Wired
> Video is loading, please wait…Auto play
play Perfection in the eyes of Steve Jobs, disability in the eyes of consumers?forward, backward
Steve Jobs has been dead for ten years. Although there have been twists and turns in the past ten years and it is no longer unique, Apple is still a giant in the field of mobile smartphones and personal computers. The iPhone is about to release its thirteenth generation, and at the just-held Apple Developers Conference (WWDC2021), Apple also announced their fifteenth generation operating system iOS15 – without the god-like Jobs himself, Apple still maintains Dominant, and further integrating Apple’s design concepts into users’ daily lives through smart phone functions such as iWatch and Siri, creating a cyberspace state of coexistence between man and machine and the elimination of subjectivity.
There are always many angles to discuss the legend of Steve Jobs and Apple, and “The Biography of Steve Jobs” was released in 2015, written by the gold medal screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and directed by the Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle. Jobs) summarized the core of Jobs’ lifelong experience as his fascination with the closed-source concept. Amid everyone’s disgust and opposition to the arrogant, arrogant, self-absorbed dictator-like Karisma that he displayed due to his addiction to closed-source systems, the camera was always focused on Jobs’s unremitting persistence. and swim against the current. The movie does not focus on some familiar classic Apple products, but uses the three press conferences of the first Mac computer in 1984, the founding of NeXT Computer Company after Jobs left Apple, and the first launch of the iMac in 1998 as the plot axis: In essence, the film presents a story of Jobs adhering to the closed-source concept and experiencing several failures but ultimately winning and conquering the world.
With the continuous promotion and development of the closed source concept advocated by Apple in the fields of smartphones and personal computers, today’s electronic product users no longer seem to indulge in the debate between “open source” and “closed source”. The convenience of computer and the de-subjectivization of the coexistence of humans and machines have almost become a contemporary daily life – however, when surprising scenes of the post-80s and 90s generation lacking computer knowledge of the post-00s generation appear on Weibo and daily life, we still have to This phenomenon is attributed to the fact that Apple’s closed-source concept is still flourishing after the death of Jobs: Some people once believed that closed-source systems are inherently “anti-human”, “digital capitalism”, “digital fascism”, and “brave new”. The concept of “world” will gradually disappear as Jobs’s genius Charisma moves away and breaks away. However, the fact more than ten years later is definitely not the case: when we gradually become accustomed to and even love the concept of closed source, when we watch “History” “The Biography of Steve Jobs” and empathetically admired Jobs’ final victory, we have slowly fallen into a beautiful and dark bottomless abyss.
In this splendid and beautiful scene of the abyss, Jobs uses an extraordinary, elegant, modern, amoral aesthetic image to bring us a song that is like a “Siren Song”, showing seduction and sublime power. The future of digital capitalism: as individuals, we can no longer escape.
“Open source”/”closed source”: Is it just a matter of how to understand “knowledge wealth”?
“Qiansai” in the 1980s and 1990s who have completely experienced the development process of personal computer systems from UNIX, DOS, and then to Windows, or experienced the development process of mobile phone systems, Symbian systems, Android systems, and then iOS systems. The “Bo generation” may be the group of people who are most sensitive to the closed-source concept that Apple and Jobs himself have always advocated. When they first came into contact with Apple’s iOS system, it was impossible not to be surprised that there was no file manager, system root directory and folder list in the system. It was impossible not to be surprised that iTunes and iCloud were highly “automated” and the operator had no control over the details. The “synchronization” process of content is surprising and even scary – the opposition, suppression and slander that Jobs encountered in the first place can be understood by this generation in a sense: from the beginning of its emergence, the concept of closed source has shocked and confused users. They proclaim their arrogance, “you’re in charge,” their aggressiveness, their dominance. “Why can’t I figure out what files are on my device and where they are?” To this question, Jobs in the film responded indifferently: “Why do you need to know?”
