My nomination for ‘best invention since 1800’ would be the internet. Yes, I know, it does lean on a number of other great inventions, like the computer or electricity. Then again, arguably the primary function of computers these days is the internet, and furthermore, electricity was invented by God way before the year 1800, so it does not qualify.

Why do I pick the internet? Because it is the ultimate form of communication. We can use it to communicate, instantly, and in whichever way suits us best. We can talk to one person, or several at once. Some keep the entire world up to date on their day to day activities. A popular feature of the internet is the possibility to ignore these people.

Another check on the ‘ultimate form of communication’ checklist, is the possibility to take the internet with us wherever we go. Having a connection on our phones is becoming commonplace, and considering the internet can do everything, you’d think that would make ‘traditional mobile products’, including calling and texting, obsolete. Mobile operators seem to think differently, and try to prohibit the use of internet applications that substitute functionality offered by their own services.

Why do mobile operators try to preserve those obsolete services? Because there is more money to be made that way. The internet is an all-in-one package that can only be sold once. In contrast, there are more mobile products than there are species of insects, and several new ones are discovered every day. I’m confident that soon we’ll see plans giving discounts on calling the person on the exact opposite end of the world, using the internet whilst the constellation Orion is visible or texting from under the shower.

The possibility to put together your personal perfect mobile plan might seem a big money-saver, but don’t be fooled; calls, texts, internet, it’s all just bytes hitching a ride from A to B. By selling one product as ten different products, mobile operators greatly increase their profit margins.

Nothing illustrates this better, than the fact that a single text message costs about the same as one minute of telephone conversation, while the amount of data transferred is more than a factor thousand smaller. Those are the better profit margins; I suspect every mobile operator has a department, the sole job of which it is to provide maniacal laughter every time a text message is sent.

It seems to me that at this point, telephony is the last, large form of day-to-day communication still functioning more or less separated from the internet. It won’t last. Ideas tying the internet and telephony together are already knocking on the door, and no matter how hard mobile operators try to block it; at some point in the next couple of years a company like Google will code a storm ram big enough to knock it down. Then the internet will be our de-facto standard and only form of communication.

I don’t usually see the internet as something that’s still busy defining its place in our lives, but it’s developments like the ones in the mobile market, that show us there’s still a number of big milestones ahead of us. So if you’re not yet convinced the internet is the best invention since the year 1800, you might still change your mind.

Then again, the bicycle too might prove itself in new ways in the future. Maybe the next economic crisis will bankrupt the entire car industry, making the bicycle our primary form of transportation. Maybe the first atlantic crossing on a bike will forever change people’s perception of the size of the globe. Maybe the great bicycle charge of 2034 will be instrumental in ending World War III. You know, one of those things shampoos claim to do.

First of all, you’re reading this from the screen of a larger piece of equipment, like a computer. Secondly, you need to fetch this piece of text, and the lovely pictures of course, over the internet from the place I stored them. To be honest I haven’t got a clue where that is, somewhere in the Netherlands I’m sure, but regardless of that: if you enter www.polyplural.com into your address bar, your computer will manage to find my blog. Lastly you need some software. Communicating directly with a computer is hard work for us non-computers, so we gladly pay a couple hundred units of our favourite currency to hire a translator.

Most people know only one such translator, Microsoft Windows. Various iterations of this omnipresent piece of software, accompany millions of people in their diverse and daily computer adventures. And those adventures include regular expeditions into the World Wide Web, just click that little blue internet icon and you’re on your way. Be sure to equip yourself properly before diving into the wild though, there are all sorts of nasties out there you don’t want in your system. Like mosquitoes; the credit card stealing kind.

At this point a small fraction of the adventurers will protest. Windows alone, you see, isn’t enough to let you enjoy the internet. You need an additional piece of kit for that, something called a browser. Luckily you get one for free with Windows, and it’s called Internet Explorer. There are many others however, well known among them Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari. I use the term well known quite lightly here, because compared to Internet Explorer these otherwise fine pieces of software are about as well known as zebras are to penguins.

Obviously the companies behind these browsers aren’t too happy with the status quo. They argue that by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, Microsoft is using its monopoly in the operating system market (in other words: Windows) to get a monopoly in the browser market. This practice is forbidden in most parts of the world, among them Europe, and so the companies behind Firefox, Chrome and Opera have asked the European Commission to do something about it.

