Phil Hill has a great analysis of the NYT interview with Richard Levin, the new CEO of Coursera. And core to that analysis is a point I’ve made before — that Ivy League institutions *do* have experience in online education, but they are so committed to covering up their failure in those efforts that they can’t learn from those mistakes. This is in contradistinction to public, tuition-supported efforts where rewriting narratives can only take you so far. After all, most institutions only have so much money you can throw down a hole and light on fire.
Here’s a piece of the NYT conversation cited by Phil:
Q. Yale has not exactly been a mass institution.
A. No, but we were early in the on-line arena, with a venture back in 2000 called All-Learn.
Q. How much did you lose, and why didn’t that spoil this for you?
A. It was too early. Bandwidth wasn’t adequate to support the video. But we gained a lot of experience of how to create courses, and then we used it starting in 2007 to create very high quality videos, now supported by adequate bandwidth in many parts of the world, with the Open Yale courses. We’ve released over 40 of them, and they gained a wide audience.
As Phil points out, bandwidth really wasn’t an issue for the demographic they were looking at with All-Learn.
All-Learn folded in 2006, when broadband was at a meager 20% adoption. Today, it’s different, supposedly. It’s at 28%. Are we to really believe that somewhere in that 8% of the population is the difference between success and failure?
Levin goes on to say they gathered a lot of experience on how to create courses, and cites Open Yale Courses as an example of that. Now the courses at OYC are interesting, and I’ve used portions of the Introductory Psychology course in my own work, as well as the Kelly Brownell course on obesity. But the price tag for those forty courses, as far as I know, was $4 million dollars of Hewlett money. And the videos are basically recordings of class lectures. Four million dollars for forty filmed courses, or, if you prefer, $100,000 a course for video lectures.
Hewlett, of course, didn’t grant Yale that money for *just* 40 courses. As anyone who has ever applied for an OER grant knows, the big question one has to answer is “How will you make this effort sustainable after the money is gone?” Levin and others apparently had an answer for that, and that answer was apparently wrong. And what the reporter is asking now is how Coursera’s sustainability path (which looks at this point to be somewhat similar to both OYC and AllLearn) is different. And the answer Levin gives is “bandwidth”. In other words, the plan was great, it was the world that was imperfect. But this time it will work for sure.
If I was an investor in Coursera and I heard that answer, I’d panic. And if I was a grant manager at Hewlett, I’d cry. It’s not Groundhog Day, it’s worse. It’s Memento, where the lead character is doomed to repeat his past because he cannot come to terms with what he has done.
It’s worth noting that there *are* newer models out there for Open Education which are learning from the past instead of repeating it. At WSU Vancouver, for example, we’re working with Lumen Learning on a math initiative. Lumen has an interesting model, which they refer to as Red Hat for OER (or, allternately, “filling the gap between DIY and WTF“). In this model Lumen iteratively improves and maintains a set of OER for free, and makes money off of consulting with colleges on adoption and integration of that OER into the curriculum.
If you ask its founders David Wiley and Kim Thanos why this time Open Education will be different, they’ll certainly mention that the world has changed since the first open textbooks. We have higher quality books, more printing options, broader adoption of devices to run those books on. And the growth pattern is different. There’s a more or less continuing growth of OER use from the late 90s forward, not the boom and bust of Ivy League Online initiatives.
But I think they’d also be quite happy to tell you how their views of what the OER movement needs have changed over the past years. In fact, here’s David doing just that in a recent blog post:
But, in their own way, each of these efforts [were] underpinned by an “if we build it they will come” philosophy. If we just make the content sufficiently high quality, if we just make it easy enough to find, if we just make it easy enough to remix, faculty will adopt OER in their classrooms. Don’t get me wrong – there are some faculty who have the necessary time, prerequisite skills, and hacker ethic to do it themselves (I would like to believe that I’m one of them). But people with this particular configuration of opportunity, means, and motive are the overwhelming minority of higher education faculty. By the end of 2012 it had become clear that if OER adoption was ever going to happen at any scale, someone needed to get on a plane, go to campus, and train people. So that’s what the Lumen team did in 2012.
