I Don't Want To Become A Brainless Idiot

Hmmmmmmmm... so here we are at the very last topic of DIGC202. The Internet of Things.

I've been pretty unsure about this advancement, to be honest. I am a bit of a dystopic novel fan and have read into so many ways where this kind of thing can go wrong that I really just don't know if the benefits are going to outweigh the consequences.

So firstly, for those who have not yet caught up - What is this phenomenon I'm talking about? Well - check out this video from Ericsson. "Ericsson believes that in the Networked Society, more than 50 billion things will be connected, in order to make our lives and our businesses more efficient and more enjoyable."

THE SOCIAL WEB OF THINGS

The connecting of everything to the internet will have pretty damn crazy changes in how we interact with our environment as well as how we live our lives. Everyone who has so far blogged about it sees it as a good thing and I guess so far, it hasn't been so bad. Cars with automatic window wipers, fridges that beep if you forget to close them for too long and the weird "siri" thing on the new iPhone S. It does look like the world is heading that way.

It seems so funny to me that we would want to give ordinary objects the ability to "think" and "communicate" with us. We're talking pretty extreme when you can have an MSN conversation with your HOUSE! Still, it's an interesting thing.

Some consequences:

- Unpredictability of the Internet at the best of times. We have pretty horrible internet connection as it is... I mean it probably is just because we live in Australia, but we all know how unstable the internet can be. The issues we had during group presentations on Prezi are an example of this. Like Schumpeter says, "surely it makes little sense to entrust everything from our health care to our ovens to a technology that can easily crash. We are trying to run before we can walk." We really SHOULD be working on getting consistent and stable internet connection globally before connecting everything in the world to it. 

- No more Privacy. Well, the interconnection between social networking, privacy, surveillance and power was the topic behind my major project presentation. So I have some pretty big opinions on this. Not only will the big companies and governments be able to have even MORE access to collecting information on us but commercially, businesses will know everything we do, all of our buying and living habits and use this to tailor their ads to us - Minority Report style~! Not just companies though - but amongst ourselves... we will have even more chance to monitor everyone all the time. Stalking is becoming the norm....

We are rapidly proceeding to a point where the range of data being collected can literally be used to reconstruct a person’s life. The privacy issues brought about by the Internet of Things will make concerns about our interactions on social media giants such as Facebook seem trivial by comparison. David Glance

- Our increasing reliance on technology I dunno about you, but I personally quite like to do things for myself. I am an independent person and I like to have an aspect of control in what I do. Probably why I am a PC person and not Apple. (haha ho ho) As I have said in a few comments on other people's blogs, I have not got a problem with winding down my own windows of my car (I actually prefer it) and I don't need the car to turn the headlights on when it's dark... I'm pretty sure I already know when it is dark. I already have been rather concerned because my actual handwriting has gotten rather rubbish seeing as I now type everything. I just can't help but wonder, why it is necessary for us to be so lazy? Is it really necessary for us to merely exist and have all of the objects around us do everything for us while we stand there like babbling idiots?

It kinda makes me think, no wonder in all the dystopic films/novels - the objects/machines end up revolting and rising up to take control; because we will have become idiotic mindless people who can't do anything anymore.

I know it sounds exaggerated but seriously! I just don't see the point really.

Sure, universal connectivity means the ability to act on improvements in health, food, production in a way we never thought possible. But on the other side, there is so much at stake! I just don't know....

Apple vs. Google - Basically The Best Topic Ever (if you pop in Microsoft along with the Google)

As I'm coming in a bit late with this blog - all the hype, I assumed would've died down but it looks like I'm not the only passionate lover of my chosen vessel for technology. There's some pretty dedicated Apple and PC/Google lovers out there voicing their opinions not just in our class but all over the web and in our lives.

I'll just put it out there - I do not like Apple products. I have never liked Apple products. I don't even like iPods. I have no reason not to like them. I just didn't like them because they are Apple. I'm also a Graphic Designer. So it is assumed that I will love Apple. But I don't - I just don't. I cop a bit of slack about that from other designers but I can't help how I feel. I think they look like fun, shiny, toys but I have always thought they were stupid in terms of functionality and actually getting stuff done.

