I just want to share a little piece of this provocation, but would like to know how compelling it sounds? I’ve been sitting on it for a while and starting to think its probably not earning that much space in words. The overarching point is that anyone who complains about constraints imposed on them as being constraints in general either isn’t making something purposeful enough to concretely challenge the constraints or isn’t actually designing because they haven’t done the hard work of understanding the constraints between them and their purpose. Anyway, this is a snippet from a longer piece which leads to a point that the scumbags didn’t take over, but instead the environment evolved to create the perfect habitat for scumbags who want to make money from providing as little value as possible:
The constraints of taking up space
Software was once sold on physical media packaged in boxes that were displayed with price tags on shelves alongside competing products in brick and mortar stores.
Limited shelf space stifled software makers into making products innovative enough to earn that shelf space.
The box that packaged the product stifled software makers into having a concrete purpose for their product which would compel more interest than the boxes beside it.
The price tag stifled software makers into ensuring that the product does everything it says on the box.
The installation media stifled software makers into making sure their product was complete and would function.
The need to install that software, completely, on the buyer’s computer stifled the software makers further into delivering on the promises of their product.
The pre-broadband era stifled software makers into ensuring that any updates justified the time and effort it would take to get the bits down the pipe.
But then…
Connectivity speeds increased, and always-on broadband connectivity became widespread. Boxes and installation media were replaced by online purchases and software downloads.
Automatic updates reduced the importance of version numbers. Major releases which marked a haul of improvements significant enough to consider it a new product became less significant. The concept of completeness in software was being replaced by iterative improvements. A constant state of becoming.
The Web matured with advancements in CSS and Javascript. Web sites made way for Web apps. Installation via downloads was replaced by Software-as-a-service. It’s all on a web server, not taking up any space on your computer’s internal storage.
Software as a service instead of a product replaced the up-front price tag with the subscription model.
…and here we are. All of the aspects of software products that take up space, whether that be in a store, in your home, on your hard disk, or in your bank account, are gone.
When I read your intro it reminded me of my reflexive response when companies complain about how it’s impossible to operate profitably under some safety or privacy regulation: gee, that sounds like a great opportunity for someone to innovate.
As for the piece itself, I think the point is salient and interesting, but I think the manifesto style makes it feel more strongly asserted than persuasively argued. That’s not a bad thing, and makes for a very strong picture, but leaves me without a lot of commentary other than “oh that’s a really interesting way of framing the problem”. Leaves me interested in reading the full piece tbh
Wow, so glad you came to this because it’s bang on with the main idea of “what is innovation if it’s not a response to adversity?”
And thank you for what you say about the manifesto vs persuasion style. I wonder how much of these details need to be spelled out or if it can be a more concise lead that lets the reader fill in the gaps about how much delivery of software has changed to reduce that demand for substantive purpose in the product.
I hope I can bring it all together soon. I’m currently researching domestic cockroach infestations to talk about “taking over” vs “being invited by the environment”