If you ask David and Kim what they have learned in the past decade, they are not going to say “bandwidth”. They are going to say something along the lines of “We radically underestimated the amount of time and expertise required to integrate OER into curriculum.” and explain how their recent efforts address that issue.
That’s what’s supposed to happen. That’s how you move forward. That’s what you pay people for – not for the experience they have, but for the knowledge they’ve brought away from that experience. It’s true that Levin brings a wealth of experience to the table. But for the life of me I can’t see what he’s gained from it.
Still working with DokuWiki as an educational platform for faculty here at WSU Vancouver. I’ve found a couple things that are worth mentioning, Thought I’d jot them down here. This post deals with spam prevention.
The idea that Dokuwiki wikis don’t get spammed as much as MediaWiki installs is true, but trivially so. You’ll get more than enough spam to clog up the series of tubes that is your website. You’re going to have to lock down the installation.
I’ve experiemented with a couple approaches to this. Here’s some things you don’t want to do:
- The common “must confirm email” approach is not a long term winner. Plenty of spambots now happily confirm email, get user accounts, and live happily simulated lives on your wiki discussing the latest medical devices and weight-loss drugs available.
- Corralling freshly registered users into a “non-editing” user type is also not a great idea. I registered 8 students in my class during class for a wiki project. They then waited while I fiddled around and bumped up their privileges. It’s hard to imagine that process scaling in an academic setting.
- Similarly, deactivating registration and doing admin panel sign-ups manually is not a pleasant activity either.
- LDAP then? Ugh. An EXCELLENT feature of DokuWiki. But not really a great option in academia for a pilot project. You’d have to coordinate with IT (which will lead to who knows what). Might be something to explore down the road, but not as you’re getting this off the ground.
- Visual post CAPTCHAs? Yes, this is a great way to spark a multi-million dollar ADA/Section 508 lawsuit. Avoid.
So what do you do?
- Set read permissions to “all”. Anyone can read.
- Set edit to whatever your default confirmed registered user is.
- This configuration is that everyone can read, but only registered users can edit.
- Keep the registration link/functionality up.
- Install the Captcha plugin. Under type, chose “question”
- Make sure that registered users *don’t* have to do the CAPTCHA. In this configuration, since all non-registered can do is read, the only place the CAPTCHA will be is on the registration form.
This option will ask the student a plain text question of your choice when they register. If they get it right, registration proceeds. If not, it bumps them back.
Here’s where a bit of discretion comes into play. You can take one of two approaches:
- Make the question a piece of cultural knowledge that students should know — e.g. the name of the dining commons.
- Make the question “Access Code?” and have them supply an access code furnished by you or the prof.
As I went through “cultural knowledge” access codes, I started to realize how fraught that process was. I can maybe talk more about that later. I also realized what I really wanted was a semi-automated process for WSU staff and faculty not available to outsiders. I decided on the access code with a twist.
Here’s how it works. If you mail email@example.com from a WSU email account, an autoresponder will send you back the code. If you mail it from a non-WSU account, you get nothing. I do this through setting up an autoresponder on that Gmail address with the code in it, but routing everything not from @xxxx.wsu.edu directly to deletion.
So there you go, that’s my setup. Maybe in a few days I’ll talk about my depressing struggle with various markdown plugins. Or requests… I’ll take requests too.
Yesterday-ish, from Justin Reich:
I was also somewhat surprised to learn that in many systems, it is actually quite difficult to get a raw dump of all of the data from a student or class. Many systems don’t have an easy “export to .csv file” option that would let teachers or administrators play around on their own. That’s a terrible omission that most systems could fix quickly.
A couple years ago, working on an LMS evaluation, I kept getting asked what reporting features each potential platform had. Can this platform generate type-of-report-X? About 8 years ago, working on a ePortfolio evaluation, the same question came up — where are the reports? Does this have report Y?
