I recently came across the article “Why We Can’t Have Nice Software” by Andrew Kelley; this is a very critical view of the world of software and technological innovation, but it seems, in my opinion, too superficial, focusing exclusively on the perspective of the consumer or developer. Some of the criticisms are certainly valid, but they lack a deeper understanding of the many variables that influence business decisions in technology development.
Before proceeding, it is essential to read their article. Regardless of the points, which are valid to me, that it raises, it offers a good starting point for broader reflection, as this article proposes.
I would also like to point out that my article is not intended to be a criticism of Kelley’s article, I aim to bring more variables to be able to address the discussion from a broader point of view.
Redistribution of Automation Profits
The first point in Kelley’s article concerns the distribution of wealth generated by software and the control exercised by businesses. Of course, once created, software can continue to generate value with minimal marginal costs, potentially distributing a large amount of wealth, if we want to limit ourselves to the thought that software is limited to its development only.
It should be considered, however, that keeping software operational and secure is not a free process and requires ongoing resources; it is necessary to correct vulnerabilities that emerge, improve performance, and manage the integration of new technologies needed to optimize its operation by providing more robust structures and performing maintenance of the involved infrastructures. This ongoing maintenance is often invisible to the end user, but it is critical to ensuring that software remains useful and secure over time.
The issue of wealth redistribution is a very serious and sensitive topic that requires closer analysis and has been discussed since the time of the Industrial Revolution. I will therefore avoid delving into this issue as I am already writing a text on the subject that aims to analyze the topic in detail. Given the size of the study, over 30 pages, I prefer to leave it out of the current topic.
Is DRM just a Privatization of Content?
Another point is the use of technologies such as DRM (Digital Rights Management) and the limitations imposed on users, here it is important to consider the legal and business reasons behind the choices.
These systems are not intended to restrict users, but to protect intellectual property. In a complex legal environment, companies must comply with copyright laws and protect their content from piracy, while ensuring that artists and creators receive fair compensation for their work. These systems of protection may seem restrictive, especially to groups of people who over the years have supported propaganda based on terms that are more, excuse me, anarchic than objective. While there is no doubt that the user recognizes a limitation, it is crucial to ensure that their rights are respected when acting as an author of the content, whether actors, singers, writers or any other content creator. We cannot see this as privatizing a system but as protecting it.
Cause of Bitrot or Planned Obsolescence
One of the article’s harshest and most superficial criticisms is the inefficiency of modern software, citing examples such as Windows updates that introduce advertisements and user interface changes, arguing that Microsoft, like other companies, exploits these graphical updates to motivate the release of a new version of the software.
While it is understandable to think that this looks like the sole motivation for this operation, it is useful to remember that many of these decisions are driven by the need to respond to the needs of a changing market. Changes to the interface may seem unnecessary, but they are often the result of extensive studies of usability and user preferences. In the same way that we see programming as a broad and complex world with thousands of variables and considerations, the study of user experience is an equally broad and complex world that touches on studies as far as psychology, studies that are essential to meeting user needs in a world of changing needs.
The practice of introducing advertising is perhaps the least debatable point in the article, buying a product to find yourself with advertisements scattered throughout the product itself is frustrating, but even here we can ask some questions, even without necessarily wanting to find a satisfactory motivation behind this scenario. A company cannot be traced back to a simple development and design team; there are complex political and economic structures, contractual constraints, and collaborations with partners that could lead to such choices. Certainly, it is not sustainable for the user to be in these situations, but a broader view of the situation can at least lead to being more aware, even without necessarily excusing such actions.
The concept of “bitrot” or, if you will, Planned Obsolescence, is discussed as a problem of progress, with upgrades and new hardware making existing software obsolete. This phenomenon is not exclusively negative. Updating dependencies and adopting new technologies are often necessary to improve software efficiency; ignoring them would expose users to security risks and limit software capabilities. Very often it seems to us that we are only dealing with a “recolored” version of the same product, but, even if I hate to repeat myself, if we stop for a moment and analyze multiple factors, we can see how, in most cases, or optimistically always, these lead to new technologies, tangible improvements, consolidation of features and infrastructures, and all the operations that require research, development, and thus manpower that, objectively, has a cost.
