Choose Independence NOT Dependence

The case for why when given the choice between independence and dependence the default should be to choose independence

When given the option to choose between independence and dependence the defacto choice should be to choose independence, NOT dependence. Sadly, we (the collective American Consoomer) have that backwards. We have grown accustomed to trading away our independence, be that our privacy, personal data, or in many cases our very capacity to think independently. We trade it away for shiny new products that come with the promise of convenience. I say that last part somewhat tongue in cheek because corporations know what sells and employ a standing army of marketers who will sell you on why you need this new product or feature. If they do not get to you first then the dragnet of Youtube Tech Dorks will sell you on the idea with their latest Tech Review upload.

This shift towards increased reliance on corporate products and services has saturated all aspects of the American Consoomer's life. For the sake of this post I will constrain myself to technology, specifically computers, and how we use them to store digital media. In this context media will be defined as digital formats users interact with on a computer. Think, the programs we use, the music we listen to, the videos we watch, the photos we view or the very documents we use. You get the picture but to help further illustrate, see example list below:

All of us as computer users have our own digital media. However, for each independent example given above there is a counter dependent example for those that choose to outsource the ownership of their digital media. Here is a new list with the equivalent renters/subscription model for digital media:

The first list represents digital independence, mainly that you do NOT depend on a service to gain access to your personal digital media. In fact you can access your digital media without an internet connection because you own the storage space where your media lives. For many this is how we learned to use computers and frankly that is because there was no alternative. I was fortunate enough to be a part of the last generation to learn how to interact with digital media in this way. I can make this claim with confidence because my cousin who is eight years younger than me had a drastically different upbringing with computers. He was brought up in a school system that used Google Chromebooks.

My first introduction to Chromebooks came around ten years ago when my buddy Dan bought one. He pitched it to me as a fast, affordable, light weight laptop. As we talked I was shocked to learn that Chromebooks did not have onboard storage. When I asked where you would store your media he explained that so long as you had a connection to the internet, you could access all of your files through online Google applications. This is when I made the connection that this device was a literal portal to the Google "Eco-System".

The Google Eco-System consisted of a suite of online applications that were equivalent to local programs you were used to interacting with. So by uploading all of your local digital media to Googles' cloud storage, Google Drive, you could freely use the Google Eco-System through a Chromebook. The idea was too good to be true. Google's pitch was that for as low as $150 you could have a fast, lightweight device through which you could access all of your personal media using Google's free online suite of applications. Because your media would now be stored on Googles' servers you could rest easy with the peace of mind that should something ever happen to your computer your personal digital media would be safe.

So that was the pitch, and at the time it was a good one. To see how far ahead of the curve Google was at the time it is important to remember that ten years ago Consoomers only had two real options, Windows or Apple. The lowest end Windows PCs came in around $500 and the cheapest Apple computer you could buy was around twice as much. Technically Windows sold "netbooks" as low as $200 or $300 but they were absolute garbage. Both Windows and Apple computers were slow (unless you had an expensive SSD), heavy, and required you to shell over around $100 to Windows for software if you wanted their suite of programs. Not to mention the ever present fear of losing all of your personal media should you lose or break your computer. So to reiterate, Googles' pitch was an appealing one because it solved almost all of the inconvenient aspects of computing while providing safety for ones personal media.

Convenience and safety all at an affordable price point. That, it turns out was all it took to convince Consoomers to give up their digital independence.

Fast forward to today and we live in a world where computing is highly centralized amongst a few large companies. After seeing the success of Google's digital land grab companies quickly followed suite and now almost every software company offers cloud based services. Because most users use smartphones instead of laptops or desktops. Consoomers have two real choices, Apple or Android (Google). If you use Apple all of your digital media is uploaded to Apple's servers a.k.a. iCloud and we have already discussed Googles' model.

This new era of computing has concentrated control in the hands of a select few large corporations and this has left users dependant on these companies for access to their own personal media. So in effect, the average computer user today has been swindled out of personal ownership of their own media and left a dependant digital peasant. It is impossible to know the ramifications of this new level of dependence.

However, one result is that that this has created a seismic shift in how companies do business. Instead of selling Consoomers products companies are now selling services. What software was once available for a one time purchase is now only available under a subscription. It is becoming more and more common for the software to require an internet connection simply to ping the mothership to verify that payments are up-to-date before allowing the user to use the software.

It is important to realize just how invasive we as Consoomers have let these companies become and more importantly to think about how dependent you personally are on them. So when I make the argument that when given the option of choosing between independence or dependence I believe it is in your best interest to default towards choosing independence. I am not suggesting you go live by yourself in a cabin in the woods but when it comes to most people they are currently operating their digital lives at the level of dependence that if operating at a similar extreme of independence would be analogous to living alone in a cabin in the woods. This is all to say that for most of us, myself included, that we are already far too dependant in how we currently manage our digital lives. I am simply suggesting that we pump the brakes, take a long hard look at where we are and start the process of taking back control of our digital lives.

If you found this article interesting and would like to share a comment with me, please feel free to reach out to me directly via my personal email at (drew@drewredifer.com).

Return to