For the Apple board members who pushed founder Steve Jobs out, the horror of the closed-source concept was that it seemed “anti-business.” At that time, Apple, which was just an ordinary company with an average market share, developed and launched operating systems and operating devices that were only compatible with itself. Wouldn’t it be commercial suicide to completely seal off software development data? From the perspective of developers and businessmen, it is natural to hope that the devices launched will be compatible with all systems and incorporate all software. However, in Steve Jobs’s “End to End” plan, Apple will follow a self-guided path from the beginning. The closed, self-contained path of isolation created a group of developers and users who only used Apple. Why did Apple, which only held no more than half of the market share at the time, have such “exclusive” thinking and confidence that it didn’t know where it came from? ? This is really hard to understand.
In fact, it is now considered that open source and closed source are just a choice, a different understanding of the nature of “intellectual property” and “intellectual wealth”, and a general consensus on business behavior that weighs the pros and cons. In fact, it was completely shaped by Jobs himself. Before Steve Jobs, in the decades of Internet and program development, no one believed that closed source was a matter of business logic. It caused too much inconvenience and led to comprehensive self-limitation and closure from developers to users. , hindering the promotion and popularity of software and hardware at all levels; no one thinks that closed source is a moral thing. Fundamentally closed source violates the original populist spirit of sharing, commonality, and equality on the Internet, and artificially restricts freedom in itself. set a boundary in the computer world.
At first glance, “closed source” is a common awareness of intellectual property protection, which means that the data, programs and operating systems created by a company can be protected and used, safeguarding the rights of developers and manufacturers to the greatest extent. However, for Internet development and the computer industry, if it cannot be widely used and cannot be included in the vision of the most common developers and users, it will be a more serious business failure than harming the interests of its own developers. In the final analysis, the people who thought Jobs was crazy didn’t really want to create a computer empire with only Apple, nor did they really want people around the world to use only iOS systems. They just couldn’t imagine being a company without strong external pressure and intervention. How does Apple, an ordinary commercial company, achieve the construction of this independent monopoly empire?
In business, any business company hopes to embark on the path of a monopoly group from a cartel, a syndicate, a trust and finally to a Concern. Apple’s closed-source concept of monopoly has finally been proven to be not only feasible but also very profitable in business, but This path of capitalist expansion, which has long been clarified by Marxists, has been widely alerted to within major traditional industries, and has been comprehensively resisted from theory to practice. Why has it been so openly victorious in the emerging Internet industry? ? If the commercial benefits brought by monopoly can ultimately help Jobs convince his colleagues, why do the majority of users and program developers willingly accept Apple’s monopoly and expansion and personally help Jobs realize his closed source concept? Is it because the emerging Internet and computer industries lack awareness of the logic of capitalist operation and business monopoly? Doesn’t the Internet world represent the cutting-edge spirit of knowledge sharing, information freedom and data communism?
Revealing the theoretical glossing by followers due to Apple’s indisputable commercial victory, in fact the debate between open source and closed source is not just a matter of understanding “intellectual wealth”, and the two are not just equal concepts. difference. Even the most radical open source supporters, even the most advocating sharing and anti-commercial Internet “hackers”, recognize that the existence of intellectual property rights is reasonable and recognize the basic rights and interests of original creators. The logic of any information freedom and data communism is essentially We are just trying to share the convenience and profits brought by the products, but we are not trying to deprive or infringe on the creators, developers and users themselves. However, the closed-source concept expands the concept of intellectual property without limit, and is essentially an amplified version of Adam Smith’s “rent” logic. The closed-source concept means that not only Apple, as a developer, can Enjoy the basic commercial rights and infinitely extendable profits brought by intellectual property rights. As long as users and developers use, even if they are “forced” to use Apple’s systems and equipment, they will also have to pay for Apple. Because of their own intellectual property rights, The “land rent” logic of the Apple system must be partially violated and become a “long-term employee of the landlord’s family”, not to mention ordinary users who are completely regarded as data sources and tax residents: throughout the ages, any commercial monopoly group has only hoped that Carry out material monopoly and control its consumers and audiences through material needs, while the attempt to conduct “closed source” monopoly on intellectual property and spiritual achievements in the Internet world is a higher-level form of “empire”—— It involves the intervention and invasion of power into people’s spirit and way of existence, shifting from external intervention in politics to the internal biopolitical field.