Fierce debate about the issues shows us that this might not be as easy as it sounds. Some argue that Firefox managing to gain a good 20 percent share in the browser market, proves that market is more competitive than ever. This might be true, but considering over 50 percent of the internet users don’t even know of the existence of a thing called a browser, even though they’re using one, I’d say Microsoft’s hold on the market is still pretty solid. No, I think there can hardly be any doubt that bundling Internet Explorer with Windows has been hurting other browsers. How could it not?

At this point a lot of people get confused. What about Volkswagen, they say, should it be forced to sell the car engines separately? Sure! After all, the engine industry has suffered greatly from Volkswagen’s dominance in the car market. Then take Paint and WordPad, surely what applies to Internet Explorer applies to them too? Spot on! Let’s not forget that picture and document editing software developers are having a hard time, because everyone is using Paint for poster design and photo editing, and WordPad for writing essays and books.

Perhaps the most convincing argument in defence of Microsoft is that a browser is unmistakably a part of an operating system. I think this very much depends on your definition of an operating system. But let’s not forget that with Windows being pretty much the only operating system people use, it automatically defines what an operating system is. What came first? The chicken or the egg? The operating system or the definition of an operating system?

An often heard claim is that if Internet Explorer shouldn’t be bundled with Windows, then the same could be said for a large number of other bundled applications. Paint and Wordpad are obviously stupid examples, but what about Media Player, Movie Maker or Media Center? I agree we have a problem here, but one that stretches in two directions: What about pieces of software that aren’t bundled with Windows yet, but might be in the future? By simply bundling new applications with Windows, Microsoft has the power to conquer pretty much any software market, and has in fact done exactly that repeatedly in the past. Not only with browsers, but also with media players, email clients, instant messaging software and virtualization software. Currently it looks like anti-virus software will be next in line.

I don’t claim to have a solution to this problem. I do believe that responding to the situation by saying that a browser is simply a part of an operating system, is extremely short sighted, and ignorant of the way Microsoft is throwing its weight around in pretty much any software market. Somehow, somewhere, a line must be drawn between what an operating system is and isn’t, and it shouldn’t be Microsoft doing the drawing.

The entertainment industry had its chance to nip the problem in the bud several years ago, and threw it away. Had the industry moved along with the times, and launched digital distribution services when people started asking for them, odds are we’d never have seen the rise of a generation that downloads without any moral reservations.

The existence of the “everything is free, piracy is okay” morale amongst the general population, makes the continuous attempts of the industry to stop piracy by lobbying for new legislature look ridiculous. Laws are meaningless when they aren’t supported by the population, and governments know this. Laws are also meaningless when they are without a way to enforce them, and detecting copyright infringement simply isn’t as straightforward as detecting speeding, theft or murder: There is no fast car, no missing property and no blood; only bits that might or might not belong to an illegal download.

Back in the present, the industry’s approach to the problem has improved a bit, but not much. A lot of content, mostly music and games, is now available through download channels, but there is a forest of regional restrictions that shields content from entire continents filled with potential customers. Meanwhile piracy is still hugely popular, not only because it’s cheapest, but also because it’s simply the best service out there: You can get anything you want, whenever you want, in the format you want, wherever you are and without being tied to any software or hardware. It is ironic that this amount of customer service is only available through illegal channels.

So it’s two factors that make piracy popular; the price and the service. The industry tends to talk only about the first factor; goes on to conclude there is no way it can compete on price and then basically throws the towel into the ring. That’s entirely their loss, because in competing on the second factor lays not only the one way in which piracy rates can be brought down, but also the possibility of great market expansion.

Several reports show that the average media consumption is growing rapidly. Piracy has a large hand in this, but not only because it makes entertainment cheaper. Being able to watch a new episode of your favourite show whenever you want, being able to buy an album the minute you get the urge to listen to a particular artist, being able to watch a particular movie on an evening you feel like it; these are all scenario’s where people can consume more content, can pay for more content, but only if they can get to that content in a quick and hassle free way. Currently, it’s only piracy that offers that amount of service.