I’d always point out that we didn’t want reports, we wanted data exports and data APIs that allowed us to generate our own reports, reports that we could change as we developed new questions and theories, or launched new initiatives in need of tracking. The data solutions we’re likely to see have real impact (with no offense to Reich’s Law of Doing Stuff) are likely to come from grassroots tinkering. Data that is exportable in common formats can be processed with common tools, and solutions built in those common tools can be broadly shared. CSV-based reports developed and adopted by Framingham State can be adopted by Keene State or WSU overnight. A solution one of your physics faculty develops can be quickly applied across all entry level courses.
What you want is not “reports” but sensible, easy, and relatively unfettered access to data. And if you don’t have someone on your campus that can make sense of such data, then you need to either hire that person, or give up on the idea that a canned set of reports are going to help you. When fields are mature, canned and polished reigns. But when they are nascent (as is the field of analytics) hackability is a necessity.
Via Clay Fenlason: “Feeling like the time spent to understand WTF @holden is talking about would be well spent, but who has that kind of time?”
Fair enough. I blog mostly for myself, to try and push on my own ideas in front of a relatively small group of people I know who push back. And part of that process is a bit manic and expansive. At some point that’s followed by a more contractive process that tries to organize and summarize. Maybe it’s time to get to that phase.
So I’ll do that soon. What I’ll say in the meantime is that all of this stuff — hybrid apps, storage-neutral apps, federated wikis, etc — is interesting to me because of my obsession with hacking and reuse. Why is reuse so darn hard? Why don’t we reuse more things? What systems would support a higher degree of reuse and sharing, of hacking and recombination? What are the cultural barriers?
There are implications to this stuff far bigger than that, but reuse (and hacking, which is a type of reuse) has been a core obsession of mine for a decade now, so that ends up being the lens.
You go to an event and there’s 50 people taking pictures of it individually on their cell phones, none of whom will share those photos with one another, yet all of whom would benefit from sharing the load of picture taking. There are psychological and social reasons why that’s the case, but there’s also technological reasons for that. Likewise there are brilliant economics teachers who have built exercises and case studies that would set your class on *fire* if you used them — but you’ll never see them.
I’ve been over the several hundred reasons why reuse doesn’t happen, over a period of ten years, It’s not just about the technology, absolutely. But occasionally I see places where reuse explodes, and the technology turns out to be a pretty big piece of that. My wife is a K-3 art teacher. And Pinterest just exploded reuse in that community. Sharing went from minimal to amazing in the space of 12 months. And suddenly she was putting together a much better art curriculum than she could have ever dreamed of in half the time, in ways that had a huge impact on her students.
So — reuse, sharing, networked learning, hacking. I’m interested in the two sides of this: first, we must teach students how to work this way. We have to. And two, we have to get our colleagues to work this way.
What does that have to do with the shift to hybrid apps? With moving from a world of reference to a world of copies and forks? With storage-neutral designs? With the pull request culture of GitHub vs. the single copy culture of OER? With the move back to file-based publication systems? I’m still trying to work that out. But I think the answer is “a lot”, and a post is coming soon.
File-based sharing based around pushing copies of good stuff to others. That’s what the federated wiki is about.
For that reason I find newer efforts like this that push files around instead of references to be fascinating. This out today from Dropbox, a new product called Carousel:
Photos of events such as graduations and weddings, Houston points out, are spread over the devices and hard drives of multiple guests. It creates pervasive photo anxiety: People are no longer sure they own the best images of the most important moments in their lives. The app, which becomes available this week for iPhones and Android phones—with a version coming soon for desktops—taps into photos stored on Dropbox and allows users to cycle through them quickly and send images to friends and family, so they can add them to their collections well.
Think about how this changes notions of sharing, and you’ll see it as part of a move towards file-based copy systems, and the pull request approach of a GitHub.
Also, read that paragraph again, and tell me if that doesn’t look similar to the educational materials situation we face everyday.
