Brave New World: More Digital, Less Physical
Yesterday, I was with my wife in the L'Occitane store. The shelves were filled with fragrances, soaps, lotions: all sorts of handcrafted beauty products. It occured to me while looking at the labels that I have no idea how these products were made. I am reasonably versed in chemistry, but the process of manufacturing perfume is not something I know anything about.
In general, I am just not good with physical things, because I am a software person. I've always been fascinated by people who can easily make sense of physical objects, because for me it takes a lot of effort even to put together children's toys. My brain is wired differently, to see patterns in software, not in hardware. But most people are the other way around.
Yet, while looking at the bottles in the L'Occitane store, I wondered: could it be that the world is shifting from physical to digital? At first glance it is impossible, because we live in a physical world. But increasingly, we are surrounded by all sorts of software that fundamentally works differently from hardware. In this post, we'll look at the interplay between physical and digital and argue that we are, in fact, heading towards a world dominated by digital.
A Brief History of Making Physical Things
Before we dive into the realm of software, let's look briefly at how we got here. Clearly, the history of humanity is the history of hardware. Since the Stone Age, when we invented the hammer, the world around us has been, so to speak, a nail. For the past several thousand years, we figured out how to use physics and chemistry to make physical objects. For a long time, we were craftsmen, until the industrial revolution brought scale and systematic manufacturing.
The main thing we learned is patterns in physical objects. We know that we can bend them under certain conditions. We know that there is friction. We know that things react differently to heat. The millions of facts that occupy our lives have to do with how we interact with the physical world and make physical things. These patterns get wired into our brains and help us live our daily lives.
Software 1.0: Why Computer-Phobia Happened to The Mainstream
Computers have software inside that does not behave like physical objects do. The key thing about software is that it is soft and that the conventional laws of physics do not apply to it. As a result, it's hard for people to picture what is going inside. It is hard for people with brains trained to deal with physical things to understand how software works. Because there are no physical laws we are used to, what are we to expect?
I constantly meet really smart non-technical people -- doctors, lawyers, teachers -- who have no clue how computers work. They treat them as magic black boxes that randomly break and never make sense. Why? Because software is a fundamentally different kind of system. It does not behave like the other things around us that we are used to.
On top of being different, software was really hard to use as recently as 5 years ago. PCs and Windows are to blame for the computer-phobia that still dominates the mainstream. My wife works for a large pharmaceutical company, and her Dell with its Windows 2000 is a monster. I do not blame her for being confused. In addition to being unbearably slow, the computer just makes no sense with its crazy administration scripts, incompatible drivers, annoying popups, endless choices, and daily crashes.
There is nothing in the physical world as complicated or confusing as her computer. All of the systems in our home work with the push of a button; all her daily routines are much simpler than figuring out how to turn off auto-spellcheck in Microsoft Word. Like most people, my wife is perplexed by the complexity of her work computer. But thankfully, things are turning around.
Software 2.0: Apple, Ajax, Video Games, and the New Laws of Physics
We changed our household computer to an Apple in 2004 and later on got one of the first iPhones when they came out. Obviously, my wife has no trouble using Apple products, because they are simple. More important, they, like physical things, behave as expected. Every user action results in a reaction that makes sense. There are way fewer choices, and things do not pop up out of nowhere.
Even better, this new kind of software proves to the user that the digital world can be superior to the physical one. There is no friction; things move around effortlessly; and they do work. This is not happening just with Apple products; it is happening all over the web. With the advent of AJAX, a new breed of web applications is teaching users that software can indeed work better than hardware. And that it can be way more fun.
It's the fun element that is likely going to be the tipping point, because it involves kids, our future. The latest video games are simply stunning. Like Apple software, they feature a lot of physical realism and behave as users expect. But in addition, they add a lot of special behavior only possible in the digital world. And it's not just about flying or instantly transporting from one place to another. Video games are creating a whole new reality that is an intricate blend of physical and digital.
Our kids are growing up native to this new digital world. To them, the new rules of digital physics are what the rules of physical physics are to us. They take these new rules for granted, because that is just how all our brains work.
