Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Oct 2012 23:09 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 540002
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Wholeheartedly agreed, especially this par:
There's no doubt in my mind that curated computing is not done for the benefit of the curated, but for the benefit of the curators.
I also think "curated computing" should be a cause for alarm because the biggest players (Apple, Google, Microsoft) all have aspirations to be part of "big media". I see them as the equivalent of social climbers trying to marry their way into big media, with their "dowries" being promises to lock down/restrict anything that could be a threat to big media interests.
And longer-term, I think it will have a stifling effect on technological innovation. In the history of computers, many advances (arguably the most important ones) were the direct result of someone taking an existing technology, and finding a clever way to misuse it. But if curated computing becomes the norm, that will become impossible (or at least much more difficult).