<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: [b@10] Jonathan Zittrain</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2008/05/15/b10-jonathan-zittrain/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2008/05/15/b10-jonathan-zittrain/</link>
	<description>Let's just see what happens</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:55:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: What is the future of the Internet? &#8212; Our Latest Discovery</title>
		<link>http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2008/05/15/b10-jonathan-zittrain/comment-page-1/#comment-31681</link>
		<dc:creator>What is the future of the Internet? &#8212; Our Latest Discovery</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 15:29:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2008/05/15/b10-jonathan-zittrain/#comment-31681</guid>
		<description>[...] thoughts and analysis of the session can be found from Ethan Zuckerman, David Weinberger, Patrick Philippe Meier, Andy Sellars, Daithí Mac Sithigh, Dan Farber and Jim Rapoza. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] thoughts and analysis of the session can be found from Ethan Zuckerman, David Weinberger, Patrick Philippe Meier, Andy Sellars, Daithí Mac Sithigh, Dan Farber and Jim Rapoza. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Fisk</title>
		<link>http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2008/05/15/b10-jonathan-zittrain/comment-page-1/#comment-31591</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Fisk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 16:37:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2008/05/15/b10-jonathan-zittrain/#comment-31591</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m working my way through Zittrain&#039;s book now, and he nails many important trends and is certainly on to something with the &quot;generative platform&quot; versus &quot;tethered application&quot; argument.  As I believe some of his graphs show (not in the book), technologies fall somewhere within a broad spectrum from generative to tethered.  

While I agree with the general analysis and agree it&#039;s vitally important to ensure generative technologies flourish going forward, I feel it misses a key point: usability.  Tethered applications are tethered in large part to make them more usable.  The thing is, the more usable applications are, often the more generative they are as well.  OSX versus Linux is a perfect comparison.  Linux is amazing, and I love it, but it&#039;s primarily used on the server side.  Why?  Usability.  Comparing OSX with Linux *on the desktop* for a second, we find OSX is:

1) More tethered -- automatic updates from Apple all the time, preloaded software, all the drivers you need, etc.
2) More usable -- lots of little features focused on usability.
3) More generative -- here&#039;s the key point -- it&#039;s usability means it&#039;s accessible to far more people who can use it as a generative platform.

It&#039;s usability and the fact it&#039;s so tethered that has led programmers to flock to OSX -- programmers also don&#039;t want to waste hours looking for the latest driver for such and such wireless modem or getting sound to work in the browser, as is often the case on Linux.  As a result, you have far more programmers using OSX on the desktop than Linux.  Programmers flock to it because it&#039;s tethered -- they know Apple will for the most part take care of installed the latest Python, bash shell, MySQL, etc etc.  They just have more resources to do so than your typical Linux company, and they have a solid update mechanism to make sure we always have the latest.

So, the generative platform argument has to take place in the context of specific domains.  For an operating system, what should be tethered and what should be generative/open?  We find there are parts that absolutely make an operating system more generative when they&#039;re tethered.  Same thing even way back with the Apple II -- sure people could tinker with it, but Wozniak was going crazy back there with his soldering iron to make it as usable/tethered as he possibly could so you had to worry about as little as possible when you typed on the command line.

Whew.  So, again, it&#039;s a matter of context and domain.  Within a given domain tethering can make technologies more generative, while in other domains tethering stifles generativity (yeah, so that&#039;s not a word, but you get the idea).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m working my way through Zittrain&#8217;s book now, and he nails many important trends and is certainly on to something with the &#8220;generative platform&#8221; versus &#8220;tethered application&#8221; argument.  As I believe some of his graphs show (not in the book), technologies fall somewhere within a broad spectrum from generative to tethered.  </p>
<p>While I agree with the general analysis and agree it&#8217;s vitally important to ensure generative technologies flourish going forward, I feel it misses a key point: usability.  Tethered applications are tethered in large part to make them more usable.  The thing is, the more usable applications are, often the more generative they are as well.  OSX versus Linux is a perfect comparison.  Linux is amazing, and I love it, but it&#8217;s primarily used on the server side.  Why?  Usability.  Comparing OSX with Linux *on the desktop* for a second, we find OSX is:</p>
<p>1) More tethered &#8212; automatic updates from Apple all the time, preloaded software, all the drivers you need, etc.<br />
2) More usable &#8212; lots of little features focused on usability.<br />
3) More generative &#8212; here&#8217;s the key point &#8212; it&#8217;s usability means it&#8217;s accessible to far more people who can use it as a generative platform.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s usability and the fact it&#8217;s so tethered that has led programmers to flock to OSX &#8212; programmers also don&#8217;t want to waste hours looking for the latest driver for such and such wireless modem or getting sound to work in the browser, as is often the case on Linux.  As a result, you have far more programmers using OSX on the desktop than Linux.  Programmers flock to it because it&#8217;s tethered &#8212; they know Apple will for the most part take care of installed the latest Python, bash shell, MySQL, etc etc.  They just have more resources to do so than your typical Linux company, and they have a solid update mechanism to make sure we always have the latest.</p>
<p>So, the generative platform argument has to take place in the context of specific domains.  For an operating system, what should be tethered and what should be generative/open?  We find there are parts that absolutely make an operating system more generative when they&#8217;re tethered.  Same thing even way back with the Apple II &#8212; sure people could tinker with it, but Wozniak was going crazy back there with his soldering iron to make it as usable/tethered as he possibly could so you had to worry about as little as possible when you typed on the command line.</p>
<p>Whew.  So, again, it&#8217;s a matter of context and domain.  Within a given domain tethering can make technologies more generative, while in other domains tethering stifles generativity (yeah, so that&#8217;s not a word, but you get the idea).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
