Future of the Web - Romantics vs Pessimists ?

Two totally different views of the Future Of The Internet crossed my desk within hours today.

Firstly, Tom Coates at dConstruct banging the Romantic Future drum (as noted by One Man and His Blog):

[Tom] was drawing a parallel between the work of King Darius in the year A Long Time Ago BC, who built a new transport network across Persia, and transformed the country as a result. (Prior to that, princes of Persia had to jump across roofs to get around). 

Today, we're in a similar situation, as we evolve the web from a place where each site was complete unto itself, into a place where the interaction of sites, through the exchange of data creates a new network that will reshape the world. Lanyrd.com is an example of something that was built quickly and easily from data from other sites. (But it isn't the semantic web that'd driving that. The top-down approach has been superseded by a more organic approach to building links - which is orthogonal to the efforts of the key semantic advocates.)

Aside: he built a slide with 150 transitions in 30 seconds. I am in awe....

That network is beginning to extend beyond the world of sites, into network-enables devices. He gave a range of examples from the Boris Bike to parking in San Francisco, but I'm going to focus on the Internet-connected scales. You could scan Twitter for the tweets from the scales, and do trends and maps... OK, back to the parking then - by tracking use and networking the data with traffic information, they can vary parking prices to ensure that there's always one parking space per block, and thus make traffic flow more efficient... Interconnected data opens up the possibility of positive changes to a physical living environment.

And that's what brings us back to Darius. We're building the inromation network that the next generation will build on to change the world.

And in the Pessimism Corner, the Economist noting that the roses in the garden are starting to smell a bit off:

Three sets of walls are being built.

The first is national. China’s “great firewall” already imposes tight controls on internet links with the rest of the world, monitoring traffic and making many sites or services unavailable. Other countries, including Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam, have done similar things, and other governments are tightening controls on what people can see and do on the internet.

Second, companies are exerting greater control by building “walled gardens”—an approach that appeared to have died out a decade ago. Facebook has its own closed, internal e-mail system, for example. Google has built a suite of integrated web-based services. Users of Apple’s mobile devices access many internet services through small downloadable software applications, or apps, rather than a web browser. By dictating which apps are allowed on its devices, Apple has become a gatekeeper. As apps spread to other mobile devices, and even cars and televisions, other firms will do so too.

Third, there are concerns that network operators looking for new sources of revenue will strike deals with content providers that will favour those websites prepared to pay up.

The Economist notes that:

[many of] the incentives that used to favour greater interconnection now point the other way. Suggesting that “The Web is Dead”, as Wired magazine did recently [broadstuff take on that is over here], is going a bit far. But the net is losing some of its openness and universality.

That’s not always a bad thing. The profits which Apple harvests from its walled garden have enabled it to provide services and devices that delight its customers, who may be happy to trade a little openness for greater security or ease of use.

Now, the Economist is obviously for the Free Trading ideal, but is noting that it is no done deal and that instead a Balkanisation is breaking out, simply because it is easier to make capital gain (financial, social or political) by walling off rather than interconnecting.

So - who is correct - the Coatesian Romantic or the Rational Economic Pessimist?

Well, of course they both are - to an extent. Coates is telling us what is possible if you follow the technology, the Economist is pointing out what is probable if you follow the money.

I would like to believe the former, but incline to the view that the latter is increasingly more likely as, to borrow a point by Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - or in the case of this industry, that so many people use the walled garden services with such joyful abandon is actually worse than "doing nothing".

We can only hope, as does the Economist - ironically for a Free Trade rag - that outside entities (Good Guy Governments and Corporates that Do No Evil) can come in and lead by example or even stir things up a bit. After all, it has always worked before.....