Yet, people do get stuff done on them. I see them do it and it amazes me. I felt it must be me! I just can't function not having all my options laid out in front of me, with tool bars of settings of options under sub-headings with little plus tabs, and the ability to go into properties like Microsoft allows you. A Mac lets you to an extent - but it never seems to let me do what I want. I even bought myself a Macbook Pro to learn to be able to "do the stuff" on it and found it way too restricting... oh and I got a virus on it somehow straight away. Oh, and it wouldn't system upgrade at all. Oh it also liked to do this thing where the screen died:

And the service I got from Apple was crap as they permanently bent my laptop a little bit prying it open, and did not actually fix the problem because I STILL COULD NOT UPDATE! So all these people saying Apple products are SO FAST and SO EASY. It was not for me. I guess apparently I don't like change - having grown up with a PC loving father who owned an Asian computer store (you know, those really cheap ones?)  - I was taught in the ways of the PC.

Still, after a very insightful lecture on Apple vs Google by Ted last week (which I had been looking forward to for aaaages) - I now feel much more knowledgeable on both platforms. It's fascinating - the difference in ideologies and philosophies between Google and Apple.

Apple is all about being a "closed device" - a "walled garden." Why? - Firstly, A Better Experience - this is because they have completely designed your experience from start to finish making everything simple, to the point, swish and swanky. Secondly, Control - Apple acts at the gate-keeper, filtering out any malicious or 'crap" apps or anything they deem inappropriate and only allowing you things on their phone that they allow meaning a sterile, carefully policed device with less viruses. Morton Hjerde blogs about this and I particularly liked what he said here:

"The iPhone is currently a closed device with very basic functionality, but it has turned the "mobile phone world" on its head. Its a beautiful but expensive device. It does not do a lot, but what it does, it does better that anyone else. "

Google is all about being an OPEN SOURCE and FREE PLATFORM. An Open garden where they do not control the platform, content or the user. As such, there is no set standard of quality, no gatekeeper telling us what we can and can't have on our phones; Anyone can make Apps and upload it to the market (even malicious apps). The advantage? We are the ones in control, we have the choice to do what we want. We have the freedom and every opportunity is given to everyone to create more things for the platform and grow it. As Ted said, compared to Apple - which is just one company, albeit, a giant one - Android is now EVERY OTHER COMPANY working on improving the platform, apps and usability of the device.

Companies aside though, I really just love the idea that people are making and creating things for other people with the only benefit being to better the platform for themselves and others. I love the communal aspect of this - the human aspect of this - and despise the corporate philosophy of Apple which is against people working together for a common cause and better experience - instead - for dictating what users can and cannot have and for money.

I guess I am a bit of a hippy.

Financially, things get quite interesting too!  This article says that "there's money in closed systems". However, it seems that while they are indeed a very popular company making a stack of money, basically all the other phone companies are using Android as their platform (Samsung, Motorola, HTC, LG, Huawei etc) and thereby simultaneously work together to clock up a pretty hefty amount of sales themselves. Sure, the profit doesn't go to Google in the way Apple does but it comes in other ways. And believe it or not, it looks like Australia has FINALLY caught up with the rest of the world! Android is now beating Apple in Australia.

GO AUSTRALIA. I now have respect for you again :)

Power by Numbers, Thanks to Social Networking

I am, unfortunately, a pretty ignorant person when it comes to the news and the happenings around the world. It is not that I am not interested - but I just never seem to find out about it. I guess it would help if I watched the news or something except my television doesn't really work so I've made a mental note to try and patrol online news sites more often in a way to combat this. Regardless, what I wanted to write a bit about today is about the Social Network Revolutions (Arabsprings) and some of my thoughts.