Techies + Mainstream + Kids = Software Revolution
I never had trouble grasping software. To me, its inner workings and abstractions always made more sense than the physical things around me. But this is not so for many other people. Yet, the shift is on its way. Good software is becoming an integral part of our lives. Apple is one of the first and most visible examples of how software is taking over the hearts and minds of mainstream consumers. Its software is beautiful, simple, it works the way we expect it to, and people are starting to love it.
And this love is the first step to truly getting it, to understanding how something works. Because this new software is simple and fun, people are becoming attached to it and are willing to spend more time with it and, ultimately, to understand it well. This new software has a shot at making people get it, just like they get hardware.
And kids, of course, are already there. For them, all of this novelty is effortless and natural. It's a ton of fun, and they do not think twice about which buttons to press; they just know. So, with techies, the mainstream, and kids on board, we are poised to enter this brave new world dominated by software. The impact of this new world is going to be huge because, whether we like it or not, we will no longer be the same. Our brains, while never forgetting the laws of physics, will increasingly adapt to the laws of this new, digital physics.
Share
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Awesome post.
"More important, they, like physical things, behave as expected." Very true. I also am intrigued with how much I enjoy the touches of the iPhone that make it behave like physical things (a soft bounce back into place, for example).
Indeed, "natural" user interaction will be key. I await the day when I can walk up to a screen and reach out and use the objects on the screen in the same way I would as a physical object. And then...to think of all the "new" objects that can only exist in the digital realm...oh, the possibilities.
And, Fraser bringing up that "soft bounce into place" brings to mind BumpTop, anyone who hasn't seen it yet should head to bumptop.com or search for BumpTop on TED. Next generation desktop? :)
There's also the idea that the line between the hard and soft may be starting to blur in both directions. For example 3D printing can be seen as the transition from the soft to the hard and strong virtual reality can be seen as the transition of the hard to the soft.
I've observed for many years that people fall into 2 distinct categories: those that do and those that don't "get it". I've dubbed the latter "yellow sheeters". When you start to help them (they always need help), out comes the yellow pad of paper on which they transcribe the instructions.
It's not about understanding how computers work! It's about whether their mind was successfully expanded during childhood education so they can think in the abstract. Yellow sheeters are people who, when told distance is rate times time and "know the forumla" for how far they went in how much time at what speed, still can't figure out how to calculate gas mileage. They plug in the numbers for the first problem and get the answer without any understanding of the relationship at a gut level. They can't
I deal with such unfortunate people all the time, and the highest concentration falls in the middle-aged group. The boomers, who were primary-educated in the 50's and haven't fallen victim to age-related dinimished capacity, are more likely to be comfortable with their "new" computers. Same with young people who didn't get that in school (arithmetic is not math!) but got it via using computers. The problem with the latter group is that many didn't get the childhood math they need to operate in the real world apart from their computer skills.
Oops, last sentence sedcond paragraph:
They can't generalize the relationship to other situations involving distance, rate, and time.
In reading your excellent article I became intrigued by what was posted as the etymological foundation for the word "software", observing that it was not the definitively etymological root of the word. The word "software" as I understood it to be was a neologism created as a natural antonym to the word "hardware" which predates the term by many years as listed in the Online Etymological Dictionary.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=hardware&searchmode=none
1515, from hard + ware (n.). In the sense of "physical components of a computer" it dates from 1947.
software Look up software at Dictionary.com
1851, "woolen or cotton fabrics," also, "relatively perishable consumer goods," from soft + ware (n.). The computer sense is a separate coinage from 1960, based on hardware.
I'm with you on the hardware vs. software. I've always been better at software. I found out early on when I got a scholarship to a university through a program that was geared toward building experiment payloads for the space shuttle. Meetings centered around hardware bored me to tears, but as soon as we started talking about control software, I was excited to start working.
I've been a PC man all my life. Can't change this tiger's stripes. I have always had a difficult time using Macs. For me they're not as user efficient when it comes to manipulating the interface and not as flexible when it comes to configuration and customization.