OK, now imagine your wiki exists in a Dropbox account, and you do the same thing — you flip though all your articles and forward the ones that you think are useful to your various federations. Those get dropped into other people’s own dropbox wikis, and the virtuous cycle continues.
It’s a different way of thinking about things. It’s file based, and it sees copies of things as a feature, not a bug. The storage for your project is not seperate from the sharing features of your project. We let the copies happen and we sort out the mess afterwards.
My argument is not that Dropbox rules, but that this is part of a larger trend that rethinks how sharing and forking works on the new web. It’s also a potentially a powerful rethinking of how OER could propagate through a system.
Tim Owens pointed me to this excellent piece by John Gruber. Gruber has been portrayed in the past as a bit too in the Apple camp; but I don’t think anyone denies he’s one of the sharper commentators out there on the direction of the Web. He’s also the inventor of Markdown, the world’s best microformat, so massive cred there as well.
I think Dixon has it all wrong. We shouldn’t think of the “web” as only what renders inside a web browser. The web is HTTP, and the open Internet. What exactly are people doing with these mobile apps? Largely, using the same services, which, on the desktop, they use in a web browser. Plus, on mobile, the difference between “apps” and “the web” is easily conflated. When I’m using Tweetbot, for example, much of my time in the app is spent reading web pages rendered in a web browser. Surely that’s true of mobile Facebook users, as well. What should that count as, “app” or “web”?
I publish a website, but tens of thousands of my most loyal readers consume it using RSS apps. What should they count as, “app” or “web”?
I say: who cares? It’s all the web.
I firmly believe this is true. But why does it matter to us in edtech?
- Edtech producers have to get out of browser-centrism. Right now, mobile apps are often dumbed-down version of a more functional web interface. But the mobile revolution isn’t about mobile, it’s about hybrid apps and the push of identity/lifestream management up to the OS. As hybrid apps become the norm on more powerful machines we should expect to start seeing the web version becomeing the fall-back version. This is already the case with desktop Twitter clients, for example — you can do much more with Tweetdeck than you can with the Twitter web client — because once you’re freed from the restrictions of running everything through the same HTML-based, cookie-stated, security-constrained client you can actually produce really functional interfaces and plug into the affordances of the local system. I expect people will still launch many products to the web, but hybrid on the desktop will become a first class citizen.
- It’s not about DIY, it’s about hackable worldware. You do everything yourself to some extent. If you don’t build the engine, you still drive the car. If you don’t drive the car, you still choose the route. DIY is a never-ending rabbit-hole as a goal in itself. The question for me is not DIY, but the old question of educational software vs. worldware. Part of what we are doing is giving students strategies they can use to tackle problems they encounter (think Jon Udell’s “Strategies for Internet citizens“). What this means in practice is that they must learn to use common non-educational software to solve problems. In 1995, that worldware was desktop software. In 2006, that worldware was browser-based apps. In 2014, it’s increasingly hybrid apps. If we are commited to worldware as a vision, we have to engage with the new environment. Are some of these strategies durable across time and technologies? Absolutely. But if we believe that, then surely we can translate our ideals to the new paradigm.
- Open is in danger of being left behind. Open education mastered the textbook just as the battle moved into the realm of interactive web-based practice. I see the same thing potentially happening here, as we build a complete and open replacement to an environment no one uses anymore.
OK, so what can we do? The first thing is to get over the religion of the browser. It’s the king of web apps, absolutely. But it’s no more pure or less pure an approach than anything else.
The second thing we can do is experiment with hackable hybrid processes. One of the fascinating things to me about file based publishing systems is how they can plug into an ecosystem that involves locally run software. I don’t know where experimentation with that will lead, but it seems to me a profitable way to look at hybrid approaches without necessarily writing code for Android or iOS.
Finally, we need to hack apps. Maybe that means chaining stuff up with IFTTT. Maybe it means actually coding them. But if we truly want to “interrogate the technologies” that guide our daily life, you can’t do that and exclude the technologies that people use most frequently in 2014. The bar for some educational technologists in 2008 was coding up templates and stringing together server-side extensions. That’s still important, but we need to be doing equivalent things with hybrid apps. This is the nature of technology — the target moves.