To be honest, I knew nothing about this except that it was happening and so the lecture we had on it was a pretty big eye opener for me. It was so inspiring to hear of people who stood up and risked their lives for freedom and really brought home how lucky we are to live where we do. I thought it was amazing that some of the people who were really leading the revolutions were women who were prepared to put their faces on the internet asking people to join them in fighting for their rights in countries where women are not treated as equal to men.


I particularly liked the interactive timeline we were shown of the Middle East Protests which is a very well put together way to get an idea of how truly amazing the revolutions are. This picture also shows how amazing the revolutions are: look how many people came! The kind of political protests that happen here where a couple hundred people march along a bridge holding signs is nothing in comparison to this! This is just an uncontrollable crowd, an immense amount of people. It's amazing that they are all there, wanting the same thing, all working together. And how did it happen?

Well, Social networking. I particularly liked the quote from an anonymous protestor:

"We use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate and Youtube to tell the world"

So I do believe that Social networking is an essential tool to the arabsprings; however, Morozov argues "that these digital tools are simply, well, tools, and social change continues to involve many painstaking, longer-term efforts to engage with political institutions and reform movements." I do agree with that as well.


Social Networking is just a tool albeit an amazing one. Without the people, social networking would be nothing. Without somebody actually having the courage to post a video on youtube calling for people to act, there would be no revolution. However, I think that social networking is very useful for getting a mass reaction. One person by themselves protesting can't achieve a lot usually. However, if they post something on Facebook about why they are protesting, and people like it and spread it - that can spread like wildfire. The more people are talking about it, the more people want to get involved. The more people want to get involved, the more people hear about it and in the end - EVERYONE IS ACTING when before - without social networking - people wouldn't have known about it and people wouldn't have been pushed to act. It really is quite infectious and I'm sure that while many of the people in the middle east would have felt a want to stand up for themselves, it could only have happened when they KNEW they had the full support of so many others that they can rise up together.


Power by Numbers. Thanks to Social Networking.

Reciprocity and Online Activism - The Internet

The internet is an amazing thing for oh so many reasons. It's changed the way we connect with each other, the way we find out our information, the way we seek entertainment, the way we share our lives with each other. But it is also changing the political climate. The citizens used to look towards the government/state/politicians for their grievances and concerns in order to resolve political issues - but now we are beginning to become more and more cynical of politicians and those in power. Nobody seems to like a politician these days, nobody seems to trust them. But if we can't trust the people who are keeping our nation in check - then who can we trust?

As James Crabtree notes: "The political potential of the internet lies not in connecting people to politicians [but] in the possibility of bringing citizens together to help themselves." Essentially, Crabtree is illustrating the benefits of internet allowing mutual aid through the citizens rather than through the state. This made me realise that this is actually a very large part of the internet. People seeking help go to the internet to ask people for answers. I know that whenever I need help, I google some forums and read up on what people have to say - and I take that advice to be much more genuine. When I was looking to get a new phone (my first smartphone) I was not very interested in looking for the reviews/videos made by the phone company themselves but more so in people who had the phones, or third parties who reviewed the phones who are seemingly much more unbiased. This seems more authentic because it is from people who are like us. It has always amazed me why people go to the effort of giving people advice. It is amazing the sheer amount of information available at the tip of our fingers. The number of youtube unboxing videos, the number of painstakingly long and detailed blogs explaining how to fix/improve something, the number of people who with no real advantage to themselves write back on forums to help people out is just really extraordinary.


It is based on the "principle of reciprocity" - they do it with the belief that "If I scratch your back, this will create a system in which back scratching is the norm, and when I need my back scratched, someone will do it for me." I really like that concept. However, it makes me feel pretty bad because the number of times I had sought help on the internet (about 10000) compared to the number of times I have actually helped someone I didn't know on the internet (about 2) is pretty dismal. Still, there are always people willing to help - and they are usually much better to ask than actually trying to contact say, the manufacturer of the phone company. This is because we as citizens are generally interested in the same kind of things, getting the most of our products, learning how to fix our problems, etc etc. The people who make the phones are more so interested in selling more phones, money is probably a much bigger priority to them.