For example (one among many for me), to maximize a window on a Mac, I have to drag the corner to make it fit the screen. That takes many seconds more to do than simply clicking the "maximize" button in the top-right corner of an app in Windows. That just drives me nuts. If there's some hidden way to one-click maximize on a Mac, I don't know about it...and if that's the case, then the argument that Macs are easy for EVERYONE to use is a failed one.
@4 Bob, this is a really interesting and important point that you are bringing up. I think that it is worth a separate post, but briefly, I think that it might not be that straightforward. there are plenty of smart people who are able to learn complex concepts in other disciplines, but not excel in the others.
I think that there are 3 categories - small category of people who can just wrap their minds around anything, those who memorize things mechanically and then there are those who are capable of grasping certain things well but not others.
Categories 2 and 3 are not fixed. It seems to me that since software is intangible, the category 3 is larger and category 2 is smaller.
#7 Rob
and if that's the case, then the argument that Macs are easy for EVERYONE to use is a failed one.
This has got to be an absolute revelation to me. Everything I thought I knew about the Mac vs. PC has led me to believe quite the opposite and don't at all understand why the guys in Redmond haven't done everything possible to exploit this.
@Alex
This reminds me of a conversation a little while ago about how "liberating" it was switching to Mac and to the iPhone, which I completely agree with. What's liberating about it is that one of the major bi-products of the digital revolution, as you've pointed out, is "fewer (physical) products". I was looking around my house the other day doing a little new years house cleaning/organization and I noticed how few PHYSICAL gadgets I have anymore. My iPhone and my Mac have replaced a great many of the physical objects that all had a specialized purpose - now we use tons of software on fewer platforms to achieve the same variety of entertainment, productivity, information gathering etc. My iPhone alone is amazing...it's allowed me to trash my brick-sized "yellow pages" book, physical books, CDs, my address book, alarm clock and radio, calculator...even my emergency flashlight, which is obviously an extreme case, but it's true - if the lights went out right now I wouldn't hesitate to whip out my iPhone and
software is not funner than hardware, never will be
fuck apple, they are not inovationists, they make simple shit for simple people. its not superior to any operating system, its written for technological ignorant people by technological ignorant people. fuck off apple fanboy.
Outstanding, I think you hit it right on the head dude!
www.web-privacy.pro.tc
I envy people like yourself who can make sense of software so easily. I am a hardware person, an aircraft electrical/environmental mechanic. I can make sense of the physics behind the systems I work on easily, and the concepts behind electricity and how it all works, even on an atomic level, come to me easily. I also have no issue grasping abstract creativity, such as writing, and no problem making sense of philosophy. However, any time I have tried to learn some sort of programming language, it just never makes sense. Math, too, is something that is absolutely arcane to me, for the most part.
Great post. On the repercussions of moving to a digital model, see John Zittrain's chapter on software as service, articles by Scott Boone and Jack Balkin on objects in virtual reality, and my posts on ebooks and car GPS.
Software becomes part of the physical world the moment it is removed from the abstraction of a notepad and placed on physical devices (hard drives, RAM, whatever). It's funny how you said you switched to Apple instead of OS X. Apple produces hardware tailor-made to their particular OS. Branded PC (Gateway, Dell, etc) from that era worked better than customer built systems since the OEMs controlled the quality of the parts included in these boxes. Furthermore, have you used an Apple computer prior to System 10? Yes, Windows 2000 was a beast; but, without protected memory, limited multi-tasking and program compatibility, OS 9 was not a viable alternative for a business environment.
In the real world, hardware and software are not decomposable into separate entities and our notion of digital physics MUST include real world physics. I use the 2nd law of thermodynamics (specifically, Shannon entropy) to explain data corruption on hard drives.
Your belief that software exists only in a digital sandbox shows your limited understanding of the machines that you program. Worse, your mode of thought is a limiting and dangerous mindset for future software programmers.
Not only that we are going into a software world, but we are going to become different than our grandparents even on a mental level. We have the possibility to record everything that we see or hear and have it parsed by face recognition, OCR and voice recognition (still not up to par but progressing fast). All we get in will be tagged and we can use the tags later.