The question is: Why do we in the 21st century still view positively, speak highly of, and even indulge in Steve Jobs’s brilliant victory? What method did Jobs and Apple use to make the Internet industry, which originally advocated anti-monopoly and data freedom, finally surrender to a Concern-style global capital and knowledge monopoly empire?
The Aesthetic Construction of Apple: Apolitical, Decriminalizing Leni Refenstahl
Apple’s victory is all-round: it is not just a victory for business share and profit monopoly, it is also a victory in the ideological and spiritual fields, a victory of aesthetics and identity value recognition. Just a few years ago, among users in the vast majority of developing countries, led by China, Apple products represented taste and were an undisputed status symbol – “Selling a kidney to buy an iPhone 4” was not just an Internet joke , it is also a cruel reality that really happened in some places. “1984” and “Think Different” are two classic advertisements that have been recorded in history. They not only announced Apple’s victory to the world, but also essentially shaped Apple’s unique aesthetic status and incorporated Apple products into the sacred palace of art—— The elegance and sophistication of white and the unique and unruly nature of genius are organically combined. The narration of the classic advertisement “Think Different” is actually Jobs’s own answer to “Why do we need to build a closed-source system?”:
Pay tribute to those crazy guys: they are mavericks, they are unruly, they cause trouble, they are misfits, they see things differently, they don’t like to stick to the rules, and they don’t want to settle for the status quo.
You can praise them, quote them, oppose them, question them, praise or denigrate them, but you cannot ignore them. Because they change things.
They invent, they imagine, they heal, they explore, they create, they inspire, they move humanity forward. Maybe they must go crazy.
Can you stare at a blank piece of paper and see a wonderful painting? Can you sit quietly and compose beautiful songs? Can you gaze at Mars and think of magical space wheels? We create opportunities for these guys. Maybe they are madmen in the eyes of others, but they are geniuses in our eyes.
Because only those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world can truly change the world.
Putting aside the even somewhat sensationalistic enthusiasm for individual subjective initiative and the ultimate praise of individual genius, we can read Jobs’s autocratic self-flagellation: Why build a monopolized closed-source system that others cannot touch? Because I am a genius, what I do is the best and should be used by people all over the world. This is an extremely willful and crazy answer, and it is theoretically backward-causal – we want to get the answer to why we use closed source systems, and the Steve Jobs Karisma answer is: because everyone is using it. So you must use it; it is not because closed source systems have any direct benefits for us. Although its convenience and usage advantages do exist, in this narrative, these benefits and advantages are actually secondary and additional. Basically, we use The reason why Apple has a closed source system is because Steve Jobs said it is good! What Steve Jobs said is the truth. Apple is good. Everyone follows his teachings and uses Apple. And because everyone is using Apple, you have no choice. You must use a closed source system and respect the concept of closed source – closed source. The Source Idea doesn’t convince you to agree, it just acts as an irrefutable presence that forces you to agree; just like you need oxygen.
Apple’s followers, and of course countless computer practitioners, will definitely be able to analyze Apple’s great innovations in technology development. In fact, the epoch-making concept of touch screen has indeed fundamentally changed the world. The performance and relative convenience of Apple devices are not the same. Despite its monopoly position, from the perspective of ordinary users, Apple’s victory must first be a victory of aesthetics and will. It has the most exquisite and beautiful machine in appearance, pioneered a flat visual aesthetic in terms of software, followed the white nightmare of Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”, inherited the mantle of Bauhaus and modern geometricism, and became a model of contemporary industrial design. ; It has a spirit of philosophy that no other manufacturer can match. The madness of the closed-source concept is deeply integrated into the blood of this company, allowing them to not only show their unruly innovative spirit in advertising, but also to be able to innovate in technology. The above two aesthetic levels have to be attributed to the well-known core proposition of political aesthetics: the charisma of the leader himself and the personal worship of the leader himself, the eternal respect for personal will and the respect for the leader himself. A high degree of spiritual control among followers.
