You’ve all heard the same tired arguments before; the declarations of doom; the luddites sounding their clarion call. “The Internet is making us stupid!” “We don’t remember anything anymore! Google ruins your memory!” “We don’t read anymore! The Internet has stunted our attention spans!” “There’s too much information on the Internet! I’m scared!” Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit... and yeah, bullshit.

The recent network outage from Singtel reminded many of us of the importance of the Internet in our everyday lives. It also brought to mind many myths floating around about our reliance on the Internet and its negative effects on our minds. I’m here to tell you why they’re all bullshit.

A MENTAL PROSTHESIS

Author George Dyson famously posed a question that sums up the fears of many an Internet-naysayer. “What if the cost of machines that think,” Dyson asks, “is people who don’t?” A fair concern, I would say, but one that is not yet relevant to the Internet in its current state. Yes, many websites use algorithms and data-mining to mimic actual intelligence, but the Internet is still far from actual “thinking”. All the Internet really does is provide us with almost all the information we could ever need. What we do with this information is still entirely up to us. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger very accurately described the role of the Internet as a “mental prosthesis”. Prostheses, by their very definition, are tools used to enhance and assist the performance of certain functions. Like a pair of spectacles to eyes or a walking stick to legs, the Internet helps our brains to make up for their natural limitations, and access information that would otherwise be completely inaccessible. We might not be forced to memorize as much information now as we were before, but that doesn’t mean our ability to remember is ruined. We are simply given the option to offload and compartmentalize information that can be later accessed and recalled more easily and reliably, giving us more time to connect and think about said information on a deeper level. Interesting to note, too, is that while all this pessimism about our ability to remember seems exclusive to the Internet age, it has actually existed for millennia. Socrates – yeah, that Socrates – once said, “[The written word] will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls,” lampooning the very act of reading and writing. For all his fame, Socrates could be quite a myopic idiot sometimes.

BREADTH ABSENT DEPTH

A popular argument against Internet usage is that the Internet provides too much information, making it impossible for us to focus and really delve deep into a particular subject. Sigh. Come on, Karl, we have to say it again:

Internet-based information is certainly no more distraction-laden that any old-fashioned method of gathering knowledge. Ask yourself, during which process to obtain information would one be more susceptible to distractions: 1. A 30-minute walk to the nearest library through cafés and shops and bubble tea stores and video game arcades OR 2. Typing a few words into Google’s search bar Imagine if a friend of yours lived inside a massive library in which she could avail herself of any information she so desired at any point in time. Would you tell her, “Oh, there is no way you will ever learn anything in that place! There’s just too many books!” Of course not! That’s ridiculous! Yet people apply the same flawed criticism to the Internet, which is basically the digital equivalent of a humongous library. There used to be an aura of romance and exclusivity surrounding knowledge, when obtaining it required months or years of digging through books and files and other sources. Today, the progress from wanting to know something to actually knowing something is almost instantaneous, separated by no more than the touch of a button. Is that a bad thing? No! It’s a wonderful thing. The breadth of information on the net takes nothing away from its depth. Where deep learning used to be akin to diving into a well, we now dive into the Pacific Ocean. Isn’t that so much better?

READ A BOOK!

Yet another bullshit-worthy claim is that people read less books now because of the Internet. In actuality, the inverse might be true. According to a 2012 study published in The Atlantic, the percentage of book readers in the American population has steadily and drastically increased over the past few decades. Weren’t expecting that, were you? Plus, who are you to say that all those people staring at their smartphones on the train aren’t readers? Perhaps that guy is reading an e-book. Maybe that lady is browsing for book recommendations. Maybe that fellow prefers reading in the peace and quiet of his room, so he allots his time on noisy, crowded trains to less attention-demanding activities like playing Plants vs Zombies. *raises hand sheepishly*

