Any time now the world is going to start up a demand for typewriters and all you fools with computers and keyboards had better watch out.

I’m certain of it.

I’m ready, of course. I’ll be selling ink ribbons on eBay at a premium price so as to cash in quickly before the shuttered factories are dusted off and machinery cranks once more into action. And after that, as old businesses are called to perform once more, then I will act as an advisor. A guru. Wise in the processes of touch typing and carriage returns.

Of course things aren’t going to be like they used to be. That would be silly.

No, these new typewriters will be modern. They will be optimised for Twitter; accepting tiny sheets of paper designed to be efficiently scanned in and distributed within the day.

Sure, it will be slower. But people will think more. Rash statements and bandwagons will be a thing of the past and only the most crafted thoughts will be considered.

Not everybody will adopt the new technology. Some people will continue to use a computer to bash out a hundred messages a day but this will be quickly corralled and those opinions will be placed in a digital kindergarten.

It will still be social. There’s no getting away from that. In fact it will be more social. More people will be involved in getting your message onto the Internet.

Oh, and we’ll have typing pools again. Those sounded nice.

So maybe I’m off on one or two of the details. But the technology we use will change, the way we define ‘social’ on the Internet will change. At the moment it is too preoccupied with the channels rather than the message so brands interested in the long haul will spend time learning the principles behind what doesn’t change. The principles of people. The way we like to listen, to talk and to while away the time in a bid to drown out the clatter of keyboards and work in our lives.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

Change too quickly and you run the risk of leaving people behind. Look at the artists whose work was never appreciated in their own time.

They sought to convey a vision too far removed, too far ahead of what was considered ‘just right’ for the times.

But change too slowly and, well… Microsoft learned that (some might say still learning that) when it let Netscape leap ahead with its browser. Ofcourse Microsoft are still with us and Netscape aren’t. Not really anyway.

It is interesting, therefore, to see Google seem both too advanced and too slow. Perhaps it is a measure of how established they have become that this could be so but when I see the wild promise of Wave and the lumbering fool of Buzz I see a company still wonderfully eager in its approach.

Wave astounded me. The early keynote was like a glimpse to a better way of working, a new way in which to communicate. Then it arrived and it baffled most people and failed to find a purpose. I feel it is ahead of its time and that the Wave functions might yet find a place in our daily emails. For me, this is where Google went wrong. They chose to introduce Wave as something new. Perhaps if they had chosen to fold its functionality into Gmail then it would have found an audience as, by osmosis, feature after feature slowly became useful.

And then there is Buzz.

After Twitter became such a huge hit, Google seemed to believe that owning one of the biggest brands on the planet was sufficient to make headway in any exciting new business. But people are more fickle than that and whilst they will be willing to try something new simply based on a trust relationship with a brand, switching allegiency is an altogether different ask.

Navigating the channel between too hot and too cold isn’t easy, not even for Google.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

Talk about saving for your own funeral. Maybe they will get June Whitfield to front the ads.

I’m only half joking. The iSlate is just the pinnacle of where tech has been headed these past few years; someone was bound to do it sooner or later. It’s just that Apple are perfectly poised to deliver the technology wrapped neatly into the consumer dream.

Because that, it seems to me, is what Apple trades in. Unlike Microsoft, Apple don’t deal with computers. It’s all about the consumer dream. Name another hardware manufacturer, be they HP or Sony or even the affordable semi-pioneers such as Asus and you have a collective that deals in computers, in technology.

Not so Apple. Cupertino asks what we dream of as consumers. The answers are brought to us courtesy of the technology but it’s the concept we buy into.

So how can we hold Apple in anything other than the best of regards?

Like Google, their image is one of purest ‘cool’ – if cool were a commodity worth billions and capable of keeping us in a blissful state of perpetual purchasing.

And the Google analogy isn’t accidental or merely convenient either.

Both companies are currently engaged in activities that have far reaching and potentially damaging consequences for freedom. They show us, in dramatic tones, just how far out of touch our notion of the Nation State really is. We may gripe about unelected officials being handed authority but really it is Google, Apple and, to a lesser extent even Amazon that we should really be examining.

In the pursuit of creating the ultimate in companion devices, Apple are aiming above the heads of Amazon and Google. A single device upon which we can buy books, films, music and games is a fine old dream as far as consumer dreams go but it comes with provisos attached.