Jobs’s own genius and artistic temperament created an image of a leader that made the audience put down their guard, decriminalize and harmless. On the basis of depoliticization, this “dictator” became easier to like, until it came from the bottom of his heart. Be inspired by it, be inspired by it, and follow it wholeheartedly. Even though Steve Jobs has been dead for ten years, the phantom image he left behind is still an eternally shining “simulacra”, a sacred cloak that hangs over Apple and Apple products. The uproar and tsunami of previous Apple conferences is not so much the worship of new ideas and technologies by technology developers, but rather the daily worship of God Jobs in a religious and theological nature. That tearful, inexplicably excited crowd, as crazy as the one shown in Apple’s own “1984” ad, is no different from the raging crowds at the 1936 Berlin Olympics that were filmed in “Triumph of the Will” – and even the portrayal in it and popularity, it seems to be fair that it pales in comparison to the glorious image of Steve Jobs today.
Also a dictator, Jobs used the illusion of artistic dictatorship to make us lower our guard, making us mistakenly think that he was just a harmless dictator in aesthetics and art, forgetting that he was actually a dictator in the business world, and further Using the development and monopoly of contemporary technology to transform, intervene and rule our lives, he is also a biopolitical dictator. Apple’s victory is the postmodern victory of the 21st century: whereas previous political leaders relied on ideas based on the promise of a better life and material abundance to rally support, contemporary leaders rely solely on immaterial aesthetic ideas and pure If you are spiritually satisfied, you can create supreme miracles that change the world.
Should we be more wary of the triumph of aesthetic ideas? A main line of thinking contained in the modernist and postmodern ideological trends that began in the 20th century is the fundamental rebellion against the “unity of beauty and goodness.” We have gradually accepted and recognized the non-moral possibility of beauty as an independent category. The pinnacle of aesthetics no longer has to be the same as the ultimate good. Kant’s moral construction of aesthetic practice has long been overturned. However, all this must be based on the “harmlessness” of aesthetics and art itself: when Jobs and Apple rely on the victory of aesthetics to achieve commercial and political victory, can we still take it lightly? This is no longer even a dimension of the 20th century’s “moral” criticism of futurist literature and phenomenological aesthetics that fell into the clutches of the Nazis, because Apple’s aesthetic victory has transcended its impact on the human spirit, but has fundamentally changed human beings. The possibility of survival leads to a path of de-subjective human-computer cyber coexistence, a kind of biopolitics.
As data, can we still escape digital capitalism?
Let’s go back to the question that the “pre-cyber generation” who is accustomed to open source operating systems will inevitably ask when facing the iOS system: Why can’t I fully control all the data in the device I own? Why am I doing nothing but waiting when the data automatically starts “syncing”? Why am I being denied the right to enter only the data I want into the device? Jobs’s answer of “you don’t need to” is unacceptable to this generation, but the alarming fact is that the reason why the “cyber generation” starting from the 2000s can accept it is because they may not have thought about it at all. Having raised this question, they really “don’t need it”: Human beings who understand from birth that screens can be touched and manipulated are already a new type of human being that has evolved and is fundamentally different from the previous generation.
Apple’s closed-source concept revolution is actually partially similar to the last great revolution in computer operating systems: from DOS to Windows: they are both a broader-oriented revolution guided by the ideas of “convenience” and “what you see is what you get” The usage habits of the general public have changed. Through the mouse, Bill Gates changed the inherent logic of having to input rote instructions to run a program, allowing users to control personal computers with simple “click” operations through the “window”; similarly, Jobs’ Apple closed At first glance, the source system is actually based on the window architecture of the Windows system (after all, in the development process of smartphones, from Symbian to the Android system, the “program icon” of Windows is the guiding ideology). Apple products give people The original shock was that it was the first to promote and perfect the “touch screen” operation method, integrating the two senses of vision and touch, so that the “what you see is what you get” completed with the mouse can be added in a more embodied tactile form. Implementation – However, with the supreme convenience brought by the tactile sense and high-speed processor, the closed-source system quietly removed an icon from the user’s smartphone desktop: the file manager, or with a more familiar icon Name it: “My Computer”.
