Class Gadgetism

Considering that many people in the first world now have a computer in their pocket when such a thing would have seemed far-fetched only ten years ago, it seems hardly a prediction that one day we might have computers attached to our brains, or stuffed into other bodily cavities, and otherwise interfaces to our current bodily senses. In the link attached to the previous sentence, you can speculate on exactly what these attachments will be.

The interesting part of that article, is the proposition that using such technology will be a “dominant strategy equilibrium.” The term comes from game theory, and denotes the condition when all players choose the outcome that will dominate regardless of other’s choices. In the classic Prisoner’s Dilemma, the result of both players consistently defecting is this sort of equilibrium–they both choose to screw over the other player, in order to save themselves being screwed in an unmitigated fashion. (There is a phrase to quote!) There are other sorts of dominant strategy equilibriums, depending on the game–it is whatever works out best for everyone so that they don’t need to worry about everyone else. Hedging your bets, in a way.

Which makes sense. When everyone has Google Maps in their pocket, you will be at a disadvantage if you don’t. Not only in the simple competition of finding the way to the nearest coffee shop the fastest, but also the generalized act of “finding your way”. Try this experiment: ask someone with an iPhone how to get somewhere a fair distance away. Watch their face squint up, as they attempt not to suggest, “can’t you just look at your iPhone?” Indeed, once you see someone with a smart phone, it’s pretty difficult not to want one yourself. It appeals to all kinds–those who tweet or text constantly, those who rely on business email or other network connection, those whose appetite for trivia necessitates a Wikipedia implant, those who like the interface for games, or those who simply like music and video wherever they go. And yes, those who want to find coffee shops.

But we are only in the first “mini-game” of the smart phone world. In game theory application, any theorized game is only part of the bigger picture. You solve the small games, and then those equilibriums become the rules for a larger game. For the game, “who wants a smart phone?” we get “Everyone wants a smart phone”. Equilibrium created. Now, on to the next game.

Another game could be “what smart phone do I buy?” From the choices of features, phones in existence, and your desired usage, you could find yourself another equilibrium. An “when do I update my phone with the next version?” could be another, with factors such as feature change, plan cost, and local availability. Either of these could be analyzed according to game theory, or some other method of diagramming rational choice.

But here’s one that is a little more complicated, of which we are only seeing the beginnings. What happens when the original dominant strategy equilibrium is an equilibrium, but is not a balanced equilibrium? What happens when access to game choices are not distributed equally? This is called an asymmetric game. Equilibrium does not necessarily mean fairness, or balance between players.

Picture this: two players have established the dominant strategy equilibrium, and decided they both need smart phones. To make it simple, we’ll just say they are both business people, that need smart phones for business. Player A’s company is doing well, so they play the “What smart phone game?” and spring for an iPhone 4–top of the line. Equilibrium established, smart phone in hand. Player B owns his/her own company, and is barely making it through the recession. His/her equilibrium lands a [insert smart phone you feel is less capable than the iPhone 4 so I don't have to go there.] Both are fulfilling their dominant strategy, but Player A ends up better than Player B. His/her phone is faster, so s/he arrives to appointments on time. It has more value as a status symbol. S/he has access to numerous productivity apps, and so on and so forth.

Maybe the difference isn’t really pronounced between Player A and B. There are plenty of other variables. Maybe B’s business acumen totally makes up for less than cutting edge technology. But because we are talking about game theory, let’s extend the pattern to infinity. Let’s look at two entire classes of people, divided by whether they have the best phone, or the second best. Let’s imagine that this differentiation also falls across an app compatibility divide, so class A has access to different apps than B. The new social network develops their apps for class A first–better press that way, and that class has a bit more disposable income for premium apps. Now their phones are, for the moment of that app divide, even more different than before. Take a look at the difference in app availability between Sybian OS and iOS. That is probably the furtherest extreme of this app divide–for now. Both are very popular, and yet iOS has many, many more apps than Sybian.

And this leads us to the example of a more historical technological divide, between first and third world. Sybian is widely used because it is the OS for many Nokia phones, the most popular mobile handset manufacturer in the world. But Apple is the most popular handset manufacturer in the FIRST world. This is, in a sense, no different than any other technological divide between first and third world. I hear Internet is faster in the first world too (just not in the US). But this is divide that is going to appear in the first world, as the slope of asymmetric equilibriums in personal technology increase.

I’m finding this out now, as my iPhone 3G slowly expires. I bought it in 2008 when it first came out. I coughed up the dough because not only did I have an extra $200 bucks, but because it was “the future”. I even named my phone “The Future”. Now, as I am short on cash after being unemployed for a while last year (thanks, recession! Debt is the gift that keeps on giving!) my choice in name is providing me with a delightful bit of retro-future irony as compensation for low battery life, crashing apps, and intermittent antenna problems. Not only is my phone less than status quo compared to the new iPhone 4, it is decidedly less useful that it was originally, as evidenced by comparison to my partner’s iPhone 3G, purchased in 2009. She did not upgrade to iOS 4, and uses her phone (and battery) far less than I do. It’s like a breath of fresh air when I use her phone for a moment, as opposed to the sluggishness of “The Future”.

