reading 02: profit hacking

The “True Hackers” and the “Hardware Hackers” were similar in their devotion to computers, but Lee Felsenstein felt that the MIT veterans simply “were not as interested in getting computer technology out to the people as they were in elegant, mind-blowing computer pyrotechnics” (Levy ch. 9). The True Hackers would all share the same basic routine, from poor sleep schedules to computer programs and everything in-between. The Hardware Hackers, however, were more dispersed: they were like tinkerers who convened every couple of weeks to share their recent discoveries and learn from those of the others. And it seems to me as though they had a much greater impact in the world of technology given their desire to spread it.

Even before the first personal computer was sold, the Hardware Hackers desired to bring the power of the computer to the individual, which is apparent through Community Memory. They set up costly communal computers that were typically reserved for wealthy institutions, and they made it available for the public to personally discover the power and beauty of computing. When Ed Roberts later released the first computer for the masses, the Hackers worked to create plug-ins that actually made it useful. And this later led to all-in-one computers that were for the consumer, especially through the vision of Steve Jobs and the other planners of Apple.

I think that a major turning point in the development of the computer had to do with Bill Gates’s coding of Altair BASIC and his subsequent “An Open Letter to Hobbyists.” Gates wrote the article as a result of people copying his Altair BASIC software without paying for it, and it was the first instance that Levy mentions of someone selling software. But this letter and its underlying story irk me in a few ways. First, I think that Bill Gates and his team share part of the responsibility for the stolen software. If you plan on selling a product that can be easily replicated, why would you ever let someone get their hands on it? It seems reasonable to assume that one should take basic precautionary measures to prevent people from stealing his or her software (in the form of paper tapes) if one plans on selling them. The story is not entirely clear on how the paper tape was stolen, but I believe that Bill Gates should have been more aware: The Hardware Hackers who stole his software were accustomed to helping one another and sharing ideas and products amongst themselves for the sake of improvement and sheer fascination. Second, Bill Gates was charging a pretty penny for his software: “$30 for the 4K version, $35 for the 8K version, and $60 for the expanded version” (Wikipedia). That is the equivalent of roughly $175, $205, and $290, respectively, in 2024. I, for one, would probably not pay that for any software. It is true, however, that nowadays there is almost always a free and open-source alternative to a given propriertary application. But even in the 1970s, Tom Pittman felt the same way, and he showed that people were willing to buy software when the price wasn’t as egregious as Gates’s BASIC by selling a 6800 Tiny BASIC interpreter for only five dollars. Third, I think Gates thought too highly of his own software, deeming it to be the remedy to all of the world’s problems. However, I think that part of the reason his software was stolen by so many was because it was right there: someone showed up at a Homebrew meeting with exactly what the hackers wanted, so why would they decline the offer? Levy even indicates that Homebrew members were perfectly capable of writing their own BASIC interpreters, and some did. But when there is an easy solution to a time-consuming project sitting right in front of you for free, I don’t think that many thought too hard about it–they just took it and progressed onto other projects.

This is just one instance (and coincidentally one of the first) of the Hacker Ethic becoming compromised. Bill Gates did not want information to be free like the hackers did, and neither did other sprouting companies who were seeking financial success. I really struggle to determine whether or not I think that compromising the ideals of the Hacker Ethic is worth having a larger impact on the world. I don’t know what the world would look like today if the Hacker Ethic had been upheld all of these years. But I want to say that the Hacker Ethic is worth upholding, especially in light of the open-source community and what it has produced. Maybe, however, the Hacker Ethic is too idealistic, almost like Utopia, which is not possible in a world of imperfect human beings.