Hackability, openness and simplicity

Recently, Anne wrote about Marko Ahtisaari's Seven Challenges to our Shared Mobile Future.

Three of Marko's challenges are: hackability, openness and simplicity. I think they're the same thing. Or at least facets of the same thing.

If something is hackable it must be open and at least fairly simple. There are, of course, varying degrees of simplicity. Openness implies hackability. Simplicity implies hackability.

The purpose of all three of these things, hackability, openness and simplicity would seem to be a degree of freedom and customistion within certain constraints. But since openness and simplicity implies hackability, hackability, at least, is redundant.

Marko's usage of hackability does not seem to be how I would mean it:

Brian Eno summarizes well the essence of hackability: “An important aspect of design is the degree to which the object involves you in its own completion.” Some complain about the lack of "hackability" of mobile appliances. But the mobile phone if anything is a hackable platform. Think of all the examples of physical personalization that people engage in around the world e.g. changable covers and straps and self-made accessories. Physical personalization is fast extending into software.

Personalisation isn't really hacking. Hacking is what Mr Jalopy does when he's hacking on his iPod or hacking on his diesel Mercedes. Hacking is pulling it apart and putting it together again -- something you can't do without at least some openness and some simplicity.