only way to contribute is to make a device they can use without stress or error.
I won't sidetrack the conversation, but the idea of a disposable computer brings up serious concerns about manufacturer social responsibility and the sustainability of that sort of lifestyle.
That put aside, this idea you raise of a "device they can use without stress or error" is the ergonomic holy grail, and in terms of computers, I believe an unachievable one. I won't disagree that what you call "the Steve Jobs effect" does work in specific and limited cases. The iPhone, the iPod, and potentially the iPad are tightly controlled closed systems with custom tailored software and hardware. The can "just work" because they are carefully controlled and adjusted to avoid errors. Even the iPhone, which is moderately successful in this front, flounders in part due to it's more open nature. Once you reach the realm of Apple's full computers, you see nearly as many crashes and and fumbles as your average modern PC. That accepted philosophy of things "just working" is now a detriment, because it naturally implies that any error that does occur is out of the scope of the average user to solve. It requires a "genius" to maneuver. I'm a Mac and PC user of many years now, and I have to say that the errors I've encountered in Apple products have far and away been the most frustrating and stressful, rare as they are.
I agree with Apple's design philosophy on a lot of points (there's a reason they have such a rabid following) but this environment of dependency and deliberately restrained tool sets is wrong headed to say the least. I'd rather a future where products help foster self-sufficiency in the user. Where, to take Scott's car analogy, knowing how to change your oil or replace a tire isn't out of the ordinary, and car companies don't pretend like you'll never have to.
If you went to the car dealer, and he told you the hood was sealed shut and could only be opened by the dealer, would you buy it? If the answer is no to that, but you would also buy a MacBook, how can you explain the contradiction?
I agree with everything you say, but your "potential of computer" point normally seems to be tied to access to the terminal and file system and all that, which I know for a fact that the vast majority of people DON'T want. New uses and capabilities, yes. Terminals, no.
Imagine a person living in bumblefuck middle of nowhere might not realize that a particular Norwegian dish is their favorite food of all time because they have never been exposed to it. They don't even know that they want it. I think many people who do not mind closed platforms simply do not fully realize that they are limited, or that they want those limits to go away, because they lack exposure to the alternative.
There's a value, however, in recognizing that most people, though they might love that Norwegian dish they would never have tried before, they probably also aren't completely enamored with every other exotic dish as well. There's the occasional gastronomical explorer, but that's far from everybody. Things like Apple products and netbooks and e-readers allow those with a pickier palette to say "I've tried the rest, and I know I only really need that for now."
As for your car analogy, what about the people who give up having a car when they move to a large city with good public transportation?
More choice may be better, but pretending that everyone always wants more and that everyone wants the same more is looking at things too simply.
EDIT: Also, many modern cars do have enclosed engines, Scott, making it difficult to repair without the aid of a professional. Many people still buy these cars. I think that might be a more apt analogy.
They will not be exposed to anything else, so they won't know they want it.
They'll see a feature on a windows series mobile 7 computer and want that. Competition will remain, and new technology will be built all the time.
If you went to the car dealer, and he told you the hood was sealed shut and could only be opened by the dealer, would you buy it? If the answer is no to that, but you would also buy a MacBook, how can you explain the contradiction?
You are thinking way too small. I live in a big city in Europe. I don't own a car anymore*. I use trains (which I don't need to fix), planes (which I don't need to fix), taxis (which I don't need to fix), and for very local journeys I walk (no technology) or take my bike (which is actually broken and needs fixing, but I've not got round to taking it to the repair shop yet).
If I need a car, I won't even look under the hood/bonnet. I'll just pick it up at the rental place and drop it off when I'm finished. If it breaks down in the time I'm using it, it'll be fixed by someone else or I'll have a new one delivered.
If you went to the car dealer, and he told you the hood was sealed shut and could only be opened by the dealer, would you buy it? If the answer is no to that, but you would also buy a MacBook, how can you explain the contradiction?
There really isn't one. With a Car sealed shut by the dealer, if it was the most suitable car for my needs? I would buy it. Because I also possess an Angle grinder and a variety of cutting wheels, and the bonnet/hood wouldn't remain sealed for long. Even if I didn't, I can get the tools to open it from pretty much any hardware store.
But that is slightly sidetrack, however, oddly appropriate, because if you want to open your MacBook, all you need is a couple of screwdrivers of various sizes, and very little more, if anything. Don't like Mac's closed operating system? Install Windows or Linux.
I won't sidetrack the conversation, but the idea of a disposable computer brings up serious concerns about manufacturer social responsibility and the sustainability of that sort of lifestyle.
