A huge factor in business today is technology and some of the largest companies are those that develop and sell technologies. Therefore, it stands to reason that those who can predict the future of technology will have the opportunity to be extremely successful and wealthy. Some people, on the other hand, would rather warn the public about the future of technology in order to prevent their visions of the future from coming true. Gibson and Wu, authors of Neuromancer and The Master Switch respectively, are two of these people. Both of them have presented ideas, however different they may be, as to what the future may hold for technology and its uses yet, while aspects of both claims seem reasonable, Wu's vision seems to be the more credible of the two because of his evidence and his relatively close proximity to the future of technology.
Wu feared a future ruled by the corporations where the individual was solely seen as a consumer, and never a developer, of technology. Gibson, however, viewed a world where the individual could be mightier than the companies. So why is Wu's vision more credible? Despite the arguments for both, Wu has the benefit of increased time to experience the development of technologies and that of supporting evidence. Take for instance, the publishing dates of the books. The Master Switch was published in 2010 while Neuromancer was published in 1984. While in many cases this would not make a difference to an academic audience, because the topic is technology it makes a large difference because Wu has been able to experience and see the development of the Internet. This makes Wu better able to predict the future of technology, at least more so than Gibson, and his evidence from the past makes him all the more credible.
Despite Gibson's lack of evidence Wu still had one similar idea, that the presence of powerful corporations in the world of technology would continue to be prevalent. Gibson demonstrates this vision with his usage of the Tessier-Ashpool megacorporation that has been in operation for "more than two hundred years," (Gibson 184). This company has control over many things, from the space city of Freeside to the Artificial Intelligences of Wintermute and Neuromancer. In fact, with the Artificial Intelligences, the company can basically do anything that it wants, as the programs themselves demonstrate that they can do almost anything they want. In one instance, Wintermute "altered the broadcast" of an event that Case, one of the main characters, was watching (Gibson 186). Another time, Wintermute showed so much control as to have actually "killed Armitage," a real, flesh and bones, person (Gibson 201). Wu also acknowledges the presence of large corporations and uses evidence from past companies to back up his claim. Wu demonstrates that companies, like AT&T, never seem to truly die. Wu says that, "AT&T, broken up in the 1980's, by the first years of the twenty-first century managed to re-create itself, reestablishing the essential lineaments of the Bell system" (Wu 205). So if this "eternal return to consolidated order," part of the "Cycle" as Wu calls it, then it only seems natural that these giant companies would continue to be present in the future of technology (Wu 252).
While both authors agree on the presence of megacorporations they disagree on the formation of them. Wu believes that developing technologies will create, and destroy, these companies, unlike Gibson who suggests that the companies will be the ones creating technologies. Fundamentally, this is the basis of Wu's argument for the "Cycle" and his whole book in general. New technologies are developed that make older technologies irrelevant or less useful at the very least. The companies that dealt in the older technology are then disintegrated and the new companies selling the newer technology grow and prosper, at least until the next "disruptive" technology is developed (Wu 19). Wu claims that there is a typical progression for technologies, they move from "somebody's hobby to somebody's industry" (Wu 6). "So many revolutionary innovations start small, with outsiders, amateurs, and idealists in attics or garages" (Wu 18). Gibson, however, believed that it was the companies that would create the newer technologies, not vice-versa. This can be seen in Neuromancer when Armitage, through Tessier-Ashpool and Wintermute, gives a new technology to a doctor who later patents it. The doctor applied "for seven basic patents," which reportedly reversed "the usual order of things" (Gibson 161). In Gibson's future companies, not people, ruled the technologies. So when the roles were flipped and the companies lost, much like what Wu describes happening, this was out of the ordinary and quite odd.
Both of these ideas seem to be plausible, but evidence suggests that Wu is correct in his prediction. For one, it is demonstrated that most "disruptive" inventions have come from the individual, not a company. Apple computers, for instance, started in the garage of Steve Wozniak. Even the great Bell Company, predecessor to AT&T, started out with only one employee, Thomas Watson. That was it. Even if Wu’s worst fear were to come true, that corporations would close the Internet or even force the individual inventor out of the equation, his Cycle would infer that a new technology would arise that would dethrone those companies, restoring the balance of power.
