I find the criticisms of Jaron Lanier here to be unfair, excessively dismissive and painfully elitist. Just because many of the technologies used in VR were already invented, it doesn't take away from his important contributions, namely the founding of VPL Research, whose patents were important enough to be acquired by Sun. Would you make the same argument about Steve Jobs who popularized products already invented by other individuals and companies such as Alan Kay and Xerox? There are tons of tech pundits who don't have a clue about how technology actually works, yet such criticisms are never leveled against them.
Even if Mr. Lanier didn't contribute anything to the field of VR, it doesn't take away from his message: web 2.0 and open source has been a spectacular failure and is destroying individuality and the middle-class. I've watched several of his lectures and read his book, he nibbles around the his main point with lots of history and digressions. He's very careful with his language and tries to avoid opening himself for being labeled or attacked. Consequently, he comes off sounding tepid, overly philosophical and even incoherent at times.
M. Lanier claims that online collectivism or the hive mind is benefiting the few (Google and Facebook) and not the masses, the content contributers. Content made freely accessible by trusting authors have been mined by network operators to make billions, while the authors, who put their hearts and minds into their work, receive neither money nor recognition. Facebook is now starting to charge their users to broadcast to their "friends." Web 2.0 has failed to create a larger middle-class through new opportunities that are financially rewarding. In fact, Mr. Lanier argues that it is shrinking it.
His most salient arguements are aimed at the Open Source movement. He argues that it hasn't produced any notable innovations, nor has it expanded the pie for the software industry. On any given day, a small group at Apple out innovates the entire open source movement. Open Source was supposed to liberate us from the tyrany of commercial software companies like Microsoft and Adobe. Instead, it has only increased their dominance by weeding out all of their smaller competitors. What are the chances of something like PC-Write succeeding today?
After all these years, the open source movement has yet to offer sensible alternatives to Windows, Mac OS X and large complex applications such as the Adobe Suite and Microsoft Office. Instead, Open Source has focused on software that doesn't require high-risk development such as development tools, frameworks and OS utilities. The few quality ones like Firefox, are developed by teams funded by large organizations. Being Open Source isn't what's made these applications successful.
Mr. Lanier makes some very sound and persuasive arguments. If you don't agree at least take the time to ponder it and give it the respect that it deserves. Writing him off as a charlatan or an opportunist isn't an argument, but a cheap character attack.
Even if Mr. Lanier didn't contribute anything to the field of VR, it doesn't take away from his message: web 2.0 and open source has been a spectacular failure and is destroying individuality and the middle-class. I've watched several of his lectures and read his book, he nibbles around the his main point with lots of history and digressions. He's very careful with his language and tries to avoid opening himself for being labeled or attacked. Consequently, he comes off sounding tepid, overly philosophical and even incoherent at times.
M. Lanier claims that online collectivism or the hive mind is benefiting the few (Google and Facebook) and not the masses, the content contributers. Content made freely accessible by trusting authors have been mined by network operators to make billions, while the authors, who put their hearts and minds into their work, receive neither money nor recognition. Facebook is now starting to charge their users to broadcast to their "friends." Web 2.0 has failed to create a larger middle-class through new opportunities that are financially rewarding. In fact, Mr. Lanier argues that it is shrinking it.
His most salient arguements are aimed at the Open Source movement. He argues that it hasn't produced any notable innovations, nor has it expanded the pie for the software industry. On any given day, a small group at Apple out innovates the entire open source movement. Open Source was supposed to liberate us from the tyrany of commercial software companies like Microsoft and Adobe. Instead, it has only increased their dominance by weeding out all of their smaller competitors. What are the chances of something like PC-Write succeeding today?
After all these years, the open source movement has yet to offer sensible alternatives to Windows, Mac OS X and large complex applications such as the Adobe Suite and Microsoft Office. Instead, Open Source has focused on software that doesn't require high-risk development such as development tools, frameworks and OS utilities. The few quality ones like Firefox, are developed by teams funded by large organizations. Being Open Source isn't what's made these applications successful.
Mr. Lanier makes some very sound and persuasive arguments. If you don't agree at least take the time to ponder it and give it the respect that it deserves. Writing him off as a charlatan or an opportunist isn't an argument, but a cheap character attack.