It’s funny how lessons learned in one industry can often be transfered almost in their entirety to another. I speak of the quite astonishing crossover between modern technology and politics1. Many aspects of technological progress over the past decade or so, particularly social networking, many-to-many communication and viral marketing, have vastly influenced the political process, in some cases changing it beyond recognition. Eventually I’ll get round writing a post on what politicians can learn from open standards, a particular bugbear of mine.
It was with great interest, therefore, that I read (hat-tip John Gruber) a post from the wonderfully-named Linux Hater’s Blog describing how choice is killing the Linux market. Key paragraph:
So not only does the addition of so many choices alienate would be users, it also makes it difficult for developers to create tested, working configurations. It’s a double whammy. Obsession with providing choice it every level actively works against efforts that would otherwise push Linux to provide what the mainstream wants.
You can probably see where this is going when coupled with my previous words on the subject of choice. The fact is, the default reaction of a human being when presented with a difficult choice is exasperation. The really difficult choices are not the ones where your life will be seriously affected. It’s not difficult to choose between having your heart condition treated by a surgeon and an acupuncturist. You already know what the answer is before you’re asked the question. By continuing to talk about choice in healthcare and in education and in other aspects of life, the government are perpetuating a fallacy, alienating the electorate, and intimidating those who are being expected to make a choice.
What’s really going on here, with Labour as with Linux, is the disconnect between what people say they want, and what they actually need. In the words of Steve Jobs, “You cant just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, theyll want something new.” People say they want choice, but what we really need is healthcare that keeps us healthy, and education that gives our children the best life opportunities they can get. Boring, really, isn’t it.
- Okay, politics may not be an ‘industry’ as such, but in practice it is not dissimilar from a market economy [↩]
“Less is more.” A familiar refrain though the trouble is I can only choose from what is on offer.
When it comes to shampoo, they all behave the same way on my hair, the only difference is the smell and the price, yet there are gazillions of brands, subdivided into hair types, hair colours, with or without inbuilt conditioners etc. They’re all more or less the same and are one of the products with little brand loyalty.
Given that most people see little difference between the main political parties it’s not surprising they will vote based on smell and price, too. The big difference is that they are not tempted by independents and smaller parties. I wonder why.
Tizzy
July 22, 2008 at 3:31 am