Content and technology cycles

Most content outlives any presentation and distribution technologies. Content valuable enough will be converted to new formats and prepared for distribution on new carriers. This is nothing new and has been ongoing since humans started to draw and write.

Content creation involves effort and possibly considerable amounts of economical investments. Professional content creators live off their work, and naturally wants to be paid for providing their works.

Somewhere along the road, movie-, music- and publisher industry acquired exclusive distribution rights. When they where distributing content in a physical form (in atoms), this added considerable value to the product. Distributors got involved in all kinds of coordination and promotion activities related to their exclusive rights. As long as the distributors controlled the technology this went along fine, but with the invention of the music cassette the foundation for a copy culture was laid. Content consumers wanted to have copies of music in their cars, walkmans and in the living room. The VCR allowed copying of films. A growing pirate industry, mainly based in Asia was founded, but the economical problems was limited as they had to move atoms around the globe and copied material was not more accessible than the originals.

For music and movies this led both to direct loss for content creators, but it also provided culture sharing. When more people heard new music or films, some bought originals while some copied. It will be impossible to know if the entertainment industry have lost or gained in this game. A copy today may result in future sales of releases of music and movies.

When computers moved into the home copying of software soon became common as the physical burden was shrinking. We started to move bits on physical carriers (diskettes). When PCs was introduced copying flourished. Whether this favored or hurt the software industry is not quite clear. Microsofts success with Office was laid with the massive distribution of Windows which was heavily copied and distributed amongst users. I would guess the software industry as a whole, especially platform vendors, have gained opportunities because of copying. This is not a defense of piracy, but my estimation of the outcome. The software industry has slowly adjusted to the new realities. Software can be bought and downloaded or provided as as service (SaaS). Open Source developers uses the moving of bits their full advantage.

In the late 90-ies the Internet was introduced for consumers. The Internet made moving atoms obsolete. Content could now be moved as pure bits globally, with the speed of the network. The Internet provides us with a completely new way of distributing and consuming content. It is also a foundation for collaboration, creativity and provides us with vast new opportunities for doing business.

The elimination of the need for moving atoms also reduces costs. There is little value in moving bits, and the concept of the moving and copying of bits breaks the limitations of physical distribution. It also breaks exclusivity as content can be made available for anyone instantly at a global scale. The entertainment industry seems not have understood or do not welcome this. They seem to be willing to go all the way in their efforts to stop the evolution. They lobby for and support legislations like SOPA, PIPA and EU Data Retention Directive.

Technology follows very rapid cycles of invention, while content has a completely different cycle. The most valuable content will inevitably be converted to new presentation- and carrier technologies. If the copyright owners does not do it, consumers will. And why should they not? If you have bought a product shouldn't you be allowed to use it on gadgets not yet invented? To me it is not crystal clear copying is theft. Copying is also culture sharing, and generates future sales. The Internet gives us great possibilities for sharing culture and this could be lost, or at least very restricted if the entertainment industry will get it's will with lawmakers.

So why would anyone tie exclusive distribution rights to specific distribution technologies? This gives distributors no incentives for adjusting to new realities and opportunities. These industries are now lobbying for draconic laws that is protecting their relatively outdated business models. They refuse to meet the demand of their customers and stubbornly gives Internet the blame for everything not going their way. The difference now is that consumers (and pirates) have all the tools and infrastructure to fill in the gaps. When the gap left open by the entertainment industry is wide enough and demand is high, massive piracy is the inevitable result.

Instead of exploiting vast opportunities for culture sharing and selling a lot more (for a lower price per item, reflecting reduced costs) they want laws that will seriously impede democratic freedoms hard won through recent centuries. The Internet has breathed new life to democracies (video of Al Gore talking about SOPA was quickly deleted from Youtube...). Whether the lawmakers does not understand this, or do not want more democracy will be mere speculation. It is probably a mix of incompetence and using piracy as an excuse for their own agenda.

Another consequence of the internet is that there is only one market: the global market. Trying to limit releases to restricted areas will fail and only cause problems. It has become de facto Cargo Culting in the media industry. In the digital distribution world there is no borders or physical restrictions that creates exclusivity. A better strategy will be global releases and making use of social media buzz to spread the word and attract consumers to buy content from copyright holders.

My data

We are doing it all wrong. Empowering people with technology is currently centered around the technology only. The technology is important of course, but it is totally useless without any data. Technology is just for playing with the data.

So do we empower the user with any control over data? Can we manage data digitally as in real life? Well of course not, digital information is about making data more fluid. But making data more fluid does not mean doing it to all data. The principles if privacy should be valid independent of format.

