During the most recent presidential campaign, one of the important, yet often overlooked statements by the eventual winner of the campaign involved technology. Barack Obama made a number of off hand comments about the necessity of his Blackberry, and how, if elected to the position of president, he would continue to use the device. This was simply added to the list of things Mr Obama had been compiling that would lead to ‘change’ and ‘hope’. The population loved it for another reason as well: they could now directly relate to the man who would likely become president. Some in the more tech savvy community though, did not look at this blown out of proportion marketing move as a good thing. What did this say about our previous president and most of the other congressmen? That they didn’t use/were not aware of what a Blackberry was? Another rumor that surfaced during the campaign was that John McCain did not know how to use a computer. This also was blown out of proportion, but it was believable enough that people entertained the idea. The fact of the matter is that most politicians do not have a firm grasp of 21st century technology. The mere fact that it was considered a ‘big deal’ that Obama wanted to use a Blackberry was pathetic. These devices have been around for years now, and one would be hard pressed to find the head of a large corporation who does not have some form of mobile communication that extends beyond speech. Unfortunately, these same people who marveled at a Blackberry in 2008 are the same people who write laws and set government policy regarding technology. The people in charge of the government of this country need to update their understanding of technology in order to better their ability to create policy relating to it.
An example of a need to understand technology has been dominating the tech news lately. The controversy revolves around the Apple iPhone, the exclusive service provider for the iPhone, AT&T, and internet giant Google. Due to their size and nature, these are three companies that generally run around unchecked. If Apple wants to engage in disturbingly similar actions to what they themselves complained Microsoft was doing years ago, who is going to say boo? AT&T is in the general lump of large cell phone service providers who have the American public by the throat in terms of prices and the ability to change services. And Google is Google. The internet behemoth in charge of the two largest search engines in the world (Google and YouTube) still manages to maintain the image of the “little startup that could” while raking in billions in yearly profits. These three companies generally do whatever they want, and when their interests align, the synergy pushes out innovation in the form of the Apple iPhone or the Amazon Kindle. The problem arises when the interests of these companies run contrary to one another.
Google has been beta testing a revolutionary new “phone” service called Google Voice.
This service allows users to make calls from their computer, cell phone, or internet enabled device to any telephone number in the world. All domestic calls are free, and international calls cost pennies on the dollar compared to what traditional phone services cost. To ensure ease of use on all platforms, Google developed an application for the iPhone App store that streamlined the process of using this new communication tool. Unfortunately, all new applications for the iPhone must be approved by Apple. After multiple weeks of limbo, the Google Voice app was rejected from the App Store. Apple generally restricts apps from entering the store due to instability or for security reasons. For their rejection of the Google Voice app, however, they relied on an ambiguous clause in the app store license agreement relating to duplicating proprietary Apple functions on the device. Anyone who knows the least bit about the Google Voice service knows that it is not a duplication of an Apple function, but an improvement on it. Using Apple’s logic, many other apps currently available should be removed. And that’s only assuming that you buy the argument that Google Voice duplicates the phone functionality of the iPhone.
What would seem like the more obvious reason is that AT&T politely asked/forced Apple to reject the app to remove any chance of competition and lost revenue. In a much called for but still unexpected move, the surprisingly competent Julius Genachowski led FCC opened an inquiry into this debacle, asking for statements from all involved parties (Google, Apple, and AT&T). AT&T was the first to respond to their demands, stating that they had no hand in the rejection of Google Voice or any other app, and that the whole process was left to Apple. Google stated its case, but restricted the response to the FCC to mostly jargon and technobabel. Apple followed with a similarly murky and uninformative response. The FCC is continuing to investigate whether potentially any anti-competitive behavior occurred. They have to work within the bounds of technology antitrust law, which like most types of 21st century technology law, is problematically vague. Lawmakers themselves do not know enough about the issues or the industry to make relevant laws that serve to population.
So as not to myself paint Google as that “little startup that could”, the tables could be turned just as easily to put them on the spot for taking advantage of the out of date technology regulations in this country. Google has another project in the works called Google Books. Google Books like Google Voice and Google Mail, is part of Google’s ongoing attempt to centralize all information and communication. When the Google Books project began, Google started to index all published works by copying them into a database and allowing them to be searched and searched for. In 2005, the Author’s Guild of America and the Association of American Publishers sued Google for copyright infringement. While the multitudes of internet users surely would have benefited from access to the content of any book at any time, there is a reason copyrights exist and Google clearly disregarded the law when implementing the Google Books program. The miracle is though, that the best business decision Google could have made was the illegal copying of books. Google settled with the authors and publishers to the tune of 125$ million, pennies by Google’s standards. What Google got out of the settlement though, was more critical. Because they paid their dues, they can copy books to the Google Books archive and not worry about copyright infringement, because they have already been tried for it. The only reason a book could not end up on the Google Books archive is if the copyright holder of the book opts out of having their book on the database, a lengthy legal process that costs both time and money.
Luckily for the publishing companies (and by extension, writers and readers) because of the importance of the case, congress has decided to validate the settlement to make sure it is fair and in the best interests of all concerned parties. Unluckily, it is unlikely that the majority of congress has the slightest clue of what Google Books is or the relevance of this decision. Companies that sell books (especially e-books), such as Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and others are strongly opposed to essentially free access to their wares. If congress rejects the settlement, it brings up an interesting problem. How do you legitimately regulate Google? When Microsoft was at the height of its dominance, all the government could do was fine them and tell them to play nice. Google is in a similar situation now. A fine, even one amounting to billions of dollars, means relatively little to Google. It has both the resources and the public support that there is almost no way to say “no” to it. As a person who considers himself tech-savvy, I would have no idea how to reign in a company like Google. I look at the crowd of people on capital hill amazed that email can now be checked on a phone and wonder how they could possibly do any better.
No comments:
Post a Comment