Technical maturity, freedom and development
There is something I want to add to the last (and first) contribution in this blog. My objective is to go more in depth with the importance of the term of technical maturity and its implications.
In the technical maturity definition would fit many things, but I will use only one example. The most ridiculous one, the famous and controversial “Copy and Paste” for iOS: Apple took 1 year and 9 months since iPhone was presented for the first time to the introduction of this apparently essential feature of the system.
The first thing that came to my mind was that they were trying to forget this computational concept. Even if you find it simple today, have you ever tried to teach to C&P a kid? It would take more time than you expected, for sure. But it is an amazingly practical concept, it was needed… So, *what the hell* had they been doing for more than a year and a half? Maybe they had been maturing this feature.
Would you agree with me that iOS C&P is a brilliant integration? To the extent of my knowledge, Apple has been more or less pioneer implementing this nice touchscreen-specific “copy and paste” functionality. Actually, they begun this journey back in 1993 (almost 20 years ago) in their Newton MessagePad. It makes me think that it took some time to be confident about such an essential feature.
To me (even if I’m wrong with my speculation) this can be a very good strategy: Present results only when they are mature, well thought and innovative (if possible). Simple, isn’t it? Moreover, I’m sure that the drawback of not having C&P has not stopped any customers of failing in love with the iPhone. And more amazingly, Apple can turn this detail into one more piece for their marketing: people talked about they because of this! ;)
But let me go to the point of this article, as the iOS C&P example is not complete.
An efficient, disposable, usable, and well designed system in terms of having a scalable and adaptable information architecture and development does not exist. But there are good projects out there. Aren’t they? The validity of a project can be seen as the best, and specially the most accurate balance of parameters like aforementioned ones. But let us focus on the most broad markets where the computer becomes an interactive service, not an “antisocial” processor. What is the most important parameter to take into account then?
Not so many years ago, computers were not even ready to fulfill our most basic and immediate needs, but today the most essential ones can be resolved even with our “smart-phones”. It is true, as you have already seen, it is the time to put more effort on the evolution of our communication with the computers. Hence the many concepts around user interaction and experience you have been seeing lately.
Notice that with technical maturity I am gathering things that are crossing the frontiers of social and technological thinking. In my humble opinion they are, and will be, tied together whether we like it or not. Then, given this relationship, could be the need to build a new and matured computational interactive model against technological development? Today, yes, it does. In fact it can be seen as its machiavellian archenemy.
The most trivial example without leaving Apple’s ecosystem is the competitive war with Android. Apple are unraveling a “closed” strategy full of limitations in the name of the user. Far of this, Android bet for more “open” systems.
However, even beeing absolutely aware that users must know that they can not give away their freedom in exchange of anything, to me Apple is winning the war by far in terms of user’s satisfaction.
So, am I telling you that offering a truncated development and experience could lead to better solutions? No way. But it is a winning strategy in fact because you can take more control offering only mature concepts. Many big companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Sony, and a long etcetera might approve this assertion.
Practically speaking it is not such a big deal. Most users seem to be happy (and in fact they are) with their iPhones, they do not need to break into their systems to add functionalities.
But freedom limitations are frightening, even more for those specialists who foresee cyberpunk scenarios as a consequence of them. But, be positive, more open and equally practical implementations are to come. Maybe copying current developments, maybe understanding that not any viable technical development is a good solution per se.
We have to get rid of the “hacker point of view” for the computing mass market.
