I’m always looking for models that seem to be unique to the Internet to see how they can be applied to the offline world, or at least help frame an understanding of it, particularly in the area of culture. There’s something about how digital changes the scale and speed of activity can highlight things we previously took for granted, and so on.
Yesterday Steve Yegge, one of the software engineers at Google, wrote a long rant about the company and accidentally shared it with the world. You can read it here and I came across it via Kottke.
It’s very long and full of jargon so most of the detail will probably go over your head but the key thing that jumped out from me was this distinction between a company that builds a platform (in this case Amazon’s programming division) and a company that builds products (Google). A good platform allows you to create new products with ease since the foundations are done, but without that your products stand alone and don’t have support or longevity built in.
I like this because it’s a useful critique of how a lot of projects are commissioned and executed offline as well as on.
One of the questions I often ask is “What is the role of an arts centre like The Mac in the Internet age?” When people can people can create culture without needing their services (ie, making a film on your phone rather than with expensive equipment, or learning a craft from online sources) what does such a place offer? A way of answering that might be to think of the strength it has as a platform.
It’s also a nice way to understand why so many arts organisations’ web presences don’t seem to match the organisation they’re supposed to be representing, because they’re built as products and bolted on rather than thought of as extensions of the platform. Maybe. It reminded me of Jake Grimley’s point about deep SEO, where understanding how people will phrase their queries should dictate everything down to the structure of the database. A venue works because events are scheduled there by people who understand how the building works as a platform. Similarly with a website.
Thinking of projects in terms of platform vs product is also interesting. I was having an off-the-record chat with someone who’d just done a major thing with Birmingham council. For her it was the beginning of something she wanted to build over time, a platform if you like. For the council it was something that was great but was over now and would be filed away. The platform mindset thinks in terms of legacy and interconnectedness with other projects. It sees the project as part of the whole. The product mindset doesn’t.
I think I’ve been hitting this tension in a small way with my business. I’m interested in platforms, in things that are sustainable over time and will adapt and change as appropriate. But those are expensive and budgets tend towards buying self-contained products that do a job but don’t necessarily have the resources to make a difference in the long term. Or at least that’s one way at looking at it.
This isn’t a definitive opinion. I’m using a blunt tool to slice at big issues. But I think it might help.