We carry personal computers in our pockets—nothing could be more decentralized than this!—but have surrendered control of our data, which is stored on centralized servers, far away from our pockets. The hackers won their fight against I.B.M.—only to lose it to Facebook and Google.
I wonder if this is perhaps even more dangerous..?
there’s more politicking—and politics—to be done here than enthusiasts like Anderson or Hatch are willing to acknowledge.
One of author's arguments
But both overlook one key development: in a world where everyone is an entrepreneur, it’s hard work getting others excited about funding your project. Money goes to those who know how to attract attention.
Author argues that grabbing people's attention and interest is just as important as the actual funding platform itself. This is especially true in the digital Internet age. You can have a great product, but without good advertising, there may be little to no backing from investors.
We must abandon the virtual and embrace the physical—preferably at Hatch’s TechShop.
There is definitely a certain amount of personal financial interest/advertising in Hatch's writing... the author of this article points this out in a somewhat indirect and even humorous way.
TechShop charges a monthly membership fee, which provides access to facilities equipped with everything from oxyacetylene welders to the latest design software.
I have never heard of TechShop before. Sounds very interesting though, and I now want to look into it more. How much is the fee? Are there any locations around me? It seems like a potentially valuable resource...
Making something that starts virtual but quickly becomes tactile and usable in the everyday world is satisfying in a way that pure pixels are not.
Do agree with this. (CAD to 3D printing the object is very satisfying in my experience)
many promoters of the maker movement believe that personal manufacturing will undermine the clout of large corporations.
Though there is great power in the maker movement, I don't see it being able to truly undermine or compete with large corporations in the foreseeable future. For instance, most people still value brand names and the trust and quality assurance that comes with them.
Makers, in other words, are the new hackers.
One of the author's arguments. It is argued that the maker movement is gathering great momentum in the current day and that it focuses on many of the same ideas as the hackers.
A hacker takes nothing as given, everything as worth creatively fiddling with, and the variety which proceeds from that enricheth the adaptivity, resilience, and delight of us all.”
I agree with this point! From my personal experience, a hacker or maker is almost always trying to improve things through their creativity and skills. They are rarely satisfied with the way something is originally designed or done.
“The modern man, who should be a craftsman, but who, in most cases, is compelled by force of circumstances to be a mill operative, has no freedom,” she wrote earlier. “He must make what his machine is geared to make.”
An interesting juxtaposition between the freedom and creativity that making allows for, and the oftentimes constraining realities of life.