Another difference between the two theories is that however powerful the corporations become Wu, unlike Gibson, believes that governments will still be active in the world. In fact, in order for Wu's future to exist, in the manner that he wishes, governments are necessary. Because of the inevitability of the Cycle, Wu calls for the use of a "Seperations Principle" which entails the use of the government to keep "those who develop information, those who own the network infrastructure on which [information] travels, and those who control the tools or the venues of access," separate from each other. Gibson's future, on the other hand, is ruled by the corporations, not the governments, of the world. As is the case with the Tessier-Ashpool corporation, the companies own property like Freeside, which they monitor and control, free of governments.
A large deviance between Wu's and Gibson's visions has to do with the use of technologies. Gibson, for instance, believes that while technology will shape the way everyone lives those who will be able to access and use a technology, like cyberspace, will be limited. For example, Case is a cyberspace "cowboy" who can access cyberspace and do on it what he pleases, but not everyone is a cowboy and, therefore, not everyone can access cyberspace (Gibson 5). Yet even though not everyone has access to it, cyberspace affects everyone. Companies that make products that people buy depend on cyberspace to store their information so that they can stay in business. Without cyberspace, ordinary people would not get the same products and services.
Unlike Gibson Wu predicts, however much he dislikes it, that everyone will be able to use a technology, like the Internet, but what information that technology can access will be limited. Wu has already stated that information technology companies proceed through a pattern of going "from open to closed system[s]" (Wu 6). That would mean that the Internet, an information technology, while still in its open phase will become closed by large companies. Information will not be as easily accessed as the owning companies will only allow access to sites that benefit them, much as the old AT&T only allowed the use of telephones made by them. Still, although the information available may be limited, in order for the companies to make any money people will need the availability to use the Internet. In short, the more people that use the service the more money that the companies can make.
When comparing the claims of Wu and Gibson for their validity one must take into consideration a few large factors. First, that Gibson documented his claim twenty years before Wu. Had Gibson had the knowledge that Wu had to write his book their ideas may have been more similar. Another large factor, is that Gibson’s book, Neuromancer, is a work of fiction while Wu’s is a work of fact. Despite this, both works can be analytically compared to determine which authors supposed future is more probable. At first glance, due to the nature of how companies based on technologies are created, as documented by Wu, it is reasonable to decide that Gibson’s idea, that small individuals could overpower mighty corporations, is correct. However, Gibson did not envision that those individuals would be creating technology to overturn companies’ power, which Wu clearly states is what has always happened and hopes will continue to happen. Despite this though, Wu claims that companies might end up having too much power, over things like the Internet, and controlling the individuals. This is similar to the world of Neuromancer and is Wu's basis for the Separations Principle. This is slightly confusing because it appears as though Wu fears the world that was created in Neuromancer and Gibson viewed the future to be as Wu documented the past. It can be decided then that Gibson's broad view of the future, that individuals will have power over companies, will hold true but Wu's visions of the more specific aspects of the future will be correct. For instance, Wu seems to have a handle on the concept of governments and their solidity in society. Gibson believes that governments will become extinct and their power will be handed over to the companies but in reality, as Wu states, governments have always provided a check to the power that companies have. Therefore, governments are, more than likely, here to stay. Both authors agree, however, on the fact that megacorporations will have a large impact on the world. Lastly, it seems more likely that Wu is correct that technologies will be available to everyone, yet limited in what they can do, unlike Gibson who claims that technologies will be limited to exclusive clientele but unlimited in what they can do. This is solely because businesses can make more money by selling a technology to more people rather than to fewer, it’s the same old game of supply and demand.
Works Cited:
Gibson, William. Neuromancer . New York: Ace Books, 1984. Print.
Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010. Print.
Your point about companies never dying seems very relevant for both authors, especially because both predictions envision a world where large, powerful corporations are still prevalent. As you point out, both authors seem to agree on the continuation of the corporation, an idea that seems to pervade their following predictions.
ReplyDeleteOften times, a corporation facing dissolution or bankruptcy will simply rename itself after restructuring has taken place. Or, through mergers and acquisitions, companies may seem to disappear, but their operators and their profit-hungry missions remain intact. But, most importantly, the evolution of a company can best be seen in its brand evolution.
The evolution of a company speaks to its ability to adapt. As you mention, Wu's cycle theorizes companies will be created and destroyed as new technologies are invented. But what happens when these companies are able to adapt to the changing technologies, allowing them to stay in business? What happens when these companies have been around for so long and become so large that disrupting their operations would be economically harmful? Can the government hope to dissolve corporations we become dependent on?