By the time you could afford to just toss a computer without physically recycling it, we will have already built nanoforges to handle all waste for us, and we would likely have already started plundering our local gas giants and their moons for matter to rebuild into metals, organics, whatever.
mean people who say we live in a world similar to the one portrayed in the novel Brave New World haven't read it recently.
The same with 1984 and "Orwellian." (With a sad exception for North Korea).
Actually, I think the term Orwellian can be applied to many specific aspects of the modern world and politics, but those who think we live in an Orwellian world should read wikipedia. I don't mean they should read a wikipedia article about politics or the novel 1984, but the very fact that the first stop for almost any subject online is a collaborative, democratic, open, non-governmental, non-profit, grassroots resource should make some kind of point.
In the end, neither Brave New World nor 1984 nor Fahrenheit 451 are meant to be predictions on the future (or current present) of society. Like all science fiction, prediction is one of the least significant and least interesting features, and the novels were comments on the time and society and trends of the times they were written. That they are still relevant today makes them significant and powerful, but no matter how you look at the world, the world government does NOT clone babies, then program them from the cradle to fulfill a single role within their caste, then fill them full of drugs to keep them happy.
the world government does NOT clone babies, then program them from the cradle to fulfill a single role within their caste, then fill them full of drugs to keep them happy.
Oh, sure. That's what they want you to think.
I have always thought it was funny that people stand up and proclaim this or that to be "just like 1984," without stopping to think that they still have the freedom to stand up and declare such ridiculous things.
I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that our society is just like any of those in dystopian novels. However, there are certain aspects of those fictional societies which exist in the real world. Sure, we don't have a true 1984, but the UK is becoming a surveillance society. Most recently there was something I saw which will give the police the power to go into people's homes during the London Olympics to check for counterfeit merchandise and other contraband. Also, while the western world might not be brave or new, our bread and circuses are nearly as effective as soma and feelies, if not more so.
"... a book about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right."
There is no right or wrong. There is only what Huxley wanted to say about the world, and what Orwell wanted to say about the world. Both were warning against different things, but by no means exclusive or contradictory things.
Most cars in the world would be windows cars, which offer the best of both worlds between apple and Linux; a Flappy Paddle sequential manual. Also, all windows cars come with A/C, though some people might want to add a little extra charge to their freon tank.
That's pretty standard.
Small technical point, that's a semi-automatic transmission. A true sequential manual is a monster of a transmission that's pretty much only fitted to racing cars.
Comments
Then someone invented ballpoint pens. Suddenly writing with ink became easy! People would moan when it ran out of ink, or dried up, or leaked when placed the wrong way up in their shirt pocket. But who cared? A new pen cost so little you'd just buy or steal a new one. Now, for general note taking or filling out of forms, pens are so cheap that they are functionally disposable. If there is an error, just find a new one.
At the moment, most computers are like fountain pens; available to anyone who cares to buy one, but a pain to use. The iPhone is like a ballpoint pen, which "just works", but still runs out of ink too quick and leaks a bit.
You weep for the future, but I long for the day that computers become so cheap and easy that anyone with anything to write or say or do, no matter how trivial, can just pick up any device and it just work. And if it breaks they can pick up a new one, and not have to worry about it, and they can use someone else's device, and that just works too.
Just because someone doesn't read error messages, or are CURRENTLY computer illiterate, doesn't mean they don't have anything to contribute to the world, and maybe the only way to contribute is to make a device they can use without stress or error.
As long as humans build computers, you will need some way to debug them. The day machines "just work" is an idea that's been around for a long time, Ray Kurzweil just likes to call it the Singularity.
I'm talking about ubiquity and ease of use. Once electronic communication meant you had to learn morse code. Then, later, telephones became ubiquitous and "just worked". Sure, there were some technicians running things behind the scenes, but the vast majority of the population could pick up ANY phone and call any other phone, even if it wasn't theirs.
Again, this is an ANALOGY, but once computers are as simple, or more simple, than a telephone is, for the USERS, they won't need error messages. If one breaks, you'll just buy a new one, and it'll only cost 10 dollars, or be given away for free, so you don't care. Like the situation with ballpoint pens is now.
This WILL happen in the future, with all kind of technologies and devices. Complexity is beside the point, as once EVERY technological device was the height of complexity, from cars to kettles to microwave ovens, but all are now simple and ubiquitous. There is a Bond movie where Bond demonstrates a coffee machine, and it required all kinds of levels and mechanical parts and complexity. Now you can put in your cup and press a single button. The same WILL be true of computers, one day.
There is a particular pattern I have noticed time and time again. People will not want, or claim not to want, something until they have it. Once they actually get a taste, then they can't do without it.
