(Second of a series)
GENERALLY speaking, it could be said that technology is a neutral element, meaning to say that technology could be used for good or for bad, depending on the motives of whoever uses it.
For example, there is no doubt that water is life, but it could also mean death if it is used to suffocate or drown people or much worst, if it is used as a weapon, such as a hydrogen bomb.
To state the obvious, the good guys can plan to use technology for good, while the bad guys can plan to use it for bad. The truth is, this might actually have something to do with the age old battle between the forces of evil and the forces of good. By way of reference, it would be easy to say that the bad guys are actually always on the side of the forces of evil.
Well, if you are a Christian you have to believe in the existence of the devil, being the adversary of God.
On my part, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing I can do about how the bad guys will use technology for their own evil purposes, but I do know many good ways wherein technology could be used for the common good.
Under normal circumstances, I would even say that the government could be very instrumental in using technology for the common good, but the government is perhaps best suited to come up with policy directions and program plans, instead of implementing actual projects.
I say that not because I am underestimating the government, but because almost always, the government is short of budgets and manpower. To me, it does not really matter if programs are government led or private led, for as long as projects are implemented for the common good.
In reality, there is always a time lag from the time that a technology is invented, until the time that it is implemented or marketed in the Philippines. To be fair however, it is not always the government that could be blamed for the time lag, because the entry of technologies into the country is either policy driven or market driven. Either way, it could be government driven or industry driven as the case may be, depending on which side could be enlightened ahead of the other.
In this regard, what is better perhaps is a two-way relationship between the government and industry. If the government leaders could be so enlightened, they could lead the process so that progressive policies could be introduced. Conversely, industry could also lead in enlightening the government leaders.
Among all other existing technologies, mobile apps seem to hold the best promise of inspiring two-way cooperation between the government and industry because for the most part, most mobile apps could be offered at no cost to the government. That is so because the business model of mobile apps is totally different from licensed software or software driven services.
To be more specific, the business model of mobile apps is advertising based or fee based, the latter meaning fees being charged only if services are actually rendered. The advertising model is very familiar to most of us, because that is the business model of Facebook and many other social networking sites. The objective of most of these sites is to increase their number of Monthly Active Users (MAUs) as much as possible, because the more MAUs they have, the higher their stocks could be worth when they make their Initial Public Offerings (IPOs).
In my opinion, the best way of introducing mobile apps for the common good is to have government sponsors and private partners working together. By the word sponsor, I mean government agencies that would actively champion the introduction of a mobile app because it serves a public purpose, even if it would not mean the utilization of public funds.
On its part, the private partners could be Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) that are helping the government in the achievement of national goals, even if it would mean any financial gain for them. Normally speaking, Public and Private Partnership (PPP) would mean a business venture between both sides, but in recent times, the meaning of PPP has evolved to also mean joint efforts between the two sides, with neither side having a financial gain.
Citing again a developer of mobile apps who has become my dear friend, “there is always money to be made by helping people”. Do not get me wrong because his motives are not at all altruistic. Knowing him, what he means is that helping people is actually his primary goal, but the monetary side thus not bother him because he knows that money could be made one way or the other.
Believe it or not, the philosophy or ideology of a developer could actually affect the outcome of a product. For example, I know of one product that would probably fail in the market because it is driven by greed.
As I know it, the market would eventually find out that the product is not beneficial to them, and the result of that would either be a boycott or a decline in sales. Consumers have always been intelligent, but more so now, because of social media. (iseneres@yahoo.com/PN)
