Loss of Interface

As part of a discussion on AI integration and effects on business today, we were talking about user interface and experience design, because so much of it is fast becoming obsolete. As smart devices and AI prompt interactions increase, there is more indirect usage, where a management app like Amazon Alexa connects many devices together. But it isn't just in the home, it is also happening in business applications, where connectors and integrations across applications and various repositories are increasing, which also means that there is growing complexity, as base architecture differs, yet still has to talk with each other.

I can't help thinking we are going about it the wrong way.

Apple products are so "good" and stable, because they have a centralized protocol and control over what connects to it. They have a limited range of devices and components that need to comply, and they control the design of those. And of course, applications need to comply also, as do the companies that run them, otherwise they will lose their access. This reduces the competition Apple faces on their platform, and it also gives them a lot of power to wield over creators.

What this general change to having infrastructure controlled by multiuse interfaces, means that it is very hard for new businesses to enter into the market, because in order to do so, they have to connect with the interface to be seen at all, because that is where the users will find them. And, because users are interacting through a convenient single gateway, they aren't actually getting a wide range of experience of design and utilization of the infrastructure, essentially removing themselves from being future competition.

Even if for now the base is distributed across many companies, the consolidation of these can be influenced through interface design, and happen in the background, out of the eyeline of the public. Companies can fail or be bought out, and we will never know, because the interface is our view of them. We have see n this kind of consolidation happen since the introduction of streaming services, where the smaller and more independent content creators, have to connect to the likes of Netflix to be seen. Then, Netflix creates its own content that it pushes heavily on the market, so that they will earn the majority of the views, by making their products more visible, than those of competitors.

This process is massively profitable for corporations, and provide plenty of control opportunities for governments, as it moves the consumer further and further away from the actual products themselves. Instead, we only interact with the proxy interface. We see this in many ways now, where for instance, many younger people who have been on mobile devices only, have never had to truly interact with a folder structure. They are application users, they never see behind the curtain.

And as I said, I think that this is heading in the wrong direction. The right direction is what Apple does, without the centralization. Instead, it is an open protocol, where people can freely choose to opt into development and usage. It is like Hive where there is a limited number of steps between user and infrastructure, and that infrastructure is within easy reach. There are no restrictions on who can build, and even though they will still have to adhere to the rules of the blockchain, they have control and ownership over what they build.

This empowers creativity.

Rather than adding hurdles to development, it removes them, lowering the bar and giving the chance for anyone with the skills to try their hand and build in a censorship-resistant environment, whatever they want. It is a landscape of freedom of design, where there is a direct relationship between the creator and the user, if so chosen. The value of this is immense, because it gives a platform for us as the masses to build upon, without being controlled through access and gateways, or deleted when we act in our own best interest, instead of that of governments and corporations.

But, it isn't convenient.

Convenience and ease of use will come, but it is not where we would want to start, because we want to first ensure we have a place that we own, rather than a place that is owned and we are "granted" access to use. This is vital and can't be compromised upon, because if it centralizes, it will quickly adhere to the mechanisms of the centralized economy, that of profit above people.

Technology should empower us to be our creative best, not condition us to consume and enslave us. It is good to remember that the centralized technology is "for profit", not for wellbeing, and as we own less and less of what we are using, we are increasingly becoming reliant for our access and controlled through it. It is on the service providers, the corporations, the governments, the owners that we rely.

What do we own?

The more we choose convenience, the less we even own our choices.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]