Tag: Who Owns the Future?

Vivek Kaul
A friend of mine had a rather unique problem sometime back. His daughter’s class teacher had started putting their daily homework online on a Facebook page. She wanted the parents to follow that page, so that they knew what was happening in the class.
“So what is the problem?” I asked him.
“I don’t have a Facebook account,” my friend replied.
“So open one,” I suggested.
And this is when things got really interesting.
“I don’t like the voyeurism that comes with Facebook,” he said, trying to give me a reason for his reluctance to open a Facebook account.
“Voyeurism?”
“Yeah. Like you may get to see the honeymoon pictures of a couple holidaying in Goa. The irony of course is that you had not been invited for their wedding.”
“Come on, you are nitpicking here,” I tried to protest.
“No I am serious. Think about the digital footprint that you are leaving out there. And that is something that makes me uncomfortable. What if someone tags some old pictures of mine from my engineering days, where I am looking drunk or maybe even stoned? You may tell me you can always remove the tag. Yes, but it is not always possible to keep track. And given this, how will I tell my daughter in the years to come that smoking pot and excess drinking are not good for health. Also, what I write will stay there forever. Have you ever thought about these things?”
I guess my friend had a point. In fact, my mind went back to a conversation I had had with Ferdinando Pennarolla, an associate professor at the department of management and technology, Bocconi University in Milan, Italy, a few years back. Pennarola had made several interesting points during the course of our conversation about our digital lives.
“The consumers are not asking themselves to what extent their digital lives are there forever. When you write something on the internet it is written on the stone. It is forever. It is very difficult to erase things on the internet. Once you get Googlised it is very difficult to cancel or erase your news. There are many stories where people cannot erase their contribution to things like community groups and forums,” he had said.
Also, as we spend more and more of our lives on the internet the question of what happens to our digital lives after we die, comes into the picture well. We spend a lot of our time these days reading emails on Gmail, making friends and posting pictures on Facebook and telling the world at large what we think about it, in less than 140 characters, on Twitter.
Other than this we have subscribed to newsletters, articles from various websites, blogs and so on. We also have multiple logins and passwords that we have created on various e-commerce websites. What happens to all this when we are no longer around?
Or as Pennarola put it “Who will have access to all of this? Will these accounts just be cancelled because they will remain unutilised? Will the vendors still keep on bombarding our mailboxes with news and advertising? I think there is a need of an integrated service that in the future will take care of all our digital and networked life, and pass it to our loves, according to our will.”
For people like me, who primarily write for websites, there is also the question of who gets the copyright for all the writing that has been published and will continue to be published digitally. That is one part of the problem that most of us are not thinking about.
A few days after meeting my friend I happened to start reading a rather fascinating book called Who Owns the Future? written by a philosopher and computer scientist called Jaron Lanier. In this book Lanier raises many other fascinating questions regarding our digital lives that do not have easy answers.
Take the case of Gmail, Facebook and Twitter. A large portion of people who use email these days use Gmail. When it comes to social networking, Facebook happens to be the number one preference. When was the last time you logged onto Orkut? And do you even remember Bigadda?
As far as micro-blogging goes, have you even ever heard the name of any other website other than Twitter?
By concentrating our digital lives around a few companies, we are working with the assumption that they will stay around forever. But for anyone who understands a little bit about technology companies, knows that has never been the case.
“It’s sad to say, but all young things change over time. The prototypical great Silicon Valley company Hewlett-Packard, which inspired all the rest to come, encountered in the not-too-distant past a period of now only crummy management, but weird, tawdry scandals, board intrigues, and demoralization. Chances are that some of today’s bright young companies will go through similar periods someday. It could happen to Facebook or Twitter,” writes Lanier.
Lanier then discusses the case of Facebook in some detail. As he writes “Suppose Facebook never gets good enough at snatching the ‘advertising’ business from Google. That’s still a possibility as I write this. In that event, Facebook could go into decline, which would present a global emergency…If Facebook starts to fail commercially, suddenly people all over the world would be at the risk of losing old friends and family ties, or perhaps critical medical histories.”
The same argument stands true for Gmail as well. For most of us it is a repository of a large amount of information, communication and documentation, that we need to keep going back to time and again.
In that sense, these websites are becoming more like electric utilities as every day goes by. Something that we really cannot do without. As Lanier puts it “It’s a piece of infrastructure people need, and when people need something they eventually ask the government to make sure they have it. That’s why government ended up in the middle of water, electricity, roads, and the like.”
These are things that no one has really thought about, which is clearly worrying. As Lanier concludes “The death of Facebook must be an option if it is to be a company at all. Therefore your online identity should not be fundamentally grounded in Facebook or something similar.”
This article originally appeared in the Wealth Insight magazine dated Feb, 2014
(Vivek Kaul is the author of Easy Money. He can be reached at [email protected])