Take for example the person who lives in a small town. Everything they need is on one street. They walk everywhere. Try to sell them a car. They'll say "Who needs it? Why spend all that much money? I've been fine my whole life without one." The problem here is that they do not truly understand what a car has to offer them because they haven't experienced it. Give this person a car. Teach them to drive. Take them to another town that has new and amazing things. Eventually they will realize that if they have a car, they will be able to go to all these places whenever they want. Eventually they will realize how much easier it will be to buy groceries without having to carry them all the way down the street. A car will quickly become a necessity for this person.
You see similar behaviors in people when it comes to upgrading technology. I knew many people resistant to DVD. They didn't fully realize that it meant no rewinding, better video quality, and the ability to skip tracks, do subtitles, etc. Once they actually realized the difference, their minds changed.
People were resistant to mobile phones, until they actually realized the difference it made. People were resistant to smart phones, yet now they are beginning to realize the life changing power of such a device.
Even Rym is susceptible to this. I remember back at RIT he would say "Who needs tabbed browsing? IE is good enough for me." It was quite some time after I started using Phoenix(Firefox) that he realized it was the way to go.
As a geeky person I am exposed to every possible existing feature of technology. Because I also understand how the technology works, I am able to imagine features and abilities that do not yet exist. Most people can only want what they have been exposed to, and what they understand. If they use a product designed like an Apple, they will not want anything else because they will not know what to want. They will not be exposed to anything else, so they won't know they want it.
Imagine a person living in bumblefuck middle of nowhere might not realize that a particular Norwegian dish is their favorite food of all time because they have never been exposed to it. They don't even know that they want it. I think many people who do not mind closed platforms simply do not fully realize that they are limited, or that they want those limits to go away, because they lack exposure to the alternative.
That put aside, this idea you raise of a "device they can use without stress or error" is the ergonomic holy grail, and in terms of computers, I believe an unachievable one. I won't disagree that what you call "the Steve Jobs effect" does work in specific and limited cases. The iPhone, the iPod, and potentially the iPad are tightly controlled closed systems with custom tailored software and hardware. The can "just work" because they are carefully controlled and adjusted to avoid errors. Even the iPhone, which is moderately successful in this front, flounders in part due to it's more open nature. Once you reach the realm of Apple's full computers, you see nearly as many crashes and and fumbles as your average modern PC. That accepted philosophy of things "just working" is now a detriment, because it naturally implies that any error that does occur is out of the scope of the average user to solve. It requires a "genius" to maneuver. I'm a Mac and PC user of many years now, and I have to say that the errors I've encountered in Apple products have far and away been the most frustrating and stressful, rare as they are.
I agree with Apple's design philosophy on a lot of points (there's a reason they have such a rabid following) but this environment of dependency and deliberately restrained tool sets is wrong headed to say the least. I'd rather a future where products help foster self-sufficiency in the user. Where, to take Scott's car analogy, knowing how to change your oil or replace a tire isn't out of the ordinary, and car companies don't pretend like you'll never have to.
As for your car analogy, what about the people who give up having a car when they move to a large city with good public transportation?
More choice may be better, but pretending that everyone always wants more and that everyone wants the same more is looking at things too simply.
EDIT: Also, many modern cars do have enclosed engines, Scott, making it difficult to repair without the aid of a professional. Many people still buy these cars. I think that might be a more apt analogy.
If I need a car, I won't even look under the hood/bonnet. I'll just pick it up at the rental place and drop it off when I'm finished. If it breaks down in the time I'm using it, it'll be fixed by someone else or I'll have a new one delivered.
But that is slightly sidetrack, however, oddly appropriate, because if you want to open your MacBook, all you need is a couple of screwdrivers of various sizes, and very little more, if anything. Don't like Mac's closed operating system? Install Windows or Linux.
196.75 frying graphics cards?
In the end, neither Brave New World nor 1984 nor Fahrenheit 451 are meant to be predictions on the future (or current present) of society. Like all science fiction, prediction is one of the least significant and least interesting features, and the novels were comments on the time and society and trends of the times they were written. That they are still relevant today makes them significant and powerful, but no matter how you look at the world, the world government does NOT clone babies, then program them from the cradle to fulfill a single role within their caste, then fill them full of drugs to keep them happy.
I have always thought it was funny that people stand up and proclaim this or that to be "just like 1984," without stopping to think that they still have the freedom to stand up and declare such ridiculous things.
EDIT: Except in North Korea.
There is no right or wrong. There is only what Huxley wanted to say about the world, and what Orwell wanted to say about the world. Both were warning against different things, but by no means exclusive or contradictory things.