NOT ALL DOOM AND GLOOM

Sure, there are people who use the Internet only for banal, vacuous activities like stalking social media, posting narcissistic compliment-fishing selfies, reading celebrity gossip, and sharing satirical articles without reading them, thinking they’re real. But are those people stupid because of the Internet? If the Internet didn’t exist, would those same people miraculously become geniuses? I’d have my money on NO. Stupid people use the Internet for stupid things. Smart people use the Internet for building knowledge and gaining perspectives. Most of us with an IQ above that of a potato use it for both. Our activities on the Internet are not a cause of our intellect or lack thereof, they are merely a symptom. The Internet doesn’t make us stupid. It simply gives us a powerful tool to pursue whatever information we desire, intellectual in nature or otherwise. So, the next time someone tells you that the Internet makes people stupid, you can respond by breaking out the classic (you guessed it!)…

What Happened?

Samsung may be in some pretty serious trouble right now for their next-generation explosives, but let’s not let the other smartphone giant off the hook – Apple. Oh, Apple, what happened to you? Remember when you were relevant? Me neither. I kid. I do remember. I remember owning an old iPod Nano, and getting an iPhone once I got out of slavery… Um, I mean the Army. Apple products used to mean something to people, something special. Not anymore. What happened? To identify what went wrong, let’s first look at what went right in the first place. The iMac was what gave Apple its start, but what really turned the company into an industry giant and put Apple products on the map - and on the top of people’s wishlists – was the iPod. Apple’s iPod was not the first MP3 player on the market, but at its time, it was by far the best. It blew away the competition with its enormous storage capacity, compact form factor, solid build quality, and ease of use. Shortly after, the iTouch revolutionized touchscreen devices, and the iPhone added a phone on top of all that, and the rest is history. Sadly, Apple’s reign is about to come to a crushing end, and here’s why.

Build Quality

In Apple’s heyday, one thing that set their products apart from their competitors was their build quality. The solid, polished, metal alloy casings of Apple products then were far superior to the cheap plastic casings of competitors. Then the competition caught up. Today, every phone feels like an iPhone, with phone manufacturers from Samsung to Oppo ditching cheap plastic for high-quality metal alloys and polymers. The “Apple = Quality” connection had been severed, and Apple has since lost that edge.

iTunes and Flexibility

“The thing I love about Apple products is their reliance on iTunes” is a sentence you will never hear anyone utter. iTunes is a despicable abomination that has driven many consumers away from Apple products, and into their competitors’ flexible arms. Yet for some reason, Apple insists on keeping iTunes just the way it is. What iTunes does is essentially restrict the transfer of data between your phone and computer. Where Android phones allow users to transfer files freely as they would with any other USB device, iOS devices require that one’s phone and computer libraries be “synced”. What if you want to grab some files from your friend’s computer and transfer them to your phone without screwing up your whole library? Nope, can’t do that. What if you want to add one song from your computer to your phone? Better update that stupid iTunes and sync your whole damned library. And there is no way in hell I’m forking out money every month for that Spotify rip-off Apple music.