Controlling the gateways to these entertainment hubs is more than just savvy business, it’s a political and economic wakeup call. The iPhone has stimulated enormous activity in development circles and led to Apple’s latest $3.3 billion dollar profit. I’ll just qualify that; first quarter profit. That’s a great achievement and the global economy must be, to no small extent, thankful.

But what longterm damage is it doing? What affect will it have on bricks and mortar retail? Unlike the threat of Internet shopping, Apple have created a system by which there need be no rival shops.

Their proprietary approach means that each of those 2 billion Apps we’ve all been busy downloading (and happily agreeing to call Apps) have been downloaded through Apple. There can be no competition to sell them just as there can be no competition to put them up for sale; even the type of application on sale to us is tightly controlled by Apple.

Of course that’s not to say it is only Apple doing this. There is competition, of a sort. Amazon is trying to control the way in which we access books – an aim which could now fail thanks to Apple who want the whole publishing pie. Google too, want in on that and it remains to be seen who will win out. Google are interesting because they have the veneer of open source to make us believe their motives are somehow purer. The recent spats over the book agreement reveals a different side.

But why does it matter? We have to buy our books, our music, our pleasures somewhere don’t we?

We do. We also need to work somewhere. Imagine a world devoid of high streets; where there is no HMV or Waterstones. A great world perhaps but they have, between them, mopped up the choice we used to have.

Independant stores are a dying breed, concentrating the hunt for jobs into fewer and fewer hands. The benefit to local economies dies with them and it’s not so much of a stretch to see a world, ten years hence, where the big shops are just online. At best.

We’ve been here before of course. The Industrial Revolution has lessons to learn from in this regard of the dangers of concentrating power in too few hands.

But we survived that, right?

Maybe.

Huge areas of poverty, inequality and unemployement followed the Industrial Revolution and it gave rise to the concept of the sweatshop, whether it be in a factory or across an entire continent. Once we allow our consumer desires to be our needs then little stands in the way of making that a reality. Once we allow Apple to be the one stop shop we ease the way for any measure which can streamline that process even further.

It doesn’t stop there either. We have already seen Amazon withdraw books for sale after they’ve been bought, reaching into the digital home and removing a publication (ironically it was 1984) from the Kindle (remember that?). Can that ever be a good thing? It’s an activity we surely associate with repressive Nations.

And that’s just what can happen to existing publications. It’s not a work of fiction that deciding what can and can’t be published in the first place has terrible ramifications.

Much applause has been given to the return of the bedroom coder. With the iPhone we saw game development break away from the huge coding conglomerates that had built up around the walls of the super publishers. The bedroom coder was back and that meant more power, more control and ultimately more money in the hands of the craftsman. But this is somewhat misleading. Because where is the self-publisher? The sole coder has full control of his own vision, up to the point when Apple becomes involved. Then it is judge and jury time. You’ve funded yourself, you’ve been creative, they say. Now it’s time to accept our payment terms – no negotiation, no choice. And that’s if we decide your creative vision is appropriate and in line with ours.

Again, we’ve seen this before. Apple aren’t reinventing the wheel, merely tightening the reins. Walmart has come under frequent fire for using it’s commercial position to dictate content to artists.

So are Apple switching on Skynet here?are we witnessing the end of control and the demise of the Nation State?

Yes.

There is, however, the chance that it will fail.

The open standards of the world wide web could be the only challenge to the monopolization of data. As long as Apple keep a web browser as part of their devices the opportunity for new ideas to seep through because anybody can publish on the Internet. Any ideas, any music, any games can all be delivered free to air through the old WWW.

But even the Internet is beginning to look a bit too unwieldy, a bit too big. How much longer before we’d rather use the Amazon App than the Amazon website? How much longer until our research is done within a single, cleverly cross-reference App with access to every book available through Apple? How much longer before it’s just easier and less confusing to altogether skip the Internet as we understand it today?

In the end we tend to take the path of least resistance and maybe that’s the problem. Who will step in whilst we get swept along? Will we see a repeat of the anti-trust suits that marred Microsoft’s rise to dominance in the 80s and 90s and in which case will they be fought on a national level or will we see the emergence of the World State in a bid to counterbalance the power.

Whatever happens with the iSlate, iPad or iTablet – we shouldn’t just suck it and see.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.