ONE IMPORTANT NOTE: I’m just toying with this idea, not asserting it at this point. But part of me is very interested in what happens when we view the rise of the app as not a betrayal of the original vision of the web, but as a potential return to it. I don’t see many people pushing that idea, so it seems worth pushing. That’s how I roll. ;)
Apropos of both an earlier post of mine and Jim’s Internet Course. This is a screenshot of the first web browser (red annotations added by me):
The first web browser was a storage-neutral editing app. If you pointed it at files you had permission to edit, you could edit them. If you pointed it at files you had permission to read, you could read them. But the server in these days awas a Big Dumb Object which passed your files to a client-side application without any role in interpreting them.
I never used the Berners-Lee browser, but even in the mid-90s when I was hacking my first sites together Netscape had a rudimentary editor (I was using something called HoTMeTaL at the time, but stilll):
This is still the case with many HTML files a browser handles, but what’s notable here is that in those days a browser sort of worked much like what a storage neutral app would today. When I talk about having the editing functions of a markdown-wiki client-side in an app, we’re essentially returning to this model.
And think about that for a minute. Imagine what that wiki would be like — you tool around your wiki in your browser editing these Markdown files directly. When someone hits your site in their browser, it lets them know that they should install the Markdown extension, or download the Markdown app to view these things. Grabbing a file is just grabbing a file.
So what happened to this original vision? So many things, and I only saw my little corner of the world, so I’m biased.
- Publishers: The first issue hit when the publishers moved in. They wanted sites to look like magazines. This accelerated a browser extension war and pushed website design to people slicing up sites in Adobe and Macromedia tools.
- Databases + Template-based Design: As layouts got more complex, you wanted to be able to swap out designs and have the content just drop in; so we started putting pages in database tables that required server interpretation (this is how WordPress, Drupal, or alomost any CMS works for example).
- Browser incompataibility, platform differences: People didn’t update browsers for years, which meant we had to serve version and platform specific HTML to browsers. This pushed us further into storing page contents in databases.
- E-commerce. You were going to have a database anyway to take orders, so why not generate pages?
- Viruses and Spyware. Early on, you used to download a number of viewer extensions. But lack of a real store to vet these items led to lots of super nasty browser helper objects and extensions, and the fact that you used your browser for e-commerce as well as looking at Pixies fan sites made hijacking your browser a profitable business.
In addition, there was this whole vision of the web as middleware that would pave the way to a thin-client future free from platform incompatibilities. Companies like Sun were particularly hot to trot on this, since it would make the PC/Mac market less of an issue to them. Scott McNealy of Sun started talking about “Sun Rays” and saying McLuhanesque things like “The Network is the Computer“.
In the corporate environment, thin clients are wired to company servers.
In your home, McNealy envisions Sun Rays replacing PCs.
“There’s no more client software required in the world,” he said. “There’s no need for [Microsoft] Windows.”
Sun Rays fizzled, but the general dynamic acclerated. And part of me wonders is it accelerated for the same reasons that Sun embraced it. In a thin client world, the people who own the servers make the rules. That’s good — for the people who own the servers.
This is really just a stream of conciousness post, but really consider that for a moment. In the first version of the web you downloaded a standard message format with your email client, and web pages were pages that could live anywhere (storage-neutral) and be interpreted by a multitude of software (app-neutral). In version two, your mail becomes Gmail, and your pages get locked into whatever code is pulling them from your 10 table database. And yes — your blogging engine becomes WordPress.
OF COURSE there were other reasons, good reasons, why this happened. But it’s amazing to me how much of the software I use on a daily basis (email, wikis, blogs, twitter) would lose almost nothing if it went storage neutral — besides lock-in. And such formats might actually be *more* hackable, not less.
