Walled Gardens?

We've heard a lot lately about walled gardens, those digital places where the content is controlled by a device manufacturer, a content creator, a content distributor, or Web tool. Examples are plenty-- Apple has all iPhone and iPad content funneled through the App Store, Facebook controls what user information that it sells, Amazon and Apple both apply digitals locks (DRM) on content that they sell. The list could go on, but suffice to say that there are a lot of people trying to exert some control over what you can do or see on a digital device.

There are those, such as Cory Doctorow, who make a compelling case that no outside controls should be implemented, that users should be the ultimate decision maker about how to use devices or content that they buy. It is always nice to have choices, and Doctorow wants to have them all. To that end, he publishes his books without any DRM and refuses to participate with outlets that insist upon it. He uses an open source operating system on his computer, and has made an impassioned plea for people to boycott the iPad.

Then are those like Leo Laporte, who agrees in large part with Doctorow, but sees utility in using some locked devices. He loves his iPad and Audible books, even though both are to some degree locked.

Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, says that the controls on the iPad and the iPhone are there to enhance the user experience, and that applications like Flash use too much power and cause devices to crash. Besides, he notes, nobody has to buy an iPad. He has famously said that "if you want porn, use Android".

In a scene from the TV show West Wing, one of the characters says, "I agree with you, and (pointing to someone else) I agree with you, and (again pointing to someone else) I agree with you, and you know that makes me crazy!" That's how I feel. Both camps have good, logical arguments. They are well reasoned and supported by good data.

I am afraid that too much control by others will ultimately limit my user experience, but too little control has the same result. I am an avid Linux user. I love to be able to tinker with how things work, download whatever I like, configuring my computer exactly as I would like it. The downside is that I HAVE to tinker with it to make it work right. Unlike Windows or the Mac OS, which work right out the box, Linux is for those who really want to mess with it. I recently reformatted my Linux net book. It took about 45 minutes to reformat, and about 4 hours to get it to work. I had to find and install drivers, and additional code to allow it play music, or Flash, or movies, etc. Because I like to do that, it was ok, but it wasn't how I had planned to spend an evening.

Some have challenged Doctorow by saying that they can't hack their toaster or their washing machine. He retorts that nobody tells you what you can put into those devices, like Apple tries to do with the i devices. He's right, of course, but why would anyone WANT to put anything but bread in a toaster? I liken it to the difference between an automatic transmission and a manual transmission in a car. The manual driver wants to feel that he is in control. He'll decide which gear the car needs to be in, and when. The automatic driver just wants to get from here to there, and doesn't care how it happens, as long as it does. With Linux you have a lot of control, but with Windows or Mac, it just works.

These are equally valid positions, so it seems silly to militantly swear off anything Apple because they exert some control, or militantly fawn over Apple because it works so well. When I want to try something, experiment a little, I turn to my Linux box. I've screwed it up a hundred times, and reformatted almost that many times, but it let's me do things that nothing else does. On the other hand, when I have serious work to do, I gravitate to a proven operating system that let's me get it done as quickly and efficiently as possible. I see no contradiction in this. Even the editors of a Linux magazine that read have admitted that when they need to do serious photo or video editing, they do it on a Mac.

Likewise, I have deleted my Facebook account because I don't like the way they handle privacy. Now, I don't really have anything to hide, and if you Google me, you can find my address and phone number, and just about anything else about me. But what Facebook did was to obfuscate and divert attention from it's real agenda. It seemed slimy, and I didn't want to be a part of it. On the other hand, my wife loves it, especially it's ability to connect her with old friends and family.

I guess the point is that extremism is a bad thing. Those on the outer fringes of the norm are rarely taken seriously because their ideas are, well, crazy. Mac lover or Mac hater, all really the same thing. What I want from a digital tool is for it to work for me instead of the other way around. That is the definition of a useful device.