Although it is certainly what they call a “first world problem” that my mobile phone’s web browser crashes, it is also by this distinction that the problem becomes apparent. If the first and the third world is divided by the rational choice equilibriums represented in Nokia vs Apple, then the division between the iPhone 4 and the 3G is class difference. The astute sociological observer would note that this class boundary, if it amounts to anything much, would be the difference between middle class and and lower-upper-middle class, if that is such a thing. And it might also be explained by other divisions such as geeky tech hobbies, and what I choose to spent my money on. The strategies of this game are complicated, and many. But compare this division, which I am sure I am not the only one to feel, to when the iPhone 3G was first released. As the first widely adopted full-powered smart phone (an odd differentiation of categories in itself), everyone who bought one was instantly a member of the “iPhone club”. But it was a single level club. In a way, smart phones were the beginning of a new utopia–in which we will all be wirelessly integrated into the network, constantly on, and all equal members of the social network and the meritocracy of the commons. But in only two years, and in two yearly iPhone model iterations, new strategic games have been introduced. A rift is opening. How far can I let myself fall from the cutting edge? How far can you? Where is the equilibrium for anyone, in a constantly accelerating terrain of technology? How far can you drift to the back of the pack before you can never make up the ground that is lost?

The identifiable rules of a game are in themselves, a certain equilibrium of the folded strata of choices. They are a pattern, denoting a landscape–a plane of existence defined by certain variables. Option points, and choice vectors that move between them. Smart phone technology is only a recent surface for this landscape. Class differences have been around longer. Class is nothing more than a “family structure”: a strategic alignment whose constituent interests are best served by an allegiance to this abstract concept. It behooves a certain portion of the population to identify as middle class, and defend those “values”, because in the end as self-ascribed members, they will benefit as part of the whole. The family was once the primary structure to defend, from a evolutionary perspective. It was the basic pattern of human productive relations. As society and its productions get more complicated, we get other structures, that will either defend themselves, or fade away. They will create strategies of existence–the choice to adhere to said equilibrium and promote its strategy becomes an identifying factor for group membership.

Take fan-based, or “hobby” industries. The Commodore 64 was the best-selling computer from 1982-86. It introduced the home computer to thousands of homes (the “family” computer, as it were) before being discontinued in 1994. But, it still is around today. For archive purposes perhaps, for nostalgia–not necessarily out of a sense of computer conservatism. But regardless of the reason, it has achieved a certain equilibrium among its fanbase. There are people who make the choice to write and collect software for this system, rather than any number of other systems. As a structure within the history of technological development, it is no longer an avant-garde player. But it exists as a class unto itself, and perpetuates on that basis.

If we are to believe that dominant strategy equilibrium will eventually put computers into our bodies and interfaced to our brain, isn’t it overwhelmingly likely that we will see classes of technological generation develop in those venues as well? Tim Maly, in an piece published while I’ve been writing this, perhaps stimulated in part by the same original article, envisions a world in which early adopters of implant technology are left to suffer on their own, without upgrades:

We can envision drone pilots getting these implants as part of the march of progress. Once the tech is friendly enough, it gets sold out to consumers. Meanwhile, you have all these down and out veterans, their brains stuck wired up with old half-working interfaces, begging on the streets for change to pay for a firmware upgrade or a tune-up for their barely-functioning bluetooth legs.

It is easy to envision these uncanny lapses between classes occurring when we start fusing bodies with machines, because to imply that our bodies can easily be obsolete machines threatens a certain humanist concept of our bodies as a unifying quality to our species. But we don’t have to start invading the body to find differences that affect our ability to stratify ourselves into classes. If the equilibriums of the relations of production can develop a rift between first and third world without personal technology, between upper class and lower class both before, and as we start to use computers to identify ourselves as class member, why would one not also occur between “cutting-edge” and “deprecated” classes as technology becomes more “personal”–magnetizing that one kernel social structure not yet susceptible to fracture and evolution? At what point will our devices themselves reinforce the equilibriums of choice they themselves provide, by being the motive force for separating individuals into groups? If not by lasting only as long as their minimal service contracts in a planned obsolesce that intensifies the slope of device turnover, then by active means? An app only for the iPhone 8, that can detect models of the iPhone 5 and below–letting you know that you’ve wandered into an area with a “less than savory technological element?” When will emergency services only guarantee that they can respond to data transponder calls, and not voice requests? The local watchman has been phased out, in favor of centrally dispatched patrols that require phones to access. Isn’t it only a matter of time before central dispatch is phased out for distributed drone network policing? The ability to use a computer is a requirement for many jobs. When will the ability to data uplink hands-free be a requirement?

We don’t want anyone to fall behind. But we have to think rationally. Why should the state pay exorbitant amounts to service old deprecated implants under the national health care plan? People born in this country receive Bluetooth 14.0 transmitters at birth. But to provide one to every migrant worker would be an extraordinary burden on the taxpayer. If you live in this country, upgrade yourself to a compatible firmware. It’s not that I’m prejudiced against people with your OS, it’s just that we both will never be as compatible together as among our own systems. That isn’t systemicism–it’s just the way plug n play protocols work. Look–I’d love for you to join in network allocated processing with my daughter. But she is quad-core x86, and you are single chip ARM. I’m sure you’re great for certain applications, but you would just slow my daughter down. If you love her, wouldn’t you want her to have all the giga-flops she’s entitled to?

Society governs itself by rational choice. Rational choice dictates that a strategy must be chosen, and an equilibrium based on the best strategy established. But despite the improvements to our technology, the patterns of human structural organization and the anti-distributional, magnetic plateaus inherent in our equilibriums will continue to repeat themselves. The more things change, the more we try and keep the terrain the same–divided abstractly in aid of maintained abstraction. All the better for us to navigate by. Google Maps, it seems, comes pre-loaded with a certain human quality for class consciousness.