Total Recall. The digital dark ages are over.
Some guy told you his phone number 3 months ago but you didn't write it down? You can search back by his name. "Show me the last time I spoke to Jim". Then you can extract the phone number directly from the conversation.
Someone close to you dies... you can relive all the moments you had. Maybe you can live all the moments he or she lived by activating his digital avatar. Death will never be the same separator it once was. Of course you can't have a conversation with them, but you have access to all your moments. What's a terabyte these days?
I don't really agree with the statement that "...its Windows 2000 is a monster. I do not blame her for being confused. In addition to being unbearably slow, the computer just makes no sense....".
Then the author goes straight into praising Apple for how great their, as 16 - Foux, pointed out, software works on their systems.
I'm a PC fan, and I really think that the problem with the Dell box is that it lacks upgrades, updates, and fine-tuning to the author's wife's needs. It's not a failure of Microsoft for helping her out with her 9 year old operating system. I mean come on, it'd be like if you said she was using a Mac with OS X Beta on it at work. I'm sure that that would be really helpful :P
Now that that's over with.
There is a whole lot to think about when you're talking about the future, and the idea of a Mac OS X inspired future just appalls me to no end. The most famous thing about Apple and their wonderful devices is the simplicity, and as mentioned by other comments, many times options are
Good read. The biggest barrier is still the pervasive screen, mouse, and keyboard. Once those are gone, software will truly be part of our lives.
This is a very interesting aarticle, I have a slightly different spin on it though. (As a mechanical engineer turned systems engineer)
Your comments about how software has been designed to replicate physical effects, such as the bounce in the iPhone, are an indication that we need our software to conform to the way we see the world, not that we are beggining to conform to a new paradigm of software.
Software will be become more prevalent, that is a given, but it will not replace perfume or fix my toilet. Until I become instantiated as software I will still need to carry out bodily functions and hence will need the hardware and people who understand it.
What is clear to me is that we are making less of a division between software and hardware - for example the iPhone has the hardware to make it a device that, when the right software is running, has the feel of a physical object. That is what is important, the intuitive feel for the way it works that imitated how we interact in the world. As for the complex algorithms that define the software, we as Humans have been generating complex algorithms that convey specific messages for centuries. We have called them stories and they are a way of programming our brains.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Thanks.
Nice observation
Way to beat off to Mac marketing bullshit. What was the point of your circle jerk tripe again?
Interesting post, although I don't really agree with your splitting of people into software and hardware categories.
For instance physicists, which would qualify for the hardware type as studying the physical world is actually what they do of their days, are as a matter of fact pretty good with computers.
Now you'll tell me this is quite an extreme example considering the proportion of physicists among the population, but my point is that the logic behind the hardware and software worlds are finally the same: causality, logical relations, or in other words, maths. So as was pointed out by previous posters, the ability to abstract things seems to me as the key point.
@all
This is a great post.
I want to add another twist - about accessibility.
This is the shortfall by some people in the senses, and has a great bearing on what is becoming a conversation (if you're not on the autistic spectrum, that is) ;-)
Learning to listen to your senses will provide much better info than a process driven office in a box, which the modern computer has become. Culture driven leisure is a different(god)conversation.
Feedback through existing physical/neurological feedback loops work best when analogous to non digital information, as said previously, cause and effect. MP3's anyone?
Bal blah, fnord!
Software 'intuition' only becomes apparent when, especially when, a particular job needs to be done/presented/augmented
and the computer user knows what process has to be undertaken - photoshop was and still is an extension of a darkroom experimental environment. So photographers could do what they needed to do. Goal driven as they had technical knowledge of the process required. It is not just the photographers that benefited.
Office in a box. Noun as a verb.
ahem.thanks.
I don't think the differences wee well established or presented and overall this was pretty glib. It seems that this post was written with a flurry of ideas in your head rather than a well-formed argument. It could just be the format choice because this didn't work for me as a persuasive essay. Although, I think the topic is interesting and well worth exploring.