At the outset, let me say that as a software developer myself I found this a compelling read despite some stylistic and tonal flaws.

Mr Lanier's primary bone of contention is with the way in which existing modes of digital conduct are enshrined as sacrosanct practices, when in fact their origins had far more to do with programmatic expediency rather than any kind of realistic, tangible human goal. Early in the book he uses MIDI as a larger metaphor for the concept of lock-in; in that its original myopic design was centered around the instrumentation of keyboards and therefore is incapable of orchestrating instruments such as violins with considerable nuance in tone and modulation. This is used as an example of some of the larger instances of 'lock-in' and how they affect our daily lives, especially as deeply locked-in practices become more and more integrated with the social dialogue.

While it could be argued that this is the mere nature of digital development and is to be rectified over time, the cultural effects of this 'lock-in' make up the real focus of his text. Some of the more notable ideas on the chopping block are network anonymity, which Mr. Lanier contends disconnects and abstracts opinions from their authors and therefore creates a conundrum of responsibility that dehumanizes the source of the information at large. There may in fact be some truth to this, though I am more inclined to believe that it is a problem inherent in technology itself that we as humans are only beginning to discover how to work with.

I'm going to elect to ignore some of the more ethereal contentions in the book - I don't think anyone grounded in the real world, even technology professionals like myself, really believe in or aspire to becoming "immortalized in the cloud" as Lanier's digital rapture image supposes. To offer my own opinion on his assertions, a great deal of the problem inherent both in "lock-in" as well as the backdrop of how the global network has affected our lives has to do with education rather than any kind of in-borne social norm. The fact that people have been preconditioned to worship expediency has led to the direct creation of software and technologies that satisfy apathy and intellectual indifference. Like any supplier of product, programmers must yield to what the greater consuming public demands, and this leads to the kind of triviality that Lanier finds so appalling in his treatise.

While he is not clearly not a believer in the open source movement as a whole, the paragons of innovation that he elects as examples (the Blackberry, iPhone) are very unfortunate and make up some of the most disappointing elements of the book. To suggest that 'pleasant typefaces' amount to the kind of 'humanism' being advocated for does not set Mr. Lanier's standard for achievement very high. Not to mention that some of his examples play a large role in the dehumanizing of social dialogue that he finds such fault with. As a developer of web apps I can contend with a degree of certainty how much wasted effort goes into satisfying the collective ADD and egoism of addictive smartphone users. To suggest that these efforts in development are an effort to contribute to a greater 'digital humanism' is laughable at best - it is far more likely they sate levels of narcissism only possible in the first-world.

Among his most ridiculous profered examples is the game Spore. Yes Mr. Lanier, it was a fascinating idea. Yes, Mr. Lanier, Will Wright did conceive of a tremendously original idea that incorporated a level of ambition in primary experience never before achieved by software. Yes, Mr. Lanier, I too was frustrated by a deluge of purists who panned that game online merely because the draconian suits at EA inserted KGB levels of DRM. But what was the real problem with it, in all seriousness? It was a game that wasn't fun!

Mr. Lanier's book is a well-informed cautionary tale. A great deal of the discussion within it is worth the time of reading and giving serious consideration to. It is mainly his selection of his champions that serves to undermine his main thesis.