InTheFuture the world will be divided into two classes of people :

  • those who are locked-in to the majority infrastructure of information tools and it's blind-spots;
  • and those who are able to adopt and use new tools that give them the edge over the majority.

Notes :

  • This isn't a one-time phenomenon. It's the story of the past as much as future, the story of the ongoing evolution of civilization.
  • The only essential feature of the new tool is that it works in the interstices between the majority tools, and sees round corners. It may not be the tool with the most features. Or the "best" at what it does. It may not be the tool you think it is. It's simply what allows the "organization of the non-obvious". And the "obvious" is defined by the majority information tools. (Compare MinorityGame?)
  • "Lock-in" is exactly that. Refusal to adopt is not due to stupidity or short-sightedness. It's due to constraints from your network of connections, both social and technical. What other software do you depend on to do your work? What other file-formats and communication protocols do you need, in order to communicate with the people you need to communicate with? (Compare InnovatorsDilemma)

Seems like this can lead to CyclicAttractors in strategy space. (As with ScissorsPaperStone). Tool 1 beats tool 2 beats tool 3 beats tool 1.

Counter

The End of HyperCard : http://blogger.iftf.org/Future/000383.html

When, I wonder, is the "problem of not being clearly about any one thing" really a problem, and when is it not? It seems to me that there are plenty of technologies that are pretty open and extensible, and thrive because of that: think of the Palm Pilot, or the Mac itself. But maybe the problem that HyperCard faced was that it didn't seem to have a couple things it did really well, which got people hooked on the program and interested in exploring it further.