Vivek Kaul
In 1996, Kodak was ranked as the fourth most valuable brand in the world by Interbrand. In January 2012, it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. A major reason for its fall was the inability of the company to go ‘digital’ fast enough.
Ironically it was an engineer at Kodak who invented digital photography. As Mark Johnson writes in Seizing the White Space – Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal“In 1975, Kodak engineer, Steve Sasson invented the first camera, which captured low-resolution black-and-white images and transferred them to a TV. Perhaps fatally, he dubbed it “filmless photography” when he demonstrated the device for various leaders at the company.”
Sasson’s new product was shown to the top bosses at Kodak. He was told “that’s cute – but don’t tell anyone about it.” The reason for the reluctance of the top brass to what would become digital photography was very simple. Kodak at that point of time was the world’s largest producer of photo film. And any camera that did not use photo-film was obviously going to be detrimental to the interests of the company.
So ‘Kodak’ missed the digital revolution despite having invented the digital camera. As marketing guru Al Ries wrote in January 2012 column, just after Kodak went bankrupt “In 1986, Kodak announced the development of the world’s first megapixel digital sensor small enough for a handheld camera, one that had 1.4 million pixels. In 1994, Kodak introduced the first digital camera under $1,000. Between 1985 and 1994, Kodak invested some $5 billion into digital research & development. As a result of its massive investments, Kodak holds more than a thousand patents related to digital photography. Kodak recently received, in patent-suit settlements, $550 million from Samsung and more than $400 million from LG Electronics.”
Despite being a pioneer in digital photography, the focus at Kodak was always on trying to sell ‘more’ photo-films. And that finally led to bankruptcy in the end.
The new face of digital photography is Instagram, a company which was bought by Facebook in 2012 for a billion dollars. Computer scientist and philosopher Jaron Lanier makes a very interesting point comparing Kodak and Instagram in his new book Who Owns the Future?
As he writes “Kodak employed more than 140,000 people and was worth $28 billion. They even invented the digital camera. But today Kodak is bankrupt. And the new face of digital photography has become Instagram. When it was sold to Facebook for a billion dollars in 2012, Instagram employed only thirteen people. Where did all those jobs disappear to? And what happened to all the wealth that those middle-class jobs created?”
So what makes Instagram so valuable, asks Lanier? “Instagram isn’t worth a billion dollars just because those thirteen employees are extraordinary. Instead, its value comes from the millions of users who contribute to their network without being paid for it. Networks need a great number of people to participate in them to generate significant value. But when they do, only a small number of people get paid. That has the net effect of centralizing wealth and limiting overall economic growth.”
And this is true not only for Instagram. Take the case of Google. It might be a great search engine but ultimately it’s the people (and not its employees) who are generating the content that Google helps throw up. What would Facebook be without the ‘time’ that people choose to spend on it? The same stands true for Twitter as well.
It is people like you and me who make these networks so valuable. As Lanier writes “An amazing number of people offer an amazing amount of value over networks. But the lion’s share of wealth now flows to those who aggregate and route those offerings, rather those who provide the ‘raw materials’…We want free online experiences so badly that we are happy to not be paid for information that comes from us now or never. That sensibility also implies that the more dominant information becomes in our economy, the less most of us will be worth.”
This concentration of wealth is one of the negative effects of the digital revolution. “The clamour for online attention only turns into money for a token minority of people, but there is another new, tiny class of people who always benefit. Those who keep the new ledgers, the giant computing devices that model you, spy on you, and predict your actions, turn your life activities into the greatest fortunes in history. Those are concrete fortunes made of money,” writes Lanier.
All that I have discussed till now stands true for music industry as well. It used to be a big industry until things started to go digital. “At one time, a factory stamped out musical discs and trucks delivered them to retail stores where salespeople sold them…There used to be a substantial middle class population supported by the recording industry, but no more. The principal beneficiaries of the digital music business are the operators of network services that mostly give away music in exchange for gathering data to improve those dossiers and software models of each person,” writes Lanier.
If all this wasn’t enough, the Moore’s law is still at work leading to negative consequences. As Lanier points out “The law states that chips get better at an accelerating rate…The technology seems to always get twice as good every two years or so…This means that after forty years of improvements, microprocessors have become millions of times better…As information technology becomes millions of times more powerful, any particular use of it becomes correspondingly cheaper…Moore’s law means that more things can be done practically for free, if only if weren’t for those people who want to be paid. People are the flies in the Moore’s law ointment. When machines get incredibly cheap to run, people seem correspondingly expensive.”
Lanier gives the example of printing presses and newspapers. “It used to be that printing presses were expensive, so paying newspaper reporters seemed like a natural expense to fill the pages. When the news became free, that anyone would want to be paid at all started to seem unreasonable. Moore’s Law can make salaries – and social safety nets – seem like unjustifiable luxuries,” writes Lanier.
The internet essentially destroys jobs, even though it ‘seems’ to make things more efficient.

The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on August 10,2013
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)