• Private data should be as private as in a bank box. If the individual chooses to destroy the data, it is his or her choice.
• Shared secrets should be as secret as though it was shared with real friends. Sometimes information will leak.
• Published data should assimilate. As in real life. It would be impossible to control the flow
• Observations can be recorded, but no personal information should be stored without consent

Given these simple rules, it should be the individual deciding which risks to take. Facebook, Google or governments should be in no position to decide what risks to take with any data.

That does not mean any data can be gathered by trusted parties, but what and how data is collection should be open. It must always be possible to opt out. That does not exclude companies and governments from monitoring activity. It should just be recorded as impersonal observations. As in real life.

Can tech obstruct your fundamentals?

This Easter I came across this blog post about The Value Of Fundamentals (highly recommended reading), and it made me think about how and why we adopt new technology. (Maybe I am fond by this way of thinking because I was a martial arts practitioner myself, and highly respect them still.) In the adoption process the problem it is supposed to solve gets lost, and it is used everywhere as a one-solution-fits-all technology. Fundamentals is not as well understood as they should be in many professions, and software development is no exception.

Technology can prevent you from using your basic skills, as "advanced" technology may look like it can solve several of your problems at once. This is sometimes true, but more often just smoke and mirrors. In addition technology brings on a new set of problems (that you will try to solve with workarounds), and sometimes they become a hammer that you'll try to apply to any problem you stumble upon.

This occurs frequently in software development, but it happens elsewhere too, often with computer technology that is supposed to solve multiple problems. Way too often this obstructs the use of basic skills to solve problems. The challenges here can be mapped to other professions, e.g. physicians on large hospitals relying too much on all the available technology rather their basic skills.

Software development has always been ridden by the Silver Bullet Syndrome, and Silver bullets often infers technology that in effect makes us rely on factors out of control of the individual, project, and most important the stakeholders. But it is not only silver bullet technologies that can make you loose sight of real simple and elegant solutions to the most important problems you are trying to solve. Even wellproven and widely used technology may obstruct the view of the problems.

Here are some examples of categories of technologies that often obfuscates simple solutions:

• Frameworks
• Code generators
• Integration technology, e.g. OR-mapping
  

Most of these adds complexity to the solutiuon (but promises an overall general complexity reduction), as they often are very general solutions trying to solve multiple problems. Solving complex problems by adding multiple frameworks to the solution make a very complex solution. This is where fundamentals becomes valuable, and decisions on whether to use a framework should be balanced with using basic skills.

When basic skills are forgotten or not practiced often you rely too much on technology to solve your problems. What happens then is that socalled advanced technology is applied to simple problems, that should be solved applying fundamentals.

What is really bad about using technology instead of basic skills in a software development context is that technology must be maintained throughout a products lifetime. When a technology vendor stops supporting a certain technology, all products relaying on it implicitly receive a death sentence. Products implemented mostly using basic skills has a better survival rate, as it often can be ported to new platforms where technologies on the legacy platform is unavailable. It can be very complex to update 3rd party frameworks if they are interdependant, or the code is invaded by the used technology. The maintenance cost can rise, and if ignored create serious technical debt.

Additionally well written software brings on best practices to newcomers reading the code, and when a skill/practice is questioned it triggers lot more valuable discussions than whether to throw out/introduce some technology. Evolving basic skills is a whole lot more valuable than decisions on the latest fad. Evolving basic programming skills empowers the individual , project, organization and profession. Technology brings on a substantial number of abbrevitions that is impossible to communication with users and stakeholders. Independant of what technologies are involved in your project, keep it out of non-technical discussions. Users don't care, and is certainly not impressed. Software that works, and that evolves with the users impresses. Wellcrafted software is easier to evolve in the long run, rather than fighting with framework/code generators.

So what fundamentals should all software developers master? I can easily come up with this shortlist, but it is not comprehensive or prioritized in any way:

• Central design patterns
• Know at least 2-3 programming languages, and 1-2 of these deeply and you should be acquainted with a scripting language.
  
• Create readable and maintainable code
  
• What is robust code?
• Important concurrency concepts
• Coupling theory
  

So this is a post that promotes the Not-invented-here syndrome? Not at all! Just let programming fundamentals weigh in heavier against e.g. frameworks and code generators. When cost and/or time constraints favor use of these, look at the source code (not only the documentation) and evaluate amongst other things:

• it is well written
• will not invade your code
• not get in the way of creating elegant solutions to your problems.
  

As a pleasant sideeffect you might even learn a technique you are currently unaware of. When you understand how it is written it will be far easier to communicate with the vendor if changes must be made.

When you think about it, technologies come and go but the software industry in general changes at a much slower pace. It is time to shift this balance from praising the latest fads towards improving basic skills in the software development profession. This will make both the software itself, and the programmers, more valuable. Investing in fundamentals should also be incorporated in organizations' learning circle. Finally programming more consciusly with basic skills will contribute to less monocoltures in software, which in my opinion results healthier software.