This brings me to my next point which is in relation to the article in the New Yorker about Julian Assange and Wikileaks. It is a very fascinating concept and I will have to admit I did not know very much about Wikileaks before this. I believe that exposing the secrets and controversial issues which are kept hidden from us through the use of hacking is a topic with many grey areas when it comes to ethics. I think it is important that when doing this kind of online activism, it should be done with the same interests in mind as the ordinary citizens. It should be to help each other, to bring awareness, to help ourselves and our communities and not for personal power. There is a lot of room for this type of organisation to go very very wrong, but if kept in check - I think it is a great thing.


The government is monitoring us, but who monitors the government. Well, now, we are.

Ok Twitter, You Can Have This One

If you guys have been following my blog as avidly as I'm sure you are - you may remember that my first post went something like this:

Twitter? Meh. I don't get it. I don't want to get it. I don't like it. I don't want to like it. 

No thank you.

Now, this isn't one of those blogs where I say - "Oh man - I'm a new person, I love Twitter. I have changed my opinion... I can't believe what I was missing." If that's what you wanted, sorry... let's save the revolutions for the end of the course, ay? Actually - what I wanted to talk about was that finally, something about Twitter does actually make sense. I don't really find it all that useful as a "social networking" with friends tool because my friend's aren't really vain enough to post tweets about what colour socks they are wearing - (facebook status updates, however...) but as a tool for citizen journalism? Bingo! I get it now!

Steven Johnson addresses this very notion in his article about How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live. I immediately felt an affinity with Steven as he echoed many of my cynical thoughts about Twitter and the phrase "ambient awareness" is actually a good one, in my opinion. As Ted mentioned in today's class, all of these Tweets when aggregated right, become "tiny chunks of content which form a coherent and dynamic narrative - a dynamic story is developing!" I had never really thought about Twitter being used in this way to be honest. It makes sense - the hash tag system suddenly becomes rather useful.

What does this mean for us? Well, it means that the culture of journalism and news reporting is changing radically. There is a shift from the news being something only people in "power" with the money and resources  can distribute (at whatever angle they choose) - to something anyone with a computer or smartphone can distribute (again, at whatever angle they choose). The benefits? We find out news faster, due to a shorter feedback loop - the ordinary citizens don't have to go to "the boss" to make sure their article is OK to publish. They see something they think is newsworthy, press a few buttons, snap a shot and BAM IT'S ON THE INTERNET!

While the news used to be a finished commodity, which was polished up by the editor, printed and distributed to the masses in newspaper format - the news now becomes a flow of information, a flow of stories from a variety of sources and people who tell it how it is - how they see it - unfinished coverage and footage allowing for us all to participate, contribute, add and most importantly, consume.

I think this is a fitting change. After all, the world doesn't stop after an article is published. It continues. The people reported about continue living their lives. The news continues after the newspaper stops writing about it.

A 2 PART BLOG

WE ARE CONTENT PRODUCERS (LOSERS?)

Isn't the world of the internet a funny place? We are now all content producers but with one small difference - we don't reap the benefits (to a certain extent). Instead, the people who supply the platform to us do - e.g. facebook (we are the one's making the content which makes facebook interesting), blogger (we are the one's who write the blogs, the reasons why we like to go there), and even gaming - with the concept of Machinima (we create small films out of interactive games which end up promoting the games even further).

Now - I don't know if you noticed, but I said we don't reap the benefits to a certain extent. Let's have a look at this. The people who supply the platform, what benefits do they get from this new system of "prosumers"?

Without all that much personal effort from them, their platforms are generating content which draws more and more people to them. The more people, the better the value of the platform. And the more people, the more people are being drawn to it - making the platform even better. The platforms get success, financially, socially and culturally but what do we get?

