The ‘web is dead’ and ‘the internet has lost its soul.’ So suggested recent headlines in The Independent ( 6 August) and Wired magazine ( September).

Also, it appears, the ‘party is over for Google’ (Fortune, August) and the internet’s openness is under threat (The Economist, 4 September).

Clearly we are at the end of an epoch, if you go along with this: a mighty corporate empire is set to stumble and (perhaps) fall, and the era of internet equality may be about to end.

As part of this age, the very device that helped turn the internet into a world-changer – the web browser – is purportedly set to be supplanted by newer technology (not least, mobile phone apps).

As the seasons turn and the school year starts, it’s easy to be drawn into a sense that change is afoot, even if it might not happen overnight. So what’s involved here – and what’s at stake?

This clutch of stories argues that:

1. The good old web browser - that near-universal interface to the internet (and the information, online stores and social networks connected by it) - is set to be displaced by a universe of apps – single-purpose software tools whose numbers have soared with the rising tide of smart phones (particularly the iPhone);
2. At the same time, net neutrality (that all sites and media are treated the same on the Internet) is being threatened by forces that seek to wall off parts of the internet – sovereign governments that want more control over it, and commercial organisations that aspire to offer differential rates of access to certain traffic and customers (creating so-called slow and fast lanes); and
3. The internet monolith that dominated the old era will cease to be the driving force behind the new one. This applies to Google, whose rate of growth is now slowing sharply and which has failed to secure an additional product to set the pace in the way its search engine has.

If there is indeed a new wave of technologies and ways of using the internet, it’s hardly surprising that Apple is well placed to be benefit from it. Indeed, with the iPhone and its assorted apps, it’s clearly helping to create this new world. Thus far Google haven’t made much commercial headway with their mobile platform Android (a system acquired by them in 2005, for which 160,000 phones a day are now being activated).

Although no universal standard has yet emerged, it’s clear that apps will be ‘a’ major part of the future internet. The convenience of a single app to get a job done has important attractions, particularly when linked to geographic data. The Network Rail app, for instance, always knows where you are (and what your nearest station is), and live feeds will often tell you which platform you need even before the station boards have announced your train (so no more rushing for a seat, until, at least, everyone else has a smart phone).

But if there’s one notion I haven’t yet heard in all these epochal discussions it’s that of ‘complementarity’. Familiarity with the browser-based version of a tool is likely to lead to the use of the apps version subsequently. And many apps will have more restrictive features than their web-based counterparts – no doubt focusing on what’s needed ‘out in the field’. If you’re a manager visiting your regional offices, you won’t want to be doing all your accounts via a hand-held, but you might wish to have the relevant performance data of each local office in your palm.

And what about the net neutrality issue? For individuals or smaller organisations, which have always enjoyed a reasonably level playing field in terms of getting messages out, there is real concern here. Anything that allows more powerful actors (large corporations and governments) to drown out smaller ones (say, local charities and niche causes) will make the internet a poorer place for most people (though it would certainly allow some to profit).

Certainly the internet’s future will be different to its old one. The culture and values it has embodied hitherto cannot be guaranteed to remain the same (although we should fight to retain many of them). New technologies will certainly come along, and with them new services, user possibilities and (geeky) rising stars.

It’s not the case that the centre cannot hold, not least because the internet has never had a centre. Much will remain the same, although the experience may fragment. With a sound understanding of the way the wind is blowing, and technical and organisational savvy to back this up, there should be much to gain.

Master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock could be a useful role model for those of us managing the creative processes around new media design. The reason can be found in the ‘auteur theory of design’, according to another dConstruct speaker, John Gruber. 

Auteur theory, which has been prominent in filmmaking since the 1905s, posits that films (at least in the modern era) are a reflection of the creative vision and skill of one key individual: the director. Hitchcock was one of the first to assume the freedom and control  implied by this role; earlier directors were little more than stage managers, making sure that scenes were shot in line with the script and that the tape was delivered to the cutting room.

Producing apps and designing websites, according to John, is akin to the process of making a film or television services. The products are the result of a collaborative endeavour. There is no single ‘author’ to take all the credit, although one person can put their stamp on the work, providing they have the right degree of control and the ability to put this to good creative effect.

For John Gruber, it’s critical that this individual (the director, the auteur) has ‘taste’ that is greater than the talent he is managing. If he does, the quality of group effort will rise with him. The auteur, after all, is the arbiter of taste, says John.

Steve Jobs – head of Apple – is an auteur in this respect. His sense of taste, and ability to orchestrate people and resources in line with his vision of good design, has been critical in churning out a stream of products (the iPod, iPhone and iPad among them) that delight consumers and severely rattle competitors.

In summary, these ideas suggests:

(1)    That design teams – for apps, websites and most other large-scale endeavours – are best led by a recognisable individual, who has strong vision, technical knowledge and people skills;

(2)    That this person should also have greater taste than those working for him/her (a heightened aesthetic; a more profound sense of how things should be done), and if so,

(3)    He/she will be able to produce an end product something that is greater than the sum of its creative parts.

Sounds good as far as it goes. But linking it to my blog on design and innovation earlier this week, I wonder if it goes far enough. Are there not more people we need to think about – whose names will appear on the rolling credits at the end of the production – that also need to play their roles well, even with an auteur providing overarching leadership and vision?

I’m reminded here of Tom Kelley’s ‘Ten Faces of Innovation – strategies for heightening creativity’. Tom and his co-author identify 10 roles, or ‘personas’, that need to feature across the innovation process:  

1. The first three are ‘learning’ personas: the Anthropologist, the Experimenter and the Cross-Pollinator.  In turn, such people:  gather new sources of information, helping to generate a deeper understanding of people’s behaviour – and ultimately what customers really want and how they are likely to react. They try out new ideas, in a process of trial and error, looking for new ways to succeed. And they bring thinking and techniques from other cultures and contexts, to help address local needs and problems;
2. Next are the ‘organising’ personas; these being: the Hurdler, the Collaborator and, interestingly, the Director. The first has the persistence and knack of overcoming setbacks and roadblocks, while the second is good at assembling and leading multidisciplinary teams. The Director, on the other hand, ‘not only gathers together a talented cast and crew but also helps to spark their creative talents’.
3. The final four personas are described as ’building’ roles – people  that empower the assembled resources and talent and make innovation happen. These include the Experience Architect, who creates solutions that connect deeply with people’s needs and wants, and the Set Designer, who provides the environment in which the creative team can flourish. Finally there is the Caregiver, who delivers customer care over and above ‘mere service’ and the ‘Storyteller’, who generates ‘internal morale and external awareness’ through compelling and well-communicated narratives.

Clearly any one person can play more than one of Kelley’s roles, and his cast of 10 personas doesn’t preclude the idea of a creative figure that spans the whole innovation process, directing and energising it towards a clear goal.

The two sets of ideas here remind us of the need for a balanced portfolio of talents if creative solutions are to be generated and well designed innovations produced. Look more closely at Apple and I bet they’re playing all Kelley’s roles pretty well, as well as having the ultimate auteur in the director’s chair.