It’s also interesting to see how much other elements of the ecosystem have solved the problems that led us to abandon the initial vision. Apps auto-update now. The HTML spec has stabilized somewhat, and browsers are more capable. The presence of stores for extensions gets rid of the “should I install random extension from unknown site” problem — people install and uninstall apps constantly. Server power is now such that most database-like features can be accomplished in a file-based system — Dokuwiki is file based, but can generate RSS when needed and respond to API calls. And, interestingly, we are finally returning to a design minimalism that reduces the need for pixel-based tweaking.
In any case, this post is a bit of a thought experiment, and I retain the right to walk away from anything I say in it. But what if we imagined the rise of apps as a POTENTIAL RETURN to the roots of the web, a slightly thicker, more directly purposed client that did interpretation on the client-side of the equation? Whether that interpretation is data API calls or loading text files?
I know that’s not where we are being driven, but it seems to me it’s a place that we could go. And it’s a narrative that is more invigorating to me than the “Loss of Eden” narrative that often hear about such things. Just a thought.
Due to a moving-related injury I was sadly unable to attend ET4Online this year. Luckily my two co-presenters for the “Teaching the Distributed Flip” presentation carried the torch forward, showing what recent research and experiementation has found regarding how MOOCs are used in blended scenarios.
Here are the slides, which actually capture some interesting stuff (as opposed to my often abstract slides — Jim Groom can insert “Scottish Twee Diagram” joke here):
One of the things I was thinking as we put together these slides is how little true discussion there has been on this subject over the past year and a half. Amy and I came into contact with the University System of Maryland flip project via the MOOC Research Initiative conference last December, and we quickly found that we were finding the same unreported opportunities and barriers they were in their work. In our work, you could possibly say the lack of coverage was due to the scattered nature of the projects (it’d be a lousy argument, but you could say it). But the Maryland project is huge. It’s much larger and better focused than the Udacity/SJSU experiment. Yet, as far as I can tell, it’s crickets from the industry press, and disinterest from much of the research community.
So what the heck is going on here? Why aren’t we seeing more coverage of these experiments, more sharing of these results? The findings are fascinating to me. Again and again we find that the use of these resources energizes the faculty. Certainly, there’s a self-selection bias here. But given how crushing experimenting with a flipped model can be without adequate resources, the ability of such resources to spur innovation is nontrivial. Again and again we also find that local modification is *crucial* to the success of these efforts, and that lack of access to flip-focussed affordances works against potential impact and adoption.
Some folks in the industry get this — the fact the the MRI conference and the ET4Online conference invited presentations on this issue shows the commitment of certain folks to exploring this area. But the rest of the world seems to have lost interest when Thrun discovered you couldn’t teach students at a marginal cost of zero. And the remaining entities seem really reluctant to seriously engage with these known issues of local use amd modification. The idea that there is some tension between the local and the global is seen as a temporary issue rather than an ongoing design concern.
In any case, despite my absence I’m super happy to have brought two leaders in this area — Amy Collier at Stanford Online and MJ Bishop at USMD — together. And I’m not going to despair over missing this session too much, because if there is any sense in this industry at all this will soon be one of many such events. Thrun walked off with the available oxygen in the room quite some time ago. It’s time to re-engage with the people who were here before, are here after, and have been uncovering some really useful stuff. Could we do that? Could we do that soon? Or do we need to make absurd statements about a ten university world to get a bit of attention?
It’s a classic seperation of concerns (SoC) solution:
The unhosted web apps we use can be independent of our personal server. They can come from any trusted source, and can be running in our browser without the need to choose a specific application at the time of choosing and installing the personal server software.
When you dig into it, you start to see how radical an idea storage-neutrality is. Our assumption that because we need 24/7 access to our data via servers we also need to run server code is so deeply ingrained in the public consciousness that when you challenge it people don’t tend to comprehend what you’re challenging. But it’s this idea — that because our data is on Server X our code must be as well — that is at the heart of the corporate control of what Jon Udell calls our “hosted lifebits“. And if you want the sorts of freedoms people care about, that’s the piece you have to attack.
