The various philosophies behind how software is developed is a popular topic among geeks. However, the vast majority of non-geeks have absolutely no interest in the topic, if they have even heard of the issue at all. I think that the reason for this is that these users see no practical connection between these issues and their daily life. However, there certainly is a practical connection, even if most people never think of it in these terms. The goal of this post is to use a less technical analogy to illustrate why ordinary computer users should care about these issues.
Comparing computer software to cars
Most people own and operate their own car. Even if they are not mechanics, car owners understand the advantage of being able to decide who is allowed to repair or modify their vehicle. This analogy will use three different types of cars (two of which are thankfully fictional) to illustrate the types of software users can have on their own computer.
The normal, open car
The first kind of car is the type that exists today. When someone buys a car, the car comes with a hood that can be easily opened. The technically savvy owner can save lots of money by performing routine maintenance and repairs themselves. When they open the hood, they find an easily accessible engine, with parts (more or less) that are easy to reach. These parts usually follow certain types of standards, so they can often be replaced by parts from other manufacturers.
A vehicle owner benefits from owning this type of car, even if they don’t know enough to change their own oil, much less replace an engine. Since the inner workings of this car are accessible, there is a thriving market of mechanics, from mechanically savvy family members to professional operations, who compete on price to make repairs.
The car with a secret engine
Now imagine a new type of car. This car has a hood that can be opened, but it cannot be opened by the owner or a person of their choosing. A key is required to open this hood, and the only person with the key is the company that sold the car. They are the only company with permission to work on that engine. Of course, all locks can be picked with enough effort. If the user were to pick the lock on this hood, they would find an engine that is incredibly difficult to work with for anyone without special knowledge (the original manufacturer). Few of the parts are standardized and interchangeable, and all of the parts are placed in positions that make them hard to access.
There might still be third parties that actually work on this kind of car. Routine maintenance and repairs would be more costly, both because of the added effort it takes to work on the engine and because of the lack of people capable or willing to work on it. Many repairs would be impossible for anyone but the original manufacturer. This manufacturer would have close to a de facto monopoly on the vehicle’s maintenance, therefore driving up costs.
The car controlled by the manufacturer
The third kind of car looks a lot like the previous kind with the locked hood, but takes it to it’s logical conclusion. This car has technology designed to try to detect if it’s owner has tampered with the lock. If the car detects any unauthorized tampering, it destroys the engine. Furthermore, if the manufacturer discovers a mechanic telling others how to pick the lock without the car noticing, the manufacturer takes that mechanic to court. Lastly, this car will only drive to business and restaurants that it’s manufacturer puts on the approved list. If the “owner” of this car wants to go somewhere not on the list, they must ether borrow a friend’s car, or pick the lock and hope that their car does not self destruct. Fans and owners of this type of car defend these restrictions by saying that the establishments on the approved list are really high quality places, and that the restrictions are for the driver’s safety. In the end however, the only logical conclusion is that the restrictions are there to protect the manufacturer’s business model by preventing a truly free market.
The different types of software
Thankfully the second two types of cars do not exist today. Unfortunately, something similar does exist in the world of computer software, and most customers do not know that they are being effected by it.
The normal and open car, the one with the open and accessible engine, is similar to a type of software known by the names Open Source and Free Software (think free as in freedom, not free as in without price). Open Source software is created both by large companies such as IBM and individual enthusiasts working in their spare time. This software gives users the freedom to use the software however they want, to understand how it works, to make any changes they want and to share those changes with anyone. Users with knowledge of computer programing can fix any bugs they want or add any features they want, just like mechanics can with cars. Users who are not technologically savvy can pay the original developer for support and maintenance, or can pay anyone else who offers a competing price.
The car with the secret engine is very similar to the commonly used operating systems Windows and OSX. The inner workings of those systems are secrets, and while third parties have been able to figure out how to fix many smaller problems, only their creators can make more substantial changes.
The car controlled by the manfacturer represents a disturbing new trend in computer software. With the Apple iPhone, and now the iPad, not only are the “owners” not allowed to know how these computers work, but if you try to tamper with them and don’t do it correctly, your device will be “bricked,” and become the world’s most expensive paperweight. “Why would I want to mess with a device that works so well” many people ask. As with the third car in the analogy, there are things the user is not allowed to do with an iPhone or iPad. They can only install applications on Apple’s approved list, and many wonderful and innovative applications are forbidden. Also, Apple does it’s best to use the legal system to prevent others from learning how to gain control over their devices.
Many “owners” of the iPhone and iPad argue that it does not matter, as they can “jailbreak” their devices, aka gain access to forbidden apps. However, as explained above, these restrictions still have a very practical effect on the people who posses these devices. Also, if the person who sold the user the phone has more control over it than the user themselves, who truly owns the device in the first place?
Another objection that many owners of these devices use is that it is “just a phone” or “just a tablet,” and so the existence of these restrictions are not important. Is this really the case? The new iPad has a processor, storage and memory, just like any other computer does. It is also much more capable than my first computer was. Finally, what do users use it for? They watch movies and videos, listen to music, read articles and books, browse the web, communicate via email and instant message and use social media. That is the majority of things that most people use their traditional computers for. First these restrictions were on a phone. With the introduction of the iPad, which was advertised as something being “somewhere in between a smartphone and a laptop,” it has moved closer to what people traditionally think of as a computer. The App Store has proven to be a very popular and successful way for people to discover new apps. The logical conclusion is to use a similar model on Apple desktops and laptops, and of course Microsoft will try to compete with a similar system inside Windows. What sort of restrictions on our personal computers will then be demanded, in the name of copyright protection and quality assurance?
Closing thoughts: What about free speech?
So far this post has discussed the practical implications that these types of control have on the users of computer software. However, the discussion would not be complete without mentioning the free speech implications of this type of technology. Computers and the Internet are now the primary way people express their thoughts and opinions. We have already seen that Apple is willing to censor free speech on the iPhone. Last December, Apple decided to reject an application from Pulitzer prize winning political cartoonist Mark Fiore, because Apple deemed some of his work was not politically correct. Apple relented after it’s decision turned into a PR nightmare, but most publishers do not have enough notoriety to cause that kind of reaction.
I’m not saying that Apple is the corporate equivalent to Hitler or Stalin. However, large companies are very susceptible to pressure from national governments. Imagine if the iPad had been the primary communication platform in Iran during it’s recent election and subsequent protests and oppression. Would people outside of Iran have even heard about it?
Control used for the best of intentions can also be used for the worst of intentions.