Re: The Web may be the last bastion of software freedom

On 11/17/2013 5:00 PM, Duncan Bayne wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com/theyre-killing-the-pc-7000023265/
>
> "Here's what I see happening: Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft all
> want us to buy appliances, not PCs. An appliance is a closed box. It can
> only run the operating system they stick you with. It will only run the
> applications they approve for it. Apple and Microsoft are particularly
> strict about this.
>
> A corollary to this is that you must buy a new appliance every few years
> because the company will only support it that long. For example, you
> simply can't upgrade to the latest applications or operating system on
> older Apple or Android tablets and smartphones. With a PC, you could
> upgrade it, baby it, and run the newest programs and operating system
> for up to a decade. That isn't even an option with appliances."
>
> In a decade, the web might be the only practical way to write and
> 'distribute' software.  That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing
> (although I wouldn't have picked Javascript as the language of the
> Singularity if I'd a choice in the matter).
>
> But what it does mean is that we have a great responsibility to build
> the best Web that we can.  That *should* involve rejecting as a standard
> any technology that is not compatible with the Open Web as currently
> defined by the W3C.

I agree that a primary battleground is the competition between closed 
boxes and the open Web.

The reason that content protection is in scope for W3C is that we cannot 
compete if we don't have a framework to accept protected content.  We 
would like to find a way to do that which is consistent with open web 
principles.  That's the reason that we have rejected anything 
proprietary or patent encumbered from the Open Web Platform.

Brendan Eich's recent blog posting also points to ways to bridge that 
tension.

https://brendaneich.com/2013/10/the-bridge-of-khazad-drm/

>
> (It *should* also involve giving access to their own data in
> interop-friendly formats, or allowing users to use their own data
> storage.  But that's another battle altogether.)
>

Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 06:52:21 UTC