Greedy, and out of Touch

Apple is a corporation, and corporations run on greed. We get that. But Apple doesn’t even bother trying to hide their greed. Incidentally, their objective seems to have shifted from giving consumers what they want and gaining new supporters, to gouging as much money from their existing supporters as possible. Let’s just look at their latest offerings. The new MacBook Pro 2016 features a space-wasting touchscreen panel that everyone is just going to use for annoying emojis, and new USB-C ports that are completely incompatible with almost all existing USB devices unless you purchase expensive peripheral adaptors. Apple recently announced a slight price drop to the USB-C adaptors, but seeing as how they are basically an absolute necessity and an infuriating hassle, I wouldn’t get the new MacBook even if the adaptors were FREE. Look, I understand what you might think they’re trying to do. As industry leaders, they’re taking it upon themselves to innovate and move technology forward by forcing the market to adopt newer, better technologies like USB-C. Unfortunately, they’re going about it all wrong. Early adoption of new technologies has to be gradual, to give the industry time to transition away from old technology. By forcing new tech down their consumers’ throats, many of whom still own perfectly functional USB devices, Apple is pushing its fans away, and alienating possible new ones. A smarter approach would be simply to provide options. Perhaps have one USB-C port, and leave the other USB ports alone. Maybe have a premium version of the MacBook with all USB-C ports, for willing early adopters, while everyone else can choose to buy a MacBook with traditional USB ports. Flexibility. The same consumer-gouging approach can also be seen in the iPhone 7. Want to plug in your earphones to a headphone jack? Oops, we left that out. How about you give us more money for an adaptor? Or perhaps a pair of flimsy wireless earpods that you’re probably going to lose in a week? Want to use your earphones while your phone is charging? Sorry buddy, not possible. Give us money, we’re innovators. Apple needs to learn that their consumer base does not consist entirely of 15-year-olds who care only about fancy-coloured cases, selfie cameras and emojis. They need to respect their customers, get in touch with what people want, or see their empire crumble faster than a Galaxy Note 7 factory.

Throughout the world and across a variety of industries, millions of people are working to develop new companies and build them into successful global ventures. But what does it take to build a successful new company? What does success even mean? Here, we look to the young founders of hyper-successful startups to try and reach an answer, or at least, to begin to ask the right questions.

1. Evan Spiegel, Snapchat

The co-founder and CEO of Snapchat, 26-year-old Evan Spiegel created the messaging app while still a student at Stanford University.

2. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook

An entrepreneur in a league of his own, Mark Zuckerberg, now 32, launched Facebook in 2004 from his dorm room at Harvard University. The rest is history.

3. Evan Sharp, Pinterest

A graduate of the University of Chicago and Columbia’s School of Architecture, 34-year-old Evan Sharp co-founded Pinterest while working as a product designer at Facebook.

4. Garrett Camp, Uber

38-year-old Garrett Camp founded the popular web discovery engine StumbleUpon while in graduate school, before developing the immensely popular ride-sharing app Uber in 2009.

5. Mike Cannon-Brooks, Atlassian

Mike Cannon-Brookes, 36, founded enterprise software company Atlassian along with Scott Farquhar in 2002. The pair are often referred to as “accidental billionaries,” as their only hope in starting the company was to earn the average starting salary without having to work for a large firm.

6. Brian Chesky, Airbnb

Brian Chesky, 35, started Airbnb in 2007 after having trouble affording increasingly expensive San Francisco rent. After learning that all the hotel rooms in SF were booked during a popular conference, Chesky and his roommate put their apartment up for rent online, sparking a revolution.

7. Sean Parker, Napster

At 16, the FBI raided Sean Parker’s house for hacking into a Fortune 500 company. At 20, Parker founded Napster with Shawn Fanning. At 25, Parker became the first president of Facebook. After working to revolutionise multiple industries, Parker now focuses his efforts on philanthropy and investments.

8. Robert Pera, Ubiquiti Networks

Many may recognise Robert Pera, 38, as the owner of the Memphis Grizzlies (an NBA Basketball team), but his true achievement has been building Ubiquiti. Ubiquiti is a global wireless communication company currently worth over $4 billion.

9. Markus Persson, Minecraft

Also known as ‘Notch’ on Twitter, 37-year-old Markus Persson is the Swedish video game designer and programmer who created the cross-platform worldwide phenomenon Minecraft.

10. Jack Dorsey, Twitter and Square

Jack Dorsey, 39, came up with the idea for Twitter while a student at New York University, but waited for years, until 2006, to launch the service. He couldn’t stop and followed up with mobile payment app Square in 2010.

11. Jan Koum, WhatsApp

The oldest entrepreneur on our list, Jan Koum, 40, founded the cross-platform messaging client WhatsApp in 2009. The service has now grown to over one billion users. This article was originally posted on Vulcan Post.