Well, better platforms are a benefit for us for sure. I am not complaining and I'm certainly not going to stop people using a platform becuase the more people use it - the more advantages there are to using it. We benefit culturally and socially - because the content which is created by us, is content that we want to read. We add value to the things that we want. Yet, it still gives me a funny feeling when I realise I am putting so much time and effort into blogs, facebook posts etc in order to benefit these large corporations...

IS THIS THE DEATH OF MARKETING?


A second point from me about these large corporations.... is about the rise of the long tail and about how physical shops are being forced into bankruptcy by the online, cheap, alternatives where they don't have to spend money on the shop front and merely have a big warehouse capable of holding more stuff. On one hand, I think - great! I love cheap stuff!!!! On the other hand - being a student of marketing, it really struck me as a little ridiculous. In the past, so much effort went into marketing and creating brand identity. Creating a shiny brand was the main goal and then you could jack up the prices as you want. Creating shops with attractive displays, spending money on the interior design, creating a enjoyable shopping experience. The products in the shop had an "aura" about them - a sort of presence, and when we bought it - we felt like we were buying into this amazing experience.

As Kelly says: "when copies are free, you need to sell things which can not be copied" as they become scarce and valuable.

Well - amazingly, it's now the companies who don't bother with marketing and designing the amazing product experience for the user who are winning. Or so it seems.... I guess you could think of it as a different KIND of marketing? It's definitely a different way of thinking. But as a graphic designer, and one who loves the auratic feeling of owning something tactile, with a presence.... and enjoy going into a store and appreciating the effort gone into its presentation - I don't think I will ever stop wanting to go to shops to buy things.

That doesn't mean I won't occasionally buy things online if they are cheaper though!

Let's Spread The News!!!!!!!

Ok, so the hot topic for DIGC202 last week was Convergence and unfortunately, due to a certain annotated bibliography being due - I was unable to get my blog written in time. Still - it is and will continue to be a hot topic for quite a while to come, it seems. Why? Because, thanks to convergence -  Media is everywhere. We are living in a convergence culture. (See: Jenkins article "Worship at the Alter of Convergence")

And as always - with media comes social consequences/benefits (whichever way you tend to lean).

Jenkins lays these out for us quite well. It will alter the relationship between existing technologies, industries, markets, genres and audiences.... it will alter the logic behind how media industries operate and how we as media consumers process news and entertainment. I thought I'd just have a quick look through this point today as it was one of the key things that stood out for me this week.

Convergence alters the relationship between existing technologies:
Yes, I agree with that. An easy example of this is the relationship between mobile, camera and mp3 is now very different thanks to the smartphone. While technology used to be separate, we are seeing an increase in different forms of media combining and merging to become super media appliances for our "convenience."

Convergence alters the relationship between existing industries, markets and audiences:
True. The way that industries, corporations, marketing and promotions act and think has had to change dramatically to suit the new times. In the past, a company could be pretty sure their advertisements would be reaching the audience by simply placing it in a newspaper, television or even radio! This was because this was the primary source of information and it could be assumed that most people would be reading this. Now? We get our information largely from other sources (see: social networking, internet) which are much harder for companies to control in the traditional manner of simple advertisements. Instead, they need to act smarter, think intuitively and change their marketing strategies. That is where we start to see a product being able to do multiple things in order to suit a wider audience (e.g. Jenkin's line: "what was mom going to do with the game console when her kids were at school?"). This is where we see companies encouraging consumer's to spread the news about their products or about a promotion in exchange for rewards, benefits, discounts etc.

Therefore the way that media industries operate and the way we consume news and information is now very different. However, I believe it is still inherently, human nature. We are people who crave human contact. We like to socialise and essentially, the reason why this new system of networking works is because it emphasises the network. I like to read things that my friend's and family recommend to me because I know that it will surely be something that interests me. I am less cynical of using a product recommended to me by my friend as opposed to one recommended to me by an annoying advertisement on tv. I am more likely to listen to my network of friends rather than the capitalist advertiser.

It is this new world that the advertiser is now starting to use and abuse - but in the end, it is still up to us to spread the news!