The real problem behind this obsolescence is the environmental impact, here we could simplify and close a chapter by pointing the finger at these companies, seeing them as the antagonists to environmental damage. They are the bad guys polluting with all these new devices! However, if we want to introduce more variables, we understand that this is not necessarily the case. Many companies recognize that they cannot cope with a change of direction, some do not diversify enough to be able to afford not to produce new devices, it would affect too many variables, such as the employment of their workers, the response of a changing market, legal agreements, and endless other variables. We do not necessarily see the company and the consumer as two separate entities, the perception of the environmental problem is an identified problem on both sides, which is why companies are moving to increasingly eco-sustainable production systems.
This could open another big chapter on how consumers perceive these solutions. One could point the finger at companies because they maintain the same prices even when using recycled materials, but again when we consider more variables, a much more complex reality emerges. The process of environmentally sustainable production requires substantial investment. It is not just a matter of changing the source from which a resource comes, but of adapting production lines to handle it, sometimes having to redesign parts of the product itself. Then let’s not forget the political aspect, companies have to comply with regulations and standards that can vary from country to country, further increasing the cost and complexity of the process.
Resistance to Standards
The article also mentions companies’ opposition to technology standards, although it may seem that they oppose standards to maintain control of the market, and to some extent, this is likely to be the case, it is important to recognize that there are significant risks and costs involved in adopting new standards, especially by companies whose products are adopted by a large portion of users. Companies must carefully consider when and how to adopt new standards to ensure the compatibility and stability of their products. For example, transitioning to a new connectivity standard may require costly and complex hardware upgrades, a reassessment of long-term plans, and multiple factors that vary from reality to reality and are positioned not only on a practical but also, often, political level.
Blockchain and Machine Learning
Kelley rightly points to the perceived inefficiency of emerging technologies such as blockchain and machine learning models. There is no denying that these technologies require significant resources, but they also offer unprecedented opportunities for innovation. Blockchain, for example, can improve the transparency and security of digital transactions, while machine learning models can transform entire industries, from healthcare to finance, as well as reduce the burden on workers. Initial inefficiency is often a necessary cost of exploring and developing new technological capabilities.
Before the Industrial Revolution, the spinning process was an entirely manual operation. It was only after the introduction of mechanical looms that the process was optimized, and the continuous evolution of these machines has led to continuous improvements in both labor reduction and environmental impact. Take companies such as OpenAI as an example: their recent GPT-4-o model is a remarkable achievement that brings not only technological improvements but also reductions in consumption, highlighting significant advances in both technology and environmental sustainability.
Criticizing technological innovation without considering the broader context and challenges that companies face leads to a limited and simplistic view. It is essential to recognize that every business decision is influenced by a complex web of factors, including legal constraints, market needs, development costs, and sustainability goals.
Invitation to Reflection
Consumerism indeed drives us to buy new products rather than to keep them for the long term, and this continuous cycle can create a dependence on manufacturers. It is an undeniable aspect of modern consumerism, where the market is structured to encourage the purchase of ever-changing versions. However, many other variables at play need to be considered to get a clear view of the situation.
Take for example the ineffectiveness today of insecticides and pesticides. It is not necessarily because companies are deliberately weakening these products, climate change has led to significant changes in the ecosystem, affecting flora and fauna, insects and plants evolve and develop resistance, making products that once worked perfectly less effective. We, just like insects, are constantly evolving, and all these technological products and innovations respond to the human need to continually adapt and improve.
When we are faced with an overly simplistic conclusion, we should stop and consider all the variables involved. What are the needs and motivations of the different actors involved? A product is not just the result of the work of consumers and developers but of a complex web of relationships and influences. Why do we continue to invest in the study of space, biochemistry and so many other disciplines? Science still exists because we are constantly evolving, always looking for new ways to improve our lives. Every discovery, every new technological progress, stems from the human desire to improve and optimize our routines, to be more and more efficient.
Let us not limit ourselves to seeing things only from our perspective. When we think a situation is too simple, we are probably missing something. Let us stop and critically reflect on our position. Are there reasons other than those we see immediately?
Of course, a user might say, “I’m a consumer and I don’t have to ask all these questions, my only concern should be to have the best possible experience.” this is true, as a consumer, you want a product that works well and meets your needs, however, the moment a consumer goes beyond using a product and starts asking questions, they become an informed consumer. It is critical that this process happens, but it must be done by analyzing the context from the broadest possible perspective. Let us avoid falling into overly simplistic explanations and recognize the complexity of the dynamics involved. Only then can we truly understand the choices that influence the technologies we use every day.
Reviewed by kbdharun