The day 2 plenary at TNC opened with a light on detail, heavy on rhetoric view of future networking from a guy from Juniper. In a way it is the perfect plenary - rousing, stirring "controversial" but not really and very low on detail. While listening, I was browsing the social media and when the speaker made a comment about Apple supporting an open development framework there was an utterly predictable stream of smug outrage.
So, it is utterly true that Apple is not open. But observing usage, it seems that for quite a lot of people, that simply doesn't matter. Sitting back and snarking at someone who doesn't agree and not looking at the implications of this is not useful. Simply by being someone who would set foot at this conference, we are already sensitised to the issue of openness in a way that most people simply are not, and will never be because the impact to them is just not observable by them in time. I fear that openness is simply not persuasive for a lot of key groups.
Imagine you are in a position where you have to influence your lawyers, business strategists and CFOs. They want to do X. Conversation goes like this:
You - "But it is not open!"
Them - "So what"
You - "......."
What goes there to persuade the disbelievers and the apathetic?
No comments:
Post a Comment