- Image via CrunchBase
Speaking in the context of technology, Michael Crandell at GigaOM writes:
Take yourself back for a moment to 1990, to the era of dueling operating systems: OS/2 and Windows. At the time, many people still used MS-DOS, and Windows was new (and klunky). Microsoft had cooperated with IBM to create OS/2 to overcome the limitations of DOS by adding multitasking, protected mode, and enhanced video APIs. OS/2, they both trumpeted, was a revolutionary computing platform.
Oops. Guess what? Turns out no one wanted revolutionary. We all wanted those improvements, to be sure, but we wanted them delivered in a way that didn’t require redesigning and rewriting our applications, or limiting the devices we could use. Voila! Windows 3.0 brought us evolutionary OS advances, and we all know who won.
Michael applies this lesson to “cloud computing,” a (some say) revolutionary approach to technology infrastructure that places data and applications in remote data centers accessible via the Internet:
What does this have to do with cloud computing? Well, the same principle applies to cloud offerings today. The easier a platform or service is to adopt for existing applications and uses, the more popular it’s going to be, whereas the more it breaks with current practice, the less widespread its appeal.
But the lesson here is broader than the application to cloud computing or even technology. People generally are resistant to change, especially when it means throwing out work they’ve already invested in. This goes for changes in regulatory schemes, legal standards, APIs, user interfaces, and business models. If there can be this much resistance to a new approach that allows for cheaper, more flexible, and more rapid application development, should it be any wonder that music labels or Hollywood so rabidly seek greater protections to preserve the business approach they’ve been using successfully for so long? (Or that the electoral college still exists?)
This is a fundamental lesson that can be applied at many levels. It can mean branding a revolutionary change as evolutionary. It can also mean providing a clear transition to those impacted that protects previous investments.
But the preference for evolution, for protecting prior investments, does not translate to requiring timid technological, legal or social development. It merely means softening the sense of change by giving users, customers, or citizens something to hold onto that provides a familiar interface (in tech terms) to the new way.
A good lesson to remember whatever your field.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Got an Hour? Create a Server in the Cloud (inpropriapersona.com)
- Does Copyright Foster or Hinder Innovation? (inpropriapersona.com)
I'm a PhD student in the history of science, focusing on intellectual property and other law & technology issues. I'm also a recent law school graduate and a former developer/sysadmin at a biotech non-profit. For more about me and my work, see 
wifinews_ipass
Kristopher Nelson
Speaking of change and the Electoral College …
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes – that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,777 state legislators — 829 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 948 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 28 state legislative chambers, in small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com