Although due to limited conditions and user acceptance, Apple’s personal computer iMac cannot yet cancel users’ file management permissions like smart mobile devices. It can only continue Apple’s closed-source concept through closed-source system monopoly and program exclusivity, but we still We can foresee the digital dictatorship-style totalitarian future shown by the crazy Jobs, and the elitist concept he always upheld: as a user, you don’t need to know why, you only need to know how! As users, we only need to let manufacturers put what we need into our mouths and enjoy the “what you see is what you get” convenience brought by technological development! As a user, you don’t need to know the operation and operating logic behind it. What’s the use of knowing it?
By extension, is Apple the only one to understand this concept and succeed? The scary fact is that although before Apple, no one believed that this crazy idea could succeed, after Apple, the initiator, we saw that the entire Internet industry began to follow Apple’s footsteps, which may once again declare that Apple and Jobs are amazing The greatness and “sublimity” of fear: We have become accustomed to using music apps, online playlists and online purchases; we have become accustomed to using video websites to directly watch copyrighted videos. eDonkey, p2p sharing and subtitle groups have declined; we no longer take the initiative To find news and search information, we only need to wait for the scheduled push every day; our photos, videos and operation information are uploaded to iCloud and major network drives every moment, and countless eyes pass through the screen to watch and detect what we do. , but we feel that “synchronization” and “backup” are conveniences given to us naturally, and we no longer have to worry about losing our information…
Indeed, with the passing of Steve Jobs, the mediocrity of the CEOs who succeeded him, and the gradual decline in the forefront of technology, Apple, the unprecedented computer empire, may one day be overturned and fall in the near future, but the closed source concept pioneered by Apple The road has gone straight up and down the road, completely subverting and destroying the spiritual foundation of the Internet that was originally based on sharing and freedom: data and information no longer bring us freedom. When data invades us and data becomes us, data and the Internet will become the eternal prison that imprisons us.
“Cyberpunk” is no longer a prophecy, but a reality: our daily habits and ways of survival have been profoundly changed by smartphones and the Internet. There is no turning back for us who have embarked on this path. We can only embrace further comprehensive digitization, and even the uploading of mental data. “Mechanical ascension” is a future where humans and machines coexist with cyborgs and robots. Western Marxists are aware of the new form of contemporary “digital capitalism”, realize that capital and means of production have been transformed into the form of information and data for decades, and realize that capitalism intervenes in a more “harmless” manner And it affects human beings’ daily lives, further alienating and controlling human beings from a spiritual rather than material perspective, and achieving the fundamental purpose of biopolitics with a more subtle way of operating power – we who have been digitized will never be able to escape society. Alienated reality: It is impossible to control thoughts simply by using thoughts, but if you can control the skills of the body, you will definitely be able to control thoughts; the answer that goes one step further is that when the body and subject are cancelled, and people are completely transformed into data , thought itself will no longer be independent and free, and will no longer become an objective reality available for discussion.
Evolution, metamorphosis, new humanity, post-humanity, or ceasing to be human.
By that time, will our “Philosopher King” still be a leader of artistic temperament, at least in aesthetics, like Steve Jobs? A more likely fact is that from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, to Elon Musk flying to Mars, to the Chinese Internet giants who are never afraid to speak out in public, even if they are expecting a With Charisma, the “Philosopher King”, our expectations and desires may be slowly sinking.
The Internet world once told us a bright future of information freedom, shared governance and data communism, and then this future was eventually alienated into a cyberpunk-style digital capitalism picture, which seems to be the historical development of mankind over thousands of years. Another farce re-enacted: the only thing we can do about this is to write and show all this, although the effect of doing so is as small as dust – just like we can only fundamentally change capitalism if we fully understand it Capitalism; only by taking the initiative to master the mysteries of technology, only by knowing what some people don’t want us to know, and only by embracing eternal doubt and distrust of “closed source concepts”, can human beings have a weak possibility of escaping technological domination.