This is not a “compromise solution”. It’s a much more radical rethinking of what needs so happen. The future is server-backed/client-based apps, one way or another. That can serve to increase our freedom or to lessen it, depending on how we approach the next several years. I don’t really know what the correct answers are, but it seems to me this is the right fight.
Jim’s got a great summary of the larger idea behind UMW Domains (written by Ryan Brazell) up on his site. The core idea — personal cyberinfrastructure — is one I buy into, but at the same time the current mechanisms for it (cPanel, personal servers, and the like) seem clunky and not poised for greater adoption (although I watch the Thali project with interest).
Rather, the route to personal cyberinfrastructure is likely to run through storage-neutral apps. Briefly, the way most apps work now is that there is a program on your tablet/desktop/phone that is owned by Company A, and then there is often a certain about of web storage used by that used by that app, also owned by Company A. There’s a certain amount of web-based processing, also done on servers owned by Compnay A. This is somewhat different than the PC model, where Adobe sold you software but you owned the disk that held all your image creations, Microsoft sold you MS Word but your computer ran it, etc.
The cPanel-as-infrastructure response to that is to move to an all-web-app where you own the server. Some of the apps have mobile extensions to them, but by and large you avoid the lock-in of both modern web apps (Google Docs, Dropbox, Tumblr) and modern apps by going to open, HTML-based web apps.
This works, but it seems to me an intermediate step. You get the freedoms you want, but the freedoms you care about are actually a pain in the ass to exercise. Klint Finley, in a post on what a new open software movement might look like, nicely summarizes the freedoms people actually want from most applications (as opposed to content):
- Freedom to run software that I’ve paid for on any device I want without hardware dongles or persistent online verification schemes.
- Freedom from the prying eyes of government and corporations.
- Freedom to move my data from one application to another.
- Freedom to move an application from one hosting provider to another.
- Freedom from contracts that lock me in to expensive monthly or annual plans.
- Freedom from terms and conditions that offer a binary “my way or the highway” decision.
You get all those freedoms from the web-app personal cyber infrastructure, but you get them because you do all the work yourself. Additionally, your average user does not care about some of the hard-won freedoms baked into things like WordPress — the ability to hack the code (we care about that very much, but the average person does not). They really just want to use it without being locked forever into a provider to keep their legacy content up.
What I think people want (and what they are not provided) is a means to buy software where others do all this work for you, but you hold on to these freedoms. And assuming we live in a market that tries to match people with products they want (big assumption) the way that will come about is storage neutral net-enabled apps. I’ll own virtual server space and cycles somewhere (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Squarespace, wherever). I’ll buy apps. But instead of installing software and data on the app-provider’s server, they’ll install to my stack on the web. And because they’ll encrypt that data, the company that runs my server won’t be able to see it either. My subscription to Adobe or Word will operate much like older subscriptions. Subscription will get me updates, but at any given point I stop paying Adobe I can still run my web app on my server in the state it was in when I stopped paying them.
Why is this more possible than the open web app model? None of the major providers have much incentive to go this route. Subscriptions are a lucrative business with undreamed of lock-in potential. I would say there are two reasons. First, companies with a virtual server platform (Microsoft, Google, Amazon) have some incentive to promote this model. Even Apple has a chance here to pair its app store with virtual server space. Second, and more importantly, such a scheme would be a huge boon to small developers and hackers. Knowing that they don’t have to scale up server architecture to sell server-powered apps frees them to focus on the software instead of scalability, the way that API-rich operating systems allowed previous generations of developers to focus on their own core product. And as this broadens out to where everyone’s phone has a slice of supercomputer attached to it, some really neat things become possible: truly federated wikis where pages are spread across multiple personal sites, music software that can write down effect-laden tracks in near real-time using rented processor time, music library apps written in 200 lines of code. That’s the larger win, and that’s where we want to be heading, the